TheNiche

Thanks for posting this. It's very...cleansing, I think, is the best word.

...nobody is stating the obvious; that in a fairly progressive state that already passed healthcare reform locally, liberals and progressives are just as turned off by the current healtcare bill as are conservatives. The current bill is nothing more than a bribe to health insurance companies. Maybe that's why Coakley received 500,00 votes short of the number of registered Democrats in the Commonwealth.

I thought that I'd already articulated the gist of that point fairly well. Nice to see that we're in agreement, at least, as rare as that is.

Dangerous felons are released; and those dangerous felons too often wind up in poor neighborhoods.

We've fought over it before. I dream of a world in which "poor neighborhood" does not mean "crimeridden neighborhood." Places like Sunnyside have enough problems with gang activity and Illegal drop houses, among other things. Do they need to be overrun with a disproportionate number of dangerous ex-convicts?

For most ex-cons, financial constraints mean that poor neighborhoods are their only option. At least to start out. Obviously it is impractical to distort the market values of housing to ensure their proportionate geographic dispersion. And it would likely be politically unpopular to grant them a housing voucher for some set amount of money per month. And as for Tax Credit or Section 8 housing, those developments are required to run background checks and to deny housing to convicted felons. And if the background checks were abandoned, you can bet that it'd become even more difficult for such housing developments to get past the NIMBYs so that those programs could be carried out in the spirit of the law upon which they were founded...not that it's easy, even as it is.

What real-world solution would you suggest as a possible solution to this real-world problem?

Although the recidivism rate of sex offenders would suggest that there is some reason to laws that prohibit their living within a given distance of schools, parks, and the like, I don't see much purpose in subjecting all ex-cons to the same rules. Speaking as someone that has actually hired ex-cons from neighborhoods like Sunnyside that are also in close proximity to Sunnyside and that has had zero problems with them as compared to the many problems I've had with non-ex-cons--and also as someone whose employment opportunity has allowed them to get their lives back on track--I don't think that your suggestion that ex-cons should be prohibited from living in any kind of neighborhood has merit. I think that banishing them to the unincorporated hinterlands would limit their access to employment and increase their recidivism rate. Nobody wants that.

Ironically, Sukos burger and Kozy Kitchen are on my list of places to try out this week...just waiting for that next paycheck!

Don't bother with Sukos Burger. I don't know how they stay in business, honestly.

Why not? For every positive advancement made in the past, there has always been a segment of society who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

He wouldn't say that if the roles were reversed.

Look Marksmu, you may enjoy the conservative resurgence the Republicans are currently enjoying, but in another 20 or so years, when the last of the greatest generation and the first of the baby boomers have died off, the playing field will further equalize towards a true middle ground.

Nah, the definition of what is middle ground may change but polarized 'us versus them' politics will still reign supreme.

I don't disagree with you. Though in this case still, as you even said previously (below), this isn't a mandate against Obama.

It's not about Obama...yet. But it will be. Obama promised CHANGE in terms of both policy and the level of discourse to a general electorate that doesn't understand concepts of checks and balances. If the labor market can't pull out of the crapper and Obama can't get a congress to work towards the major policy overhauls that he promised, then he's going to have to deal with a base with waning enthusiasm. Add to that that that minority turnout in 2012 probably won't be so impressive as it was when Obama was a 'colorful' novelty in 2008.

I'd speculate that coming up on November, congress (and particularly the House) will lack the political willpower to pass additional stimulus bills or other huge spending bills because they don't want to alienate the fickle populists that swept them into office. Now consider that Republican obstructionism has been remarkably successful to date considering that they've been so completely marginalized. Consider what happens if they take back the House or even get within striking distance. They'll block stimulus and potentially bring about a 1933 scenario, dashing hopes of recovery. Obama will try to deflect criticism in their direction, but without highly visible programs akin to the CCC or TVA to convey an image that he is a man of action, Obama may instead be characterized by his rivals as something more like Jimmy Carter than FDR.

So yes, the strategic outcome of this special election is relevant to national politics and to Obama's political future.

Not sure where this post belongs but does anyone have a section of the underground utilities downtown or information on this? I know they re-worked a bunch of streets a few years back.

You mean like sectional drawings? You'd probably have to go through Public Works & Engineering to get those. But if you just want to know where the utilities run and what their capacity is, try this website. Otherwise, try searching for "Houston GIMS" in Google.

I read this on another site too, but could only find it at this link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/massachusetts_s_3.html

Voter turnout was higher for this special election than it was for the Presidential election! To deny that it was not because of healthcare - the only debate going on in this country right now and the only issue throughout the campaign - is just putting blinders on.

The article is dated: November 5, 2008 03:07 PM. Take off your blinders.

Good point. So... do you think it may be safe to assume this election then speaks more to the Republicans' ability to ignite their base given a viable candidate and the Democrats' inability to do the same with a lackluster candidate?

It's more than just the candidates' image that was at play. In a special election, POLICY MATTERS. The triumphant candidate successfully articulated his position as opposed to one (1) extremely unpopular set of legislation. People tended to vote for him if they thought that the health care bill went too far, and tended to be indifferent to him if (like you) they thought that the health care bill was rife with pork and insufficiently decisive. Those so motivated felt like they could make a difference and turned out. Those that were indifferent didn't feel like they could make any appreciable difference and didn't turn out in such high numbers.

Do you really think the average Joe Boston gives two rats @$$es about healthcare? What do you think Joe Boston even knows about the bill?

Do you really think that the average Joe Boston votes in a special election?

My brother joined the Air Force about ten years ago as a moderate Christian with no strong beliefs and a spotty track record of church attendance.

These days, he's a new earth Bible-thumper who's taken his kids out of public school because they have the audacity to teach subjects like science there.

That's just one isolated incident, and it should in no way be taken as representative as the Air Force experience as a whole.

I know a guy who basically went the same route for the same reasons, but was formerly Army intelligence. To his and his kids' credit, they're all brought up multi-lingual and are on track to finish the high school curriculum before other kids get to high school. He's even got his twelve-year-old daughter doing calculus.

Say what you will, I'm impressed.

Don't read into this election too much, Marksmu. I realize Fox News beats the war drum and calls for Obama's scalp every time a democrat loses a race now, but it really isn't a mandate of any kind.

I wouldn't call it a mandate either, but it certainly should be viewed as a shot across the bow of the Democrat Party. They're going to need to speed up the legislative process now, even if that means further watering down their policy to get the votes they need. And November is going to be quite an effort. It should be painfully clear at this point that the midterm elections are going to suck for them--as is pretty much always the case for a party that has a sitting president--but particularly in this situation since there isn't a charismatic national figurehead on the ticket.

These are individual races separate of the presidential race. If the populace is upset with Obama, he'll lose in 2012, not before. Ask yourself if Annise Parker's election as Houston's mayor had anything to do with Obama, or for that matter if the fact that the top 3 positions in the intial race were all Democrats had anything to do with Obama. It's about that relevant. Don't believe the Fox hype. It's all so much bluster to get higher ratings (to command more advertising dollars - that's what it's really all about).

Separate, yes. Unrelated or irrelevant, no. Obama's ability to fulfill his promises is in large part dependent upon a friendly legislature, and the voting public frankly doesn't understand or doesn't care if there are mitigating circumstances hindering his performance. George H.W. Bush is a case in point; he preached of "no new taxes" but had to compromise with an unfriendly legislature to the effect of that he was viewed as having raised taxes. That probably cost him his reelection.

If that's the case, my military friends would tell you Air Force OCS for relative ease of the program and management focus. Provided you're ok with the fundamentalist christian influence in that branch's leadership and particularly in CO Springs.

But try to hold off on a drastic step like that. You don't want to get sent to a backwater and come back with neurological trauma and have to test those bitchin VA benefits for the rest of your drool-covered life.

I have a great respect for service and nearly all the men in my life, present and past, have served, but I can't recommend it in these times. Next stop, Haiti (again).

That, or Navy. And on the one hand, this is my 'Hail Mary' option. On the other, financial distress is a disqualifier for officers, so it'll be a decision that I evaluate very carefully after income taxes kick my ass in mid-April.

You could change careers or keep being patient and wait out the stall.

Yep, I have to change both occupation and industry. There's no way around it. The "stall" is going to last for years.

Ted Kennedy sowed Republicans?

Realpolitik.

Can you feel sorry for this man?

Nope. He was just a politician. You reap what you sow.

Yowzas. The day before Christmas Eve, by cell phone. That's cold blooded.

If it's any consolation, these things happen for a reason. I was laid-off in mid October; me and 2 other guys from my previous employer. They weren't really my level, and I was able to land work fairly quickly. Things got worse where I used to be, and last week they let 19 people go. Nancy Sarnoff reported on it in her blog. I was devastated when they let me go, but it'd have been a lot harder for me now.

My advice:

First, the old cliche - NETWORK! It's good to build friendships with people all around. I mean real people; who you work with; who are in your rolodex. Clients are great; previous coworkers can be just as good.

Second, don't be too elaborate; but do be professional with the letters and resumes. I designed my own letterhead; and IMO it was more useful than my portfolio. I also did business cards to match the letterhead. (They're good for other things too, like if you get involved in civic clubs and super neighborhoods.....)

Third, stay productive when you're not looking for work. Stay on the same schedule you were on while employed. Wake up early during the week. Commute to your study or couch or wherever. Work 40 hours a week. Write a book. Take a course. Volunteer somewhere. Even do a blog (comments on other blogs don't count).

I don't want to toot my own horn, but when I was laid off in October, I found work in 3 weeks. In April 2008, when I lost my previous job - it took ten days.

Knock on wood.

Anyway, Niche, we've come to blows on here before, but, best of luck!

On the commercial development side, it was all about timing. Not long before you switched jobs in early '08, I'd given notice to a former employer that I was going to look elsewhere (without having anything lined up). In less than thirty minutes of chatting on the phone to my network, I had something lined up doing almost exactly what I wanted to do and with plenty of perks. I made the new employer wait about a month while I calmly wrapped up projects in my current position as not to burn bridges, then give me an additional week for personal time off, and then give me a starting bonus when I finally did come on staff. It was the peak of the market.

Nowadays, the majority of my network has either moved on or is also unemployed. And there is no a labor market for what I did, really at all. Simple as that. To the extent I can network, the opportunities are pretty random and not industry-specific. Posting on HAIF has been fairly useful, for instance.

How about joining HPD? Decent salary, easy to promote, good benefits, job security.

Thought about it, but would rather go military in that case. Officer pay, management experience, bitchin' awesome VA benefits.

Hmmm good points here.... along these lines, Niche, you might try to physical approach but not a flashy website--that way if you decide it really could be career limiting, you could pull back the fancy resumes and not have the online spectre out there.

but, keep in mind you're targeting a sector that for whom back-slapping and glad-handing is as vital as air and water, and people who engage in that business tend to be shameless self-promoters.

Ha, well actually I was wondering whether it might be useful to develop suitable social networking profiles and incorporate the little icons into all my physical and digital materials so as to give the impression of an integrated marketing campaign that reaches out to what this particular audience would think of as early adopters of new technology.

As you point out, the target audience are good ol' boys, back-slappers, and shameless self-promoters. I've done consulting for their kind, but they're all over the damned place in terms of my gut instinct as to how they'd respond to something innovative.

Before I did all this, I read through several websites that listed the do's and don'ts of resumes.. they all said not to include a photo of yourself.... I tried anyways.

Since the beginning of the year, I've applied to 91 positions throughout the United States using the traditional resume and cover letter. I haven't had a single call-back, and my approach is somewhat more refined than it had previously been IMO, so it's even worse than it was last year. Given that track record, a test of two applications seems to be a grossly inadequate sample size from which to draw conclusions about what will work or what won't.

The number of job openings within this niche industry is about a couple dozen within Texas (not all of which I'm qualified for). Beyond Texas, I'm not going to be as well qualified; I'll still apply for similar out-of-state positions, but the point being that I don't have much margin for error if I use any of these as test cases. If I'm going to do this, it'll be all-out or none at all.

Before I did all this, I read through several websites that listed the do's and don'ts of resumes.. they all said not to include a photo of yourself.... I tried anyways.

I'm a little torn on that. I need to work on my image, one way or the other, so a few good mugshots could probably be had. On the other hand, I certainly would rather showcase my credentials rather than my age in this case.

Have you tried applying for a census job?

Yep. The vets will probably hog most of the supervisory positions, but $17.75 to be an enumerator in central Houston is sufficient to garner my attention.

Have you tried monster.com? (under 100K talent? ... not a fan)

http://www.theladders.com/ (over 100K talent - per the commercial)

Job search sites: Monster, Careerbuilder, HotJobs, Craigslist (I'm not in $100k+ territory, so theladders.com is a no-go)

Employment agencies: Robert Half, Ajilon, Kelly Services, Manpower, Parker & Lynch

I've also canvassed organizations in the HBJ Book of Lists, the Greater Houston Partnership's list of largest companies, all of the Texas Medical Center, Inc. member institutions, and done much the same for San Antonio and Austin.

...or a job with the United States Government:

http://www.usajobs.com/ (jobs available all over the country)

I started to work through usajobs.gov, but jobs with the federal government take too much time to apply for, are too rigorously structured according to GSA rules, and vets receive too much favoritism. So I concluded that they weren't worth my time to mess with.

...it's all about "keywords" in your resume matching job descriptions, qualifications, etc... enough to land an interview.

My ASCII text resume is the equivalent of two full pages of text for precisely that reason.

...also - no facial hair! ... not until you get the job...

Shaved it this morning, as a matter of fact, to appease the incessant demands of all the gay/metro guys I know who claimed that it wouldn't go over well on the marketing materials. I placed trust in you guys, and you failed me. The consensus among straight people of both sexes after the fact is that I now look like a sci-fi geek that lives with his parents and who is a loser not by economic happenstance but rather as a lifestyle choice. I feel like a eunuch. I've been listening to Led Zeppelin and taking bottle shots of cheap scotch most of today to try and compensate. Not working.

...also... don't delete any work history! ... gaps in employment make people think: "what has he been doing?" ... in your case, you can always say: "Looking for a f cking job!"

I'd only ever delete work history for jobs that are beneath me. Retail, clerical, able-bodied seaman, etc. But I'd prefer to stay on the topic that I was trying to cultivate. Rather than play down my resume, I'm wondering whether it would be beneficial to play it up...to potentially absurd lengths. I need thoughts about that, specifically.

I guess it's all a matter of training and upbringing, I was raised to believe that any use of a firearm (outside of certain crowd control uses by trained personnel) should be considered a deadly measure, it reflects in my position on them (such as making sure that even a dis-assembled barrel is not pointed towards anyone during cleaning).

Ha, well that's cool. I was brought up the same way, almost to the point that I might describe it as neurotic. Sadly though, many people are not anywhere near as respectful of the potential for happenstance or operator error...and sometimes pay the price.

I'm of the general presumption that I'm not psychic, and therefore I cannot determine at the moment of entry whether or not a burglar is there to a) just steal, and will run if confronted, b ) just steal, and will fight back if confronted, c) there with primary goal to cause harm to my family, or d) intoxicated and unpredictable. Additionally, not being psychic, I am unable to determine if they are armed until there is compelling evidence of either case.

Given that, and given the numerous other variables, and general awareness that the police, even if called, will likely not arrive for a number of minutes, I keep what you might call "protection" available at home. Added that I am unaware of their armed status, I refuse to load such "protection" with non-lethal or minimal-penetration (i.e. frangible) ammunition. My presumption is that in the case I am compelled to protect myself, I must be prepared to trade a life for a life. I understand that everyone has a different viewpoint on the subject, but when it comes to self-defense, you're defending yourself -- not diffusing a riot, or playing "war games". That means my opinion is that if you've got a weapon to defend yourself, and if you've pointed it at someone, then you should be prepared to kill them. Not being prepared, hemming and hawing over non-lethal ammunition will show its self in a time of crisis, and likely give your attacker the upper-hand.

So, pistols are loaded (including chambered round) with hollow points, shotguns with lethal ammo. I practice and tell myself "keep shooting until it doesn't move," and throw my faith behind the Castle Doctrine. Thankfully, I've never had to put these concepts to the test, but I do pray that if I ever do, that I worry that I responded with too much force, rather than too little.

!c

Firstly, I'd like to start by saying that I agree with you in principle. My defensive strategy is much the same. If there is an unauthorized intruder in my home, I'm going to shoot at them with the intent of killing them, not merely incapacitating them. It'd be a different matter if they're on my lawn, and then I may challenge them to try to force them into a submissive posture until the police could show up but I wouldn't dare to shoot at them unless provoked.

Having said that, I understand that there are many people that couldn't stomach the thought of this situation, and that less-than-lethal ammunition is something that allows them a clear conscience that no matter what happens, they weren't trying to kill someone. And I don't hold that against anybody; I have my morals and they have theirs. I don't have to agree with somebody on that kind of thing in order to respect them. And if less-than-lethal ammunition is something that helps them pull the trigger so that they can actively defend themselves instead of capitulating to an intruder out of moral ambiguity, then I'd say that the less-than-lethal ammunition has served its purpose. I still say it's a good idea to have a couple of #1 buckshot rounds at the bottom of the magazine, just in case, but that's their prerogative. It's their life, its their decision to make, and that they're still contemplative of morality as it pertains to the sanctity of life doesn't make them stupid.