The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Kimberly:

Needless to say, that last post was from me, not Jonathan. Too little coffee and too many distractions. Sorry about that.

JVP: I need a detail-oriented paralegal, btw. Want to move to Michigan?

JVP, I think that there is incredible stratification on salaries within the profession, excluding support staff.

I would put starting salaries for lawyers, not support staff, in a range from $25K (some public interest work) to about $120 or even $130K (biglaw in big city markets). Biglaw is the perception, but it is not the reality for most law school graduates. Although a majority of my graduating class probably went into biglaw, that's only true for the top law schools, and there are an awful lot of law schools out there. But I know that I have some actual statistics at home on this (my alma mater and my bar association keep close track; this information is widely available), so I'll try to look some actual facts up after work.

If you look at those who work in small or medium-sized law firms instead of biglaw, those who hang out their own shingles, government lawyers, public defenders, and the white knight lawyers, I'm fairly certain that biglaw and big salaries and potential millionaire-ness is, for all but a small percentage of lawyers, the myth, not the reality.

And it's different if you look at annual salary per individual or per household (1 or 2 incomes?), debt (my student loans are another mortgage), family background, the benefits of the professional job, etc.

So I am definitely not saying that I disagree with your placement of those professionals in upper middle class, based on education, prestige, potential for upward mobility (just by virtue of getting that JD), etc.

I'll try to find some of those career stats later on and post again so that I'm not just talking out of my ass. For now, though, I've got to go earn the salary.

Jonathan--your upper-middle class category includes folks with annual salaries from, say, the mid-20's, all the way up to those with assets worth nearly $10 million? I think each of the "prestige professions" alone has sufficient diversity within it to encompass several of the subclasses in the middle range.

That said, I think you are right to utilize sub-classes. And if you consider factors other than wealth, you could probably break it down further.

Clearly, "special powers preventing random hyphenation" were not part of the deal. ;)

Ooooh, an appointment.

I swear to You, Oh Infallible Overlord, that I will do my very best to be sufficiently, er, theological.

Are there perks? Do I get a hat? Fancy bag? Newly enhanced ability to distinguish daffodils from daylilies? Special powers of genre-defining, um, I mean, genre describing?

JVP: Heresy! Our new Supreme Overlord would not "covenant" with the NEW POPE. Unless he (the NEW POPE, not our esteemed Supreme Overlord) renounced his evil ways.

Ooh! My reformed name is good too. Sister Straight Razor of Compassion.

Satisfies my (according-to-my-spouse delusional) view of myself as "edgy."

Sister Broadsword of Reasoned Discussion.

Perfect. Much to the chagrin of my superiors at times.

I would love to start using my new name as a title and appending it to my signature in letters. "Please advise us immediately if the above-stated recitals do not comport with your understanding of the Court's Order. If we do not hear from you by Friday, we will be forced to address our concerns to a superior at your firm, or, if absolutely necessary, to the Judge. We are determined, if we cannot come to a balanced resolution, to use our powers of persuasion to obtain a conference to schedule a meeting, which will be geared toward achieving a consensus. Sincerely, Kimberly, aka Sister Broadsword of Reasoned Discussion."

Ha! Sign me up and brew up the coffee.

I'm trying to figure out if it's violence against kids, or real-live violence in general, that kids shouldn't be viewing.

I doubt highly there's a prescription for "kids" generally.

We censor D.'s viewing habits for violence, explicit sex, and brain-sucking crappiness--but all to a very low extent. We primarily try to make sure we know what he's watching, have seen it ourselves, and can talk about it. As someone else mentioned upthread about her own kids, "imaginary" violence is less troubling to D. than real violence, b/c he has a healthy sense of the difference between fantasy and reality.

As for your examples, and this commercial, I think for me it would depend on context and the amount of exposure. He has seen some footage of violence in the Middle East, and we talked about it. But I wouldn't let him watch for long.

The thing for me with this commercial is it isn't real. It dramatizes something people in other countries have to deal with as a part of their daily lives. With parental explanation, D. could handle that. On the other hand, we chanced upon a showing of Bowling For Columbine on a cable channel with D. and I shut it off. He's definitely not ready to watch real footage of real kids killing real kids.

And no, he doesn't watch the news, really, unless he joins one of us watching. He watches the Weather Channel a lot, and has to read news that is compiled especially for kids at school. He "listens in" sometimes in the evening while he's doing his homework and my spouse and I read out loud from magazines or online news.

But the way we do things with D. should not be taken as the way all parents should do things with their kids. First, we're just guessing. Second, every kid is different. Third, I'm just not that bossy.

I wouldn't mind my son seeing this ad. He's ten. Yes, he would be upset. And we'd talk about it, and then he would understand why it was an important ad. Then he would probably want to do something, so he'd probably do a current events on it at school and write some emails to our US Reps and Senators.

Maybe I'll talk to him and if he's interested, we'll watch it together on my computer tonight. Then I'll let him post his thoughts on it here, if he wants, and in a letter to CNN and some of their advertisers.

Truthfully, he would be unlikely to stumble across it without myself or his dad being there. There's not a lot of television or web surfing that he gets to view unsupervised. He's not allowed to just watch network or cable news channels without one of us watching with him. We don't want him misinformed, after all.

de-lurking--

First, I typed in a very long rant. Then I deleted it and started to say something derisive and withering, yet succinct.

That turned into another rant that included words and phrases like: "misogynist," "morally bankrupt," "despicable," and "disguised as fact-based analytical opinion subject to debate."

And then my description of that rant started to turn into another rant.

I must be tired. So I'll go back to lurking, and only echo Patrick's "eeuw," and state that nothing makes my night like a woman-hating creep spewing idiocy and worshiping at the altar of Ann Coulter.

--re-lurking

Comment statistics for Kimberly on the Electrolite blog

Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.