Santa - I wouldn't hire you for a secretary -- you have a MASTERS degree....meaning you will quit as soon as I hire you if you find work in the Humanities field.

You just don't get it, do you? You have the SKILL set that qualifies you to be a secretary, and that's about it. You have a fat-headed degree -- and air of arrogance, I imagine -- that disqualifies you.

But, you are no doubt qualified to *teach*. You are thoughtful (whether or not I agree with the things you say), and you can write well. so....get your TEACHING certificate.

Other than that...go to a temp agency and do factory work, because they expect high turn-over and will therefore take you, particularly if you are clean and sober. I worked sales for a staffing agency, and I'd put you out to work. Or start at the grill at McDonald's, or stock-room at the grocery store, and work your way up.

The job you are qualified for is *any* job you can get....which with you skill set and lofty resume is grunt work, sorry to say.

How about a Washington think tank?? lol

In all seriousness, Santa (and I **have** been quite serious in my last two posts to you), you should seriously consider trying some free-lance writing while you job hunt. You seem to have a vast knowledge of history, politics, etc....so put some researched opinions down on paper (or electrons, as it were....) and send them off. Go to the library, pick up a copy of Writer's Market and see who takes unsolicited articles and start writing.

I've been freelance writing, researching and I've been working as a slave, whoops I mean intern as well.

bottom line is getting the elusive "experience" that is winning everyone jobs these days. Somewhere a door is going to open up wide enough so i can get a foot in.

"The founders bedrock belief was that government should be run by those who are disinterested, so that the leaders of the nation would ubhold the nations civic virtue and commonwealth."

If that's the case, then why were most of the leaders land owners, rich, and spent quite a bit of time interested on whether blacks were 3/5ths or a whole human being?

Not saying that wasn't their stated goal in theory, just that it seems a bit hypocritical in practice on their account.

Santa - then you are doing what you must - I commend you. I also sympathize with your situation. I got laid off from my job a year and a half ago as Michigan's economy plummeted, got a part time job a year ago that *just* turned full time last week. I make 20% less than I used to make, and I have job responsibility in 4 different departments...and I say yes sir every time they tell me to do something new. But...when I apply for new jobs, they see a guy with a job, not a guy collecting a handout...and that helps - the willingness to work. Job interview with a Big 3 company on Wednesday, though...so maybe (hope hope hope) I get back in to engineering.

Santa - I graduated from MSU in 1991 - and even back then, they wanted to hire new grads with experience. So, trust me, the diametrically opposed idea of hiring a new grad with experience on the job (sigh...) is NOT new. It's always been there, there's just fewer jobs today, and you have a difficult major. But there is nothing new about employers being *psychotic*! lol

"I came out of grad schools with a masters in humanities with about 3 years of office experience 2 years teaching experience, academic research experience, and award winning writing skills. I have been applying for positions since a teaching gig ended in June. I have sent out dozens of resumes many far below what my experience qualifies me for. I have gotten a 4 interviews in that time. and to the final round twice, still with no job."

I had the same problem when I got out of college. I went over a year without a 'real' job - I had to go back to delivering newspapers to pay the rent, in addition to the one or two days a week of work I was getting from a temp agency. When I finally did land a permanent job, my new boss (who I'm still friendly with) told me that my college degree was the biggest impediment to getting approval to hire me - it made me 'overqualified' for the entry level position I was applying for (and I had no extensive real-world experience to qualify me for a non-entry level job, of course.)

My stepsister (BA History with Honors) had the same problem. Applied to dozens of places, never heard word one back. As soon as she omitted her college degree from her resume and job applications, she was hired within a week.

Liberal Arts degrees are worse than useless. All of you high schoolers getting ready for college should consider that - I sure wish looking back now that someone would've told me that. Instead I was told that having a piece of paper to wave around was all that mattered - nobody ever suggested that what you studied was important. That may've been the case 50 years ago when college degrees were hard to come by, but today college graduates are a dime a dozen. That degree doesn't mean much at all any more unless you learned something people are willing to pay you for (like ENGINEERING, for instance).

"If that's the case, then why were most of the leaders land owners, rich, and spent quite a bit of time interested on whether blacks were 3/5ths or a whole human being?"

Very good Obi, because the founders, especially the Slave owners, felt that the only way to be disinterested was to own alot of wealth/people so that they were truly free to govern like disinterested patricians. It isn't a coincidence that 4 of the 5 first presidents were rich (at least in theory) slave owners. Slavery according to many early amercans allowed for freedom.

"The Founders' vision/Jeffersonian political theory was designed for a small 18th century agrarian government, not for an immense 21st century nuclear superpower."

Says the guy who quotes Plato as if his ideas are still relevant 2400 years later...

Bottom line, even after the shit i've been through a liberal arts degree is not useless, I chose to get a history degree over a law degree because of the love of learning and the desire to pass on that learning. Finding a job might be more difficult but it was anticipated which is why I am not spitting mad and even saved up quite a bit for what i knew was going to be a bumpy few months.

If we mean disinterested in that sense, ie, so wealthy you have enough "freedom" to govern free of money-making self-interest...

Well, they got their "freedom fortunes" from somewhere...

Today, they get those fortunes from large corporations.

So giving the corporations a larger voice seems to me equivalent to giving plantation owners a larger voice way back when.

Aside from the "founder's nightmare," I still think its sound...after all, for many founders, the amount of "colored people" living and voting in this nation would be horrific, as would the idea of women's suffrage...

And when they founded these ideas, global economics were not to be considered, nor were interest groups, which exist in the hundreds or thousands in the US.

All clamoring for a voice.

And by the same logic that grants the coporate owners louder voices than the self-employed arts and crafts folks, the NAACP has far more pull than The Association for the Advancement of American Baggers and Fry Cooks

"Today, they get those fortunes from large corporations.

So giving the corporations a larger voice seems to me equivalent to giving plantation owners a larger voice way back when."

Except the corporations don't look out for the commonwealth at all, they look out, for the sake of their investors, and their own corporations. So they are first and foremost interested.

The founders for sure were interested as well in truth, but they didn't see it that way.

Isn't obi-dork's attitude hilarious, given that the retard needed someone to explain the difference between profit and overhead to him?

@obi I agree, that the lack of leadership isn't helping, but that won't keep them from accomplishing things, it just slows things down a lot.
"This should really be many smaller groups calling for many different things in smaller, organized settings and protests--and I would still say PACs or lobbying and playing the system at its own game to beat it could be a possible avenue as well"

I said they do have smaller groups. I believe that one objective is to use these groups to find a possible solution within the system.

"Unless you're going to outlaw lobbying, I don't see how you're going to stop corporate influence on elections..."
I actually think that corporations need lobbying just as any small or large group needs the ability to lobby, but it should be limited.

@orthaic
I agree with you about the CEO still being able to do what the corporation cannot do, but honestly, I'm at a loss for what else to do.

@krellin
Hippies and socialists make up a portion of the protesters, but they are not by any means the leaders or the most vocal.

An example of the organization of one of the smaller groups. Still not great, but this is just one of about 15 groups, and really I can't see the complaint that nothing is getting accomplished. You could even argue that Harry Reid's recent "nuclear" dispute was in part influenced by this. Its been a while since I've seen the democrats stand up to the Republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rkuYvTUlv0c

If Obi and Invictus want this country to be a corporate dictatorship where the rich control speech and the political process by sheer virtue of their ability to buy it, so be it. Don't be surprised when those of us who don't come from their privileged class fight back and actually want to have a voice in the political process. There's a reason why bourgeois democracy is considered a sham by the vast multitudes of those who live in it.

Comparing the corporate voice of business with unions is an example of false equivalence par excellence. The capabilities of business to control elections vs unions is not even close. Russ Feingold is a prime example of a popular longstanding pro-labor Senator who got outspent 4:1 by out of state, anonymous corporate money. The forces of the people simply cannot spend as much as the big polluters, exploiters, and rapacious gangsters of the capitalist class.

Let's see, the faceless group of billionaires - American Crossroads, spent $38 million in 2010, the Chamber of Commerce spent 32 million. American Action Network spent 15 million. American Future Fund spent 9 million. Americans for Job Security spent 8.5 million. Club for Growth spent 7.3 million.

The two biggest union donors - AFCSME & SEIU, spent about 21 million total combined. 10 out of the top 11 Senate races had significantly more Republican money spent than Democratic money.

Even though Democrats out fundraised Republicans in terms of their party organizations by a large margin, the big outside money more than made up for the fact that the GOP has a piss poor organization.

Sort of weird to claim Jefferson had small agrarian republic in mind when he expanded the size of the United States by 830,000 square miles. Furthermore the "agrarian" Jeffersonians were always the most aggressive in terms of their desire for continental expansion. The Hamiltonian/Clay style Whigs were much more restrained about it.

" I agree, that the lack of leadership isn't helping, but that won't keep them from accomplishing things, it just slows things down a lot."

How?

Or, rather, what guarantees that they will accomplish something if they keep going?

Ploenty of revolutions fail...as long as we're making up statistics a la "We are the 99%," I'll make one up via an assumption and say that most revolutions in history HAVE failed, hence the reason we remember the successes fo much--they're the glorious and often miraculous exception to the rule...

And ALL come with leadership, rather than disorganization.

Spartacus' Revolution--Had a strong, memorable leader, won a few rounds, ultimately failed.
American Revolution--Numerous strong leaders (I won't say they all agreed or were great, because they didn't and they weren't, but they were organized enough and had enough strong leaders to win out...Washington's tactical ability might be called into question, but it was his leadership and command presence that saved the Revolutionat Valley Forge...if the Continental Army had just been a bunch of jobless angry folks, like these kids, with no Washington there, there is NO WAY they'd have stuck together through one of the harshest winters in recorded history in the American Northeast.)
French Revolution--See Spartacus, only they win and THEN things go to shit...
French Revolution in Les Miserables--(Whatever its really called, that's what I know it as) A bunch of kids, angry, form a barricade...a few popular kid "leaders," but no one really heading the charge...and they die in a few days.
Hatian Revolution--Hopeless until Toussaint came along...things ended badly for him, but his people won out in the end.

And so on.

All successful or even just valiantly-failed revolutions have had organization and a leader.

These kids lack both--what makes you think without either RIGHT NOW they will succeed...if they get a leader and organize, maybe we'll ahve a different discussion here, but right now, with no head to the chicken--which should we believe they'll win out in the end, and not just fizzle out like the Summer of Love kids?

"I said they do have smaller groups. I believe that one objective is to use these groups to find a possible solution within the system."

I have yet to hear ONE coherent and realistic answer or solution to any of the problems, the most organized, coherent cry has been "End greed globally" and "stop lobbying in D.C." and "Tax the rich, help the poor!"

#1 is unrealistic and possibly even impossible of you agree even a bit with my assertion that self-interest is at the core of the human psyche and nature, #2 is unrealistic and potentially contradictory since lobbying is a protected form of free speech, same as their demonstrating, and #3 is like shouting "We need to fix the economy"...to which the response of the American popluace may be characterized as:

WE KNOW. WE ALL KNOW ALREADY. NOW EITHER GIVE A SOLUTION OR SIT DOWN, BECAUSE WE ALL ALREADY KNOW THAT AND HAVE HEARD A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF PEOIPLE GO ON ABOUT THIS ALREADY, WE DON'T NEED YOU TO PITCH TENTS AND DEMONSTRATE TO TELL US THE US ECONOMY NEEDS HELP...THE GREAT RECESSION WAS KINDA A HINT, THANKS. NOW PUT UP AN IDEA OR SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET.

Just sayin'. ;)

"I actually think that corporations need lobbying just as any small or large group needs the ability to lobby, but it should be limited."

It is limited.
There has already been time and effort spent to tackle lobbying to some degree.
Laws like the "Cup of Coffee" law adress the size and nature of lobbying gifts.
This is already adressed.

So, as with the economy, unless they're proposing even more cuts, this is null, void, and redundant; in addition, even if they ARE proposing cuts, Congress ALREADY has these proposed as well invarious forms in the House, so essentially a bigger and more powerful and organized body is already tackling this issue...

Why do they need to waste their time on it, and why should I waste my tiem listening to them?

I ask that NOT to be acerbic or sound unfeeling, but as a sincere question:

If you're going to raise a point and protest, and thus ask for my attention and the attention of the American people, it BETTER be something I care about, right? Because otherwise I'm not going to do anything to help, and that's part of the point of protesting, affecting change via the public, right?

Well, if another group is already tackling this and has more time, resources, and power to affect this change than these kids...

Why should I care about what they ahve to say, its either something I don't agree with or something redundant as another group has beaten them to the punch, and this matter is nothing new.

Its Public Speaking 101...why should your audience care what you have to say?

So far, they've failed that part miserably, at least with me...either they're redundant, in a position I agree with and have already voted for, or in a position I against, in which case, they need to convince me, and they haven't even come close.

So why should I be moved by them at all?

People who do things should not waste their time pandering to do-nothing cynics with delusions of grandeur. The organization of the protests is much better than any of you critics who've never organized a damn thing in your life, realize.

Well, by organized, they have set up charging stations for electronic devices, set up hot food and medical tents, and have logs for people to sign into and receive notices. But there is no real hierarchy to it that the media has let on to. But lets see. It took months for the Syrian protests to have a real group at its head.

There are general assembly meetings which take place daily, in which major decisions are made. The reason why it is baffling to onlookers is because it operates on the anarchic principle of consensus and abjures formal hierarchy. The anarchist ethos has permeated the "extraparliamentary left" for better or for worse, which has the advantage of inclusivity and the disadvantage of requiring substantial deliberation and compromise.

The original democratic theorists had precisely this idea of deliberation and working towards consensus in mind when they theorized about democratic systems.

i'm usually the first person to berate anarchy, but self-organised systems exist aswell.

That is the kind of system which controls itself toward some natural state, self-regulating based on the internal interactions of it's parts. Without any particular hierarchy of Command&Control system.

That they exist in nature/physics, with the simplest of interactions means they can definitely exist in human social structure. Though that does not necessarily mean they are the lowest energy state (most efficient)

"Sort of weird to claim Jefferson had small agrarian republic in mind when he expanded the size of the United States by 830,000 square miles. Furthermore the "agrarian" Jeffersonians were always the most aggressive in terms of their desire for continental expansion. The Hamiltonian/Clay style Whigs were much more restrained about it. "

You can say that Jefferson didn't truly believe in small government from his actions in the Louisiana purchase, but you can't use the purchase against his supposed agrarianism. It was probably the most significant manifestation of his agrarian leanings. Jefferson thought (ideally) that expansion would allow for an Empire of liberty aka an agrarian republic where population overflow would naturally move west thereby avoiding the problem of the poor and disenfranchised that was seen in England an Europe and raising the status of the yeoman farmer in the nation. Louisiana purchase showed his commitment to agrarian government not an aversion to it. Thats not saying it wasn't Imperial or "good" but it certainly isn't proof positive that he wasn't an agrarian.

And its not like you can even say that he supported the gaining of westen lands to create an eastern metropolis. He believed in and encouraged (because he was a weird dude) the "inevitable" separation of the western states from the eastern

And since when was Sparticus slave revolt where slaves main ends were banditry and escaping italy a revolution?

And the Haitian Revolution was far from hopeless before Toussant arrived. Slaves won their Freedom while Toussant was still with Spain

"People who do things should not waste their time pandering to do-nothing cynics with delusions of grandeur. The organization of the protests is much better than any of you critics who've never organized a damn thing in your life, realize."

By that logic, anything written is automatically worthy of praise by those that have never written a thing because, hey, the Twlight books might be a nightmare for logic and feature one of the most atrociously-anti-feministic characters ever...it may be trite and disgustingly cliche...

But hey, its a book series, and I've written nothing, so Stephanie Meyer's automatically someone I should praise as a better author?

I don't think so.

I'll acede to her being and author any my not being an author, but the credit ends there--I don't have to be in a field to distinguish "good" from "bad" in that field...

Consequently, I don't have to organize protests myself to tell the good from the bad.

Insult our "cynical side" all you want, Putin...

But if you say you're right and we're wrong and not even worth hearing...isn't that sort of a hypocryphal statement given the "hear us, please hear us!" position your heroes are taking?

As for their organization...

I'm not realy talking about tents for food or medical help and that sort of thing, that's relatively easy to set up, and I'd say even gives a good illusion of the sort of organization necessary for this sort of protest to work.

I'm talking about the organization of ideas and the consolidation of power, ultimately manifesting itself in ACTUAL leaders and ACTUAL stances besides "Things need to change!"



When your heroes have a leader and their goals are uniform and they actually have feasible solutions on how to achieve what they're doing--and why I should throw in with them and not, say, the Congress we all pay to have and vote in to discuss these matters and have far more resources to actually affect change than some kids in tents--we may then call their movement a legitimate one and one, further, that is worthy of attention.

Until then, they might organize themselves well enough to feed and aid one another, but that shows them on par with kids camping out and waiting forn a concert, not leaders of tomorrow with a real vision that the Aemrican people should get behind.

This is the Student Revolution from Les Miserables, Putin...

They keep SAYING "You will see the people rise! They'll help US!" the same way these kids insist they're the 99% and that America will ultimately side with them.

They're banking on help--

And if the people of Paris choose to sleep in their beds and tend their farms, if the American people choose they've heard enough of "We need Change!" talk and want tangible solutions at this point...

They'll fail.

(An d that's not a dig at Obama so much as it is a fact that people are jsut tired of that rhetoric; in 2008 this movement might have been able to gather steam behind talk of "Change," but in 2011, people are growing more and more cynical as now both parties have had a hand in this fiscal crisis, so its tangible solution time or nothing.)