If Cover Letters Were Honest

Dear Potential Employer,

Let's cut to the chase. You have a job opening and I need a job. Now, I could go on about all of my experience and skills, and how much I would benefit your company, but we both know it would mostly be a bunch of B.S. Just me shamelessly selling myself and saying whatever I think you want to hear to get an interview.

And it's all kind of pointless, isn't it? I mean, right underneath this is my resume, which has listed all my qualifications. Everything I say here is kind of redundant, don't you think? This is just a bunch of flowery language. No real substance. Nothing but salesman talk and exaggerated boasting.

So what else do you really want to know? I'm either qualified or I'm not, which you'll be able to tell from the resume. I suppose you could use this to try and judge my character, but there's a very good chance that these are just lies. You won't really know unless you interview me, and even then there is no way to tell how much of that is genuine, and how much is just more poppycock. So why not cut the possible bullshit in half by skipping this Letter of Lies and just go straight for the interview?

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope to hear from you, because I really need a job.

Sincerely,

GC

Park51, Or: How Dare We Let Them Excercise Their Rights!

So this Park51 Mosque-That-Isn't-Really-A-Mosque-But-A-Youth-Center-But-It's-Scarier-To-Call-It-A-Mosque-So-That's-What-It's-Being-Called thing has reached a fever pitch. I had tried to avoid writing about it, because it is obviously an issue that has created a deep divide within the United States. But the situation has gotten so ridiculous over the past week that, screw it, I'm about to get political.

To start with, all you idiots who are attacking President Obama for supporting the mosque need to get a clue. For one, he never said that HE supported the mosque/youth center. He said that they had the RIGHT to build it. Whether or not they actually should he refused to comment on. And that's what people are failing to understand. Whether or not building the mosque/youth center is in bad taste is irrelevant, because they have THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO. Which is funny to me, because the same people trying to prevent the center from being built are the very ones who always complain about the government TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS (if I did not make that clear, there is a double standard at work).

Well fine, some might say, just because they CAN doesn't mean they SHOULD. It's still insensitive to the victims of 9/11. I suppose there is an argument to be made there. But then, we'd also have to ban all the Japanese resturants and businesses in Honolulu, which is within 10 miles of Pearl Harbor, because that's just insensitive to all the victims of the attack. And I'm also not sure how having a strip club the same two block distance from Ground Zero, or having vendors shamlessly hock merchandise, isn't already insensitive to the victims of 9/11.

The answer is because this isn't about the victims at all. This is about Republicans (i.e. White Christians) disliking anything that is different from them. Which is why, even out in freaking California where there have been no terrorist attacks, there is still opposition to any mosque trying to be built. It's intolerance, pure and simple. Which means, hey, we're playing right into the terrorist's hands, guys! Great job! You've successfully disregarded the principles our country was founded on. Outstanding.

But really, that makes those invoking the use of 9/11 victims to oppose the mosque/youth center the insensitive ones. Not only were there Muslims victims in the 9/11 attacks, but the Right is using it as an excuse to continue the trend of opposing anything related to Islam, while being able to pretend it's not because they're bigots. Yes, yes, Muslims did attack us on 9/11, but it is a logical fallacy to say that all Muslims are terrorists and treat them as such. Remember how Timothy McVeigh, the guy who did the Oklahoma City Bombing, was a Christian (raised Catholic to be specific)? That didn't mean all Christians were like that, did it? Or that Huatree Christian Militia group that tried to blow up police officers a few months back? Surely they didn't represent all of Christianity. The same applies here.

And everyone who brings up the argument about the Greek Orthodox Church that got destroyed during the attack and still hasn't been OK'd to be rebuilt to try and say that the government is playing favorites or something, no. Just no. The reason the Greek church still hasn't been OK'd is because they want to rebuild it exactly where it was originally, which is on Ground Zero. The youth center/mosque, being two blocks away from Ground Zero, is a lot easier to do. So it's not that Islam is getting any kind of special treatment, it's pure practicality. Even 9 years after the fact, it's still much easier to build two blocks away from Ground Zero than it is to build directly on top of it.

So to all those opposing the youth center (by which I mean Republicans, cause who am I kidding), I give you a choice. Either admit that your reasons for opposing the building are because you are a bigoted xenophobe who is only comfortable with people exactly like you, or please shut the hell up, because logic is not on your side.

Don't Like Your Job? Become Famous in One Easy Step!

As someone who has worked in customer service, I know just how freaking stupid people can be. Those who's jobs require them to deal with people every day largely have my sympathies. So one would think I would be on this Jet Blue flight attendant Steven Slater guy's side after he cursed out a passenger on board his flight for not listening and removing his bags from the overhead compartment when he wasn't supposed to, which resulted in Steve getting bashed in the head with said bag.

Surprisingly, I am not on his side. Part of this is due to the fact that I got to this story a bit late, after everyone had already called him a working class hero, setting up a much more noble situation in my head that clearly didn't happen. But mostly, it's because when you work in customer service, it's your job to not blow up at the customer, no matter how idiotic, rude, etc. they are being. I may have bitched about customers to my friends and family after the fact, but never to the customer themselves.

So the fact that this guy couldn't keep it together until after the passenger had gone really doesn't do much for me. From what I've heard of the story, I've had to deal with far worse situations while not going ape shit in front of everyone. What makes it worse is the hero worship he has acquired. If after the situation the sentiments were "Well, I can understand how he might have cracked under stress," that would be reasonable. But to call him a hero who's actions should be replicated is ludicrous.

And coming late to the story, at the same time I was finding out about the conflict, reports were surfacing that called the story into question. The passenger who supposedly sparked this whole thing has yet to be identified (which considering the close quarters and number of people on board should be pretty easy), and other passengers have said that Slater seemed to be in a bad mood the whole flight. So it seems to me this is just a case of someone having a bad day and being a dick about it.

And topping the whole thing with even more ridiculousness is the fact that Slater has been offered a reality show, because of course he was. My faith in society is dangerously low as it is, but giving this guy a TV deal will set a new record. Supposedly the show will deal with him helping disgruntled employees find "extravagant ways" to quit their jobs. Because yeah, that's going to fix everything! Because there is nothing future employers like more than seeing that you quit your old job on a reality show in the biggest "fuck you" you could possibly give to your boss. They love that stuff! They will have no problem at all finding new jobs.

Oh society, you know how to solve everything.

In Which Jennifer Aniston Apparently Has A Fanbase Made Up of 12 Year Olds

I dislike the right-wing of politics. Their talking points seem to consist mostly of apocalyptic prophesying about how our world will crumble if legislation they don't like passes ("If we let the gays marry, then our children will explode!"). The conclusions they come to are often absurd and ridiculous, and I find it tiresome, annoying, and really stupid. It's fine to have an opinion and not agree with something, but at least attempt to come up with a real, logical reason for doing so.

They also don't know how to pick there battles, which is how we end up with Bill O'Reilly attacking Jennifer Aniston, because of course he is. Why on earth would Bill O'Reilly be attacking a mediocre actress who as far as I can tell appears to be a really nice person? Because she is DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY.

See, Aniston has a new movie coming out called The Switch, which involves her character artificially inseminating herself so that she can have and raise a kid despite not having found Mr. Right, proving that yesterday's science fiction is today's rom-com fodder. While promoting said film, Aniston went on to say this in an interview:

"Women are realizing more and more that you don't have to settle, they don't have to fiddle with a man to have that child. They are realizing if it's that time in their life and they want this part they can do it with or without that."

I happen to agree with that line of thinking. Most of us men-folk can be pretty dickish, so if a woman is having a hard time finding a halfway decent guy but still wants to be able fulfill a greater purpose by bringing in and guiding another life, power to them. Mr. O'Reilly, however, isn't as progressive in his thought process as I am (what with me being a college educated elitist). He demeaned Aniston's opinion, going on about how you can't replace the role of a father in a child's life and how they bring a "psychology to children that in this society is under emphasized" (yeah, I'm not sure what that means either). So all those single moms whose husbands died in Iraq are just terrible people because now their kids won't have the right "psychology."

But here's where it gets ridiculous.

Bringing in a "won't somebody please think of the children!" moment (because if anyone is thinking of the children, it's Bill fucking O'Reilly), O'Reilly went on to say that "She's throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that, 'Hey you don't need a guy. You don't need a dad.' That is destructive to our society."

Now, perhaps I missed something, but I don't think 12 and 13 year olds are hanging onto Jennifer Aniston's every word. In fact, I'd bet that many wouldn't know who she is. If this were Justin Bieber, yeah, 12 and 13 year olds would definitely get the message. But I'm pretty sure they're too busy reading about non-sex in Twilight to be bothered by anything Jennifer Aniston has to say. They are not her fanbase, and she is not talking to them.

If you have a problem with women being independent and not needing a man to be a parent because you are old fashioned and don't want to try and wrap your head around the idea that women can get around fine without them, fine, say so. But if you are going to instead pretend that some uppity celebrity is poisoning our youth, you should make sure the youth actually cares about said celebrity. You never hear anyone complaining that something Lady Gaga said is going to effect senior citizens, do you? Of course not, they don't care (or know) who she is. Same logic at play here.

Or better yet, DON'T PRTENED THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Hey, Remember Nostalgia?

Photo by kafka4prez

Let's talk about nostalgia.

Nostalgia comes from the Greek word nostos, which means "returning home." We use it today as a way to describe a yearning for the past, an idealization of what was. More often than not, we get nostalgic about our childhoods, and the things we associate it with it. Any time you have a conversation with your friends that goes "Hey, remember ___?" chances are, that's nostalgia.

We all have nostalgic memories. I refuse to throw out the many POGS I have stored away for that reason. They're useless, but I still have an emotional tie with them that I can't fully explain. We all remember the cartoon shows we watched as children (Transformers, Smurfs, Rugrats, Scooby Doo, etc.) and pity today's youngsters for not having the entertainment that we did.

But I also see nostalgia as dangerous. It is, after all, an idealization of the past, and that's the part people forget. Ideals and reality are not always compatible. Many of my friends talk about the old Transformers cartoon as if it were some golden standard. Looking back on it, it was really just a crappy cartoon show hastily put together to sell toys. If it were a new show now, we all would look down our nose at it as garbage. But because it is a part of our childhoods, it's given a free pass.

This is problematic because it impairs our judgment. Instead of making decisions based on what is actually in front of us, and taking into account that things (ourselves included) can change, we start making decisions based on a preconceived notion that may or may not hold up. On the trivial end of the spectrum, it causes people to think the Star Wars prequels are good, even though, if their association with Star Wars were removed and they were merely another sci-fi epic, I guarantee they would be universally panned. But because they ARE associated with the original trilogy, and because people do not want to admit that something born of something held in such high regard could be bad, they are defended as being part of a greater picture. They may not be as good as the originals, some say, but it's still Star Wars. It's a flawed logic, and it is akin to playing pretend. (The same can be said of the last 10 or so seasons of The Simpsons for those who think im picking on Star Wars fans)

Now, like I said, that is a pretty trivial example. Whether or not nostalgia effects the entertainment we consume is a rather inconsequential point. But this same principle, idealizing the past at the expense of the present and future, can also have more problematic effects. Think of the high school hot, perhaps the star quarterback or other some such example, who never really moves on from his hometown. He still hangs around the high school, buys beer for the younger kids, etc. His inability to move on from his past leaves him stuck, unable to grow or evolve. He is resistant to the idea of change. As time goes on, his position becomes sadder and more pitiful.

Or think about politicians (or anyone, really) who talks about a desire to go back to the way things were, a more innocent time when father knew best and what not. For all the innocence and simplicity they yearn for, they also gloss over the fact that racism was much worse back then, and women were still viewed as largely inferior to men, their place at home in the kitchen. That's the biggest problem with nostalgia; it emphasizes the good while neglecting or ignoring the bad.

We all have moments of nostalgia. But it's important to keep an eye forward even when remembering the past. Otherwise, you end up so focused on what was that you become unable to cope with what is. The animated show The Venture Bros. deals with this theme quite nicely. Just about every character in it lives in the shadow of some idealistic version of the past, and are miserable because they're present lives don't seem to measure up to the promises of yesterday. They cling to their former lives, and in doing so are incapable of making the kinds of changes that could improve their current disposition.

This isn't to say that we should just forget the memories of our past. It just means we need to be careful of just how much stock we put in them. I recently came across an old VHS copy of the movie 3 Ninjas. As a kid, I watched it hundreds of times, thinking it was the greatest thing ever. Rewatching it now, it's a remarkably stupid movie. That doesn't mean I can't think back to a time I thought it was great, and remember the joy it gave me. But I'm also not going to try and defend it as some kind of masterpiece simply because I liked it way back when. I've grown up, my tastes have changed. Part of me will always like it in some capacity; there is nothing wrong with having a soft spot for the things you enjoyed in your past. But we do need to be mindful that our soft spot isn't clouding our judgment of the present. After all, there is always so much more that is yet to be explored than there are things already experienced.