Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Perhaps, Be Human
[Read the article: I was fired because I was the fall guy. What do I say in interviews?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since the vast majority of the comments I just read are written from the "big corporate" perspective, I'll just mention that it's not all like that.
I worked for a few major companies in which the corporate culture and interpersonal atmosphere came right out of "Office Space." I've also worked for smaller companies where everyone went out drinking together a few times a month, and people joked with each other about getting into fist-fights in the meeting rooms.
If the former is the kind of employer you know you'll be facing, than all the wordsmithing and spin and positivity and impersonalism will be completely required.
Perhaps you're sick of that kind of experience, and you are willing to look for a future of different possibilities, in which case it might be better to be a bit more honest and vulnerable than has been so unanimously recommended here. Most important is to consider these factors while you're feeling out the opportunity for the interview in the first place.
I have said, in successful interviews, "I found it somewhat frustrating that management was dismissive of my input on the project which I was hired for." I've also said, "I got tired of waiting for the commitment of resources which would be required to accomplish the goals which management seemed to be pursuing."
As someone who has interviewed plenty of people, I personally often found myself rolling my eyes at the "perfect PR" candidates. When a business needs a person for a job, the skillset, salary requirements, and social/organizational "fit" ARE the most important factors, and it's important to remember that there is another human being sitting across the desk from you.
If you're not by nature a terrific wordsmith/PR-type, you can harm your chances at least as much with transparent posturing as you can with self-indulgent moaning.
I'd strongly encourage you to try to practice interviews with radically different personality types. Being interviewed by Donald Trump would be a very different experience than being interviewed by Rosie O'Donnell, and it's simply not realistic to believe that there is a single formula which is going to "work best" in all cases. If you lose track of what you're really trying to accomplish by focusing _too_ heavily on the image presentation, the end result can suffer.
-
Difficult Decisions
[Read the article: Cheney: "We didn't get elected to be popular"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Well, obviously, any casualty is to be regretted. Nobody likes to be in the position where they have to make those kinds of decisions." --Dick
Of course, it's not as if these guys were ever in the position where they had to make "those kinds of decisions." They never fought, or led. They never "had to" decide to start a war with Iraq.
They just did it 'cause they COULD.
-
Frustrating...
[Read the article: Manufacturing belief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Theists trying to wrap "logical" and "rational" arguments around a baseless assertion.
How can we possibly claim a "factual" answer to the question of existence of something we can't define or describe?
Starting from the very first of the Editor's Choice letters here, we see the assertion that "The existence or non-existence of God is not determined by whether hominids are selected for a desire to explain things" from BrianThomas.
In order to even begin discussing the existence or non-existence of God, we need to be able to describe or define what is meant by the use of the word "God."
It's so painfully easy to demonstrate the problem, too, that I find it almost embarrassing when people devote such large numbers of words to justifying their belief one way or another.
Can we prove the existence of squyanglograms? Can we disprove it? Can my belief in squyanglograms ever "agree" with your belief in them? If you "disbelieve" in squyanglograms, do you have any rational basis for that disbelief? Can we ever agree that our lack of agreement on the existence of squyanglograms is independent of their existence?
Uh...no. Hand-waving.
Even in the cases where rationalist/scientific understanding is at its weakest, we can agree to certain common characteristics of what we're claiming to "discuss." Things like "gravity" and "light" do not seem bound by certain logical rules we (explanation-seeking hominids) might want to apply to them, but we can certainly agree that people in one part of the world are able to share the definitions/descriptions of the two concepts with people in other parts of the world.
Ain't so with "God."
(I'm an atheist in that I don't assert the existence of "God." I don't assert the non-existence of "God" either. My feeling about "God" is exactly identical to my feeling about "squyanglograms.")
-
Tax Revolt
[Read the article: The student loan rip-off]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yep, it's probably time to actually start considering such an idea.
We've got two parties running gummit, neither of which appears to be acting in the interests of the voting citizenry.
When you return to work, request a W4 and change your withholding. Either declare exemption or just increase your number of dependents to twelve or so.
If the clowns running the show are going to bankrupt the country for the benefit of Sallie Mae and Exxon, they can do it without my help.