Archive for August, 2007

Righty Tighty, Lefty Loosey

Vodka and Orange JuiceIt never ceases to amaze Jaq just how many people don’t know that rule.  It’s simple, it’s been around for ages, and it works just about everywhere except in plumbing, or when designers want to be sneaky.

It’s a good excuse as any to inaugurate a new feature.  The practical tip du jour.

Today’s tip is about resumes and the job interview.  Jaq did someone a favor and conducted a crapload of interviews in the last couple of days.  Jaq is thinking of starting a whole sideline of doing these kind of interviews, because finding good people is very hard, especially when a prospective employer can’t figure out from a resume who is a good employee.

But the people who really need the help, but aren’t willing to pay for it, are the prospective employees.  And man do they need help!

The tip is in several parts.

Part 1.  Write your own damn resume.

Jaq is astonished how many supposedly seasoned professionals don’t write their own resumes.  Some recruiters give advice on how to alter a resume.  Other recruiters just write it for buzzword compliance.

Jaq can’t figure out this practice.  This works on the front end, when you have drones from the department of “Human Racehorses” who don’t know how to read a resume.  Not their fault, it’s not in their training.  However, Jaq has spoken with many of these folks and they honestly think they can evaluate a good candidate for a job with the basis of no experience with the actual subject whatsoever.  It’s not about what you know, or what you can do, or even who you know, but about “what you’ve got”.  They say, “Do you have xxxx?”  Their little world begins and ends with the resume.

This works on the backend too, when meeting with executive types, who just want to get to know you personally.  There’s something to be said for good chemistry, but the very best, brightest, and most capable need to be kept happy in their little rubber rooms.  In standard hiring practices, they get hired only by accidentally missing meeting with the Veeps.

Where it fails is in the middle, when the candidate is going to get interrogated by the cranky SOB who doesn’t have time to do another interview.  For this individual, a resume is as a red sheet waved in front of a bull.  What’s between the ears?  The interviewer comes to the interview completely unprepared — they were busy working up until five minutes before the big event, at which point they go, “Aww shit, I’d better print this out and get ready.”  The result is, no questions are ever really prepared beforehand, and to hide their unpreparedness, the interviewer is going to be staring at that resume a lot and going “Hmmmm….” in an ominous tone of voice.  This person is preparing to ask you questions about your past, because that resume is the only thing giving clues on what to do.

Which brings us to the second point.

Part 2.  If you absolutely can’t write your own resume, at least read it!

Today’s shortest interview lasted four minutes.  It was Jaq’s lifetime record, and the impetus for this rant.

Acceptible answers to questions off items on your resume (especially items in the first three bullet points) should not include the following:

  1. Huh? 
  2. What do you mean?
  3. That doesn’t ring any bells.
  4. Does it really say that on my resume?

Jaq is not making any of these up.

It’s like this.  If you advertise that you know some technology or have some skill at some nontechnology thing, be prepared to answer basic questions about it.  And if you don’t know the answer, just admit it — don’t try to dazzle the interviewer with bullshit.  Even if they don’t know the answer personally, there are many sample interview questions one may choose from available anywhere Google goes, and answer keys are provided.

If you put a company you worked at on your resume, be prepared to talk about what they do.  Be prepared to talk about what you did, in itself and even more importantly, in terms of what that company does.

Part 3.  Communicate skillfully.

Jaq cannot remember the last time “excellent communications skills” was not written on any resume to cross Jaq’s desk.  For once, Jaq would like to see something that actually exemplifies that, like saying, “Scintillating verbal skills — Able to stop speeding bullets with naught but charm and persuasion.”  But no, everyone must have “excellent communications skills” or else it cannot really be a resume.

Instead of just that crappy throwaway line, you must be prepared to demonstrate it.  If you’re in a phone interview, do not take other calls and place your interviewer on hold.  Do-not-speak-in-a-monotone.  Particularly do not speak in a monotone if you only speak in sentences longer than the most rickety run-on ever constructed by Nathaniel Hawthorne.  Do not use the word “and” more than fourteen times in a single sentence, because if you do, your interviewer is no longer listening.

When you are asked, “Tell me a little about yourself,” do not respond, “What do you want to know for?”

To the same question, don’t respond by giving a long and storied history of your education, which you end with “and then I went into industry and did stuff for six years.”  What this tells the interviewer that you have been an absolute catastrophe in the real world, post academia.  If you truly have those “6+ years of strong experience” doing whatever, be most prepared to talk about the last couple of these — not what you did at school a decade ago.  The one person who made it past Jaq’s patented gauntlet interview process did so mainly because they were able to speak coherently about their latest couple of posts.

Don’t interrupt.  Don’t keep interrupting.  Really, shut up so you can hear the followup question.  What, do you just like to hear yourself talk?

Don’t call the interviewer back to harrass them.  Really, it takes longer than twenty minutes after the interview to find out if you got the job.  If you’ve really been an industry professional for years, surely you would know this by now?

Particularly over the phone, don’t mumble.  Speak clearly and Enunciate.  Your.  Words.

Part 4.  Remember what you’re doing at the interview.

You’re trying to get hired, dummy!  This means that you need to convince the interviewer that you’re not a flake, and that you meet or exceed the expectations set in the resume.  Your primary job in the interview, the first job you will have, and the one you will need to return to your whole life is that of a salesperson.

What are you selling?

You.

No, that’s not quite right.  The idea that you’re “selling yourself” belongs to the realm of “Human Racehorces.”  The idea of persons as inventoriable, commoditized resources creeps Jaq out.  It doesn’t have to be that way.

You are selling the benefits that the hiring entity would garner with you as a member of the team.  Your resume is your one and only billboard.  A billboard must be good enough to interest your prospect in giving you a call.

But picture this.  Have you ever been in driving down the road after a long day’s journey, looking for a place to stay?  You find your night’s lodging with a billboard.

And then you drive up to find a crumbling, roach infested structure with rust-colored water coming from the tap?  What do you do?  You get back in the car and drive another couple of miles, that’s what.  Your resume will likewise not get you hired any more than that billboard will incent you to stay.

As a collorary, be prepared to articulate what it is you’re looking for in an employer.  The street goes both ways.  Are they good enough for you?

Part 5.  Ditch the professional headhunting agency.  Employers, you too!

Professional headhunting agencies are there to match up emnployees with employers.  No one ever said they had to do a good job.  They aren’t really incented to do a good job, just a fast one.  Employers keep coming back because they have nowhere else to go.

Prospective employees, these headhunters will really screw up your income potential, by taking a sizeable fraction of what the employer would be paying you, and paying them instead.  If you learn to network, and market your own services yourself, you can cut out the middleman.

Employers, it’s not an absolute rule, but these headhunters mainly place people who can’t take charge of their own careers.  Do you want to hire these kinds of people?  Jaq has certainly known exceptions from this rule but not many.

Headhunters are people who throw large stacks of resumes at the wall, hoping one will stick.  Someday, technology will improve to the point where we can all print our resumes on the same material as the Wacky Wall Walker.  Until that time, this strategy serves only to waste your time.

Don’t let HR prepare the job description either.  Strangely, it is Jaq’s experience that this eviscerates the pool of good candidates.

6.  Stop thinking like a Human Resource

If you don’t like being treated like a small cog in a great unwieldy machine, don’t act like one.  When you follow the script prepared by corporate HR and the headhunters, you accept their rules and end up imprisoning yourself.  It took Jaq a very long time to finally learn this lesson.

Free your mind, and get hired!

Leave a Comment

Goodbye, Richard Jewell

Richard Jewell, who died at the young age of 44 yesterday of complications from diabetes, was one of the very rare people who won an appeal from the World Court of Public Opinion.  The hero of the Atlanta 1996 bombing, he was quickly sidelined as a weird, mutant freak — and probably the bomber himself.  Why?

 Richard did not fit the Hollywood Last Action Hero mold.  A good old Georgia redneck who still lived at home with mom at the age of 33, he was more likely the candidate to be played by John Malkovich’s least favored understudy in the made-for-TV-inspired-by-a-true-story piece of cinematic pap.  Jaq truly believes this is why the media turned on him.  Jaq can’t blame the FBI for investigating Jewell for the reasons it did — but can blame them most wholeheartedly for firing the spark that inflamed the media into frenzied, heavy-handed innuendo and flat out accusation.

Jaq further blames the media for being so incredulously gullible.

From there, it entered a gross feedback loop.  Media blames Jewell.  Public cries out, demands more action.  Gummint, quacking like the duck you expect them to be, heats up public displays of accusation.  Ad continuum.

Amazingly enough, Richard was not only vindicated, but was done so not only within his brief lifetime but even quickly, with full (cash) apologies from the media.  Most of the media anyway.  The AJC to this day continues insist they did nothing wrong.  Richard even got an apology from Janet Reno while still in office.  This is unprecedented.  This is like the pope apologizing to Galileo, without waiting 400 years first.  Jaq knows of no other such unvarnished apologies from anyone in government for anything in the field of justice, can anyone else comment?

Today’s fallacies include “argumentum ad populo”, and the fallacy of Reverse Accident.  It works for Richard like this:

Assassins and psychopaths are most often loner weirdos with less-than-metrosexual outlooks on life.  Therefore weirdos like this are likely to be assassins and psychopaths.  This is False Cause, or inspecting the a small and unusual population (assassins and psychopaths) to find attributes (freaky weirdness), and concluding that anyone bearing these attributes (freaky weirdness) must belong to the population (of assassins and psychopaths).  This confuses what the definition of the group really is, and looks at minor, nonessential character traits rather than the core idea that assassins and homicidal maniacs are people who kill people.  Follow the evidence to find who done the killing, and you’ve found your maniac.

Richard’s problems, caused by this logical fallacy, were then magnified by the ethical fallacy, “argumentum ad populo,” or “I read it on the Internet, it must be true!”  This is an ethical argument.  Is Jaq saying that the media who attempted to character-assassinate Richard Jewell were dishonest as well as shtupid?  Yes, this is exactly what Jaq is saying.

This kind of behavior is often created by District or Federal Attorneys.  Witness the farce at the Duke Lacrosse trial.  Janet Reno did a truly amazing thing by apologizing.  Nifong, who was originally hoping for fame and fortune to fulfill his federal fancies, instead found failure in fallout, apologized mainly because it was his last, desparate hope for clemency.  May the World Peanut Gallery Court have more pity on him than it did for the Duke Lacrosse team.

Sometimes the trial is never resolved until the end of the poor guy’s life.  The increasingly bizarre case of John Demjanjuk, which Jaq has been following with interest since the mid-1980s, exemplifies this.  John seems to have lied on his I-94 or whatever the hell equivalent thing they had in 1951 about his involvement in WW II.  Jaq is increasingly convinced that this is his only possible crime, and the attempts to name him as a growing array of the worst possible Nazi monsters.  The idea that he is one of these people appeals to a sense of drama among the survivors.  What is offered, and has been accepted as proof in court nowadays is exceedingly similar to the “proof”, validated by “expert testimony”, offered back in the ’80s when John was supposed to be the Nazi monster Ivan the Terrible.  Jaq has vivid memories of the Plain Dealer showing pictures of John in 198x next to Ivan in 194x, saying “SEE?  Its the SAME GUY!!!”  Jaq didn’t see it then, and can’t quite believe it now.

Yes, he possibly lied on his paperwork.  John came to America in search of a new start.  Everyone has skeletons in their closet that they’re not too proud of.  Jaq can’t quite blame him for trying to forget the past.  Is “crime against paperwork” confused with “crime against humanity?”  Can’t say for sure, but to the bureaucrat who is out of touch with reality, people look only like paperwork.

If John did indeed work for the Nazis, only John knows for sure.  Worked, doing what, no one can prove,  and in the latest turn of the case it no longer seems that they’re even trying to prove any specific criminal act.

Oskar Schindler was ineligible to enter the US for his Nazi ties.  And Schindler is the very exception which proves the rule.  What rule?  The Fallacy of Division.  What is true of the whole must be true of the parts, says the fallacymaker (and the butcher and the baker).  Nazis were nasty, brutish, and killed Jews.  Therefore, so must have Oskar Schindler.  Or John Demjanjuk.

But in any case, congratulations to Richard Jewell for being fully exonerated in the 2005 conviction of Eric Rudolph — yes, another social misfit, who gives the rest of them a bad name.  And goodbye, Richard, your heroism and calm leadership in the face of panic will be remembered.

Leave a Comment

On Compartmentalization

Two separate encounters today lead Jaq to ask some questions about mental compartmentalization.  Jaq doesn’t really have any answers to these questions, but they’re likely worth asking.

One encounter was with an online entity who mixes video reports on market conditions from an Austrian perspective freely with the latest piece of non-news about somebody named Versailles Hyatt or something.  For someone trying to virally market their own videos, it is a highly odd mix, one that could be compartmentalized into separate spheres.

The other encounter was with a friend who recently had the opportunity to meet and work with the guy who’s considered the world’s foremost pioneer and innovator of HDTV production.  The guy, who’s name is David Niles, is 58 years old, and according to Jaq’s friend and his conversation with him, he’s not had a vacation since before Woodstock.

Oh, he gets around.  He just takes a camera everywhere he goes and never stops working.  Undercompartmentalized?  Crazy?  He seems to make it work.

Jaq wonders about the reverse.  Everybody wears a different face to show different people.  You’re wouldn’t be the same person in a corporate meeting as you would be working at Arby’s.  The friends you watch football, or Dancing with Americans Idle, or whatever do not see the same person as you are when spending quality time with your soulmate.  That is all well and normal and okay, for external compartmentalization.  What about internal compartmentalization?  Are you different people inside when doing each of these activities?  Are mild schizophrenia, multiple personalities, and other situational “ailments” a lot more common than anyone ever thought, being perfectly normal human conditions?  Healthy conditions, even?

David Niles must compartmentalize his life.  During the weekend that my friend worked with this guy, he was frequently called away to help deal with the horrors and pain and bureaucratic indignity related to the recent death of his granddaughter.  Doubtless, his mind was not focused on the isses of HDTV production.  However, even whipsawing back and forth he was full of energy, passion, and zeal while on the job.  My friend was astonished and impressed with his extreme focus on his work to the point where this friend of Jaq’s may have found his new personal hero.

Could it be that the key to success in life is overwhelming undercompartmentalization of pieces of life?  Focus to the point that your focus overwhelms all other possible fields of human endeavor?  Is internal overcompartmentalization actually bad for you — were humans designed for little more than subsistence work and procreation after all?

Or does it mean that ultimate success in life isn’t worth the price you pay in mental health?

Jaq has no clues to any of these, but perhaps more thoughts will be forthcoming in later blogentries.

Leave a Comment

Ding Donn, Alberto’s Gone

Far be it for Jaq Phule to complain about the imminent departure of AG squared (no, not that AG, we all like that one), but Jaq would like to have a few words about the whole farce.

You see, quite a few people are caught up in the whole attorney-firing scandal, in claiming that this was the primary reason why Fredo got fired.

A few words on being fired: Gonzo was not fired. He resigned. The eight attorneys at the heart of the scandal were fired. They are the only people anywhere close to the president that Jaq can think of that got fired since Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre.

At your job, would you say it’s been (a) less than, or (b) more than, thirty-four freakin’ years since the last time somebody got fired?

Maybe a precedent set for some firings is a good thing, eh?

The mythos of the official “resignation” is just plain silly wonkery. The implication is that the President and all his little munchkin men are too awesome in their abilities as Leaders to make poor hiring decisions. As such, they never have to fire anyone.

Even Michael Brown resigned, if you recall. Richard Freaking Nixon resigned, when all hope was not quite lost — as Bill Clinton proved decades later, you can beat impeachment just by convincing Congress it’s too scary a presidential precedent to set. After all, anyone politically ambitious enough to argue impeachment is probably also politically ambitious enough to run for the damned office itself. They don’t want that marr on the history of that glorious office. Why dya think virtually no Democrat of any stature is arguing impeachment nowadays?

Okay, but what about the argument that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, and for this someone must pay?

That is possibly the dumbest thing Jaq has heard in virtually minutes.

The good old US of A is supposed to be a democracy. Leaders are democratically elected to serve the democratic electorate. This means that their primary incentive to being is to do things which convince a bare majority of the electorate that voting for their sorry asses is the only way to avoid massive pain and get beaucoup goodies. And this, dear friends, means that whatever democratically elected leaders, and the cronies they rode in on, will do first and foremost, things which are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED!

Don’t blame a duck for quacking like a duck.

One of these election cycles, Jaq will tally up all the times each party accuses the other of having “political motivations” for whatever random act of legislative or executive stupidity that comes along the pike. Whichever party gets the fewest, Jaq will vote for. Or possibly against, depending on how spiteful they’re feeling.

Still, Jaq is happy that this brownshirt will be leaving. Much happier than at the departure of Rove, who is now freed up to wreak havoc for the next administration, because Alberto is leaving under a much larger cloud of stinkiness. Jaq is happier, partially because of Gonzo’s influence on warrantless wiretapping, but mainly for this statement, made to the Senate Judiciary Committe:

The fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.

This is possibly the stupidest fucking statement ever uttered in the halls of Congress, and boy that’s saying something. For good old Al, let’s break this down syllogism style, right?

Habeus corpus is either God-given (innate in man’s natural state if you prefer P.C.) or else is a political right granted by a state. If it is God-given, then it cannot be lawfully taken away. If it is not God-given, then it must be granted before taking it away. If it can be taken away by the Constitution under a circumstance, then either the Constitution is invalid by natural rights theory, or else must be granted implicitly by the Constitution.

What Alfredo here is saying instead is that “well, we can’t take it away, but that doesn’t mean we’re giving it to you either.” What the hell does he think habeus corpus actually is, dental floss? Jaq believes this shows a complete and thorough lack of understanding of the Constitution, habeus corpus, and just plain common sense. These are not redeeming antiqualities you want to have in the guy who’s supposed to be enforcing the highest law of the land.

Not to mention that generations of legal scholars since 1215 AD have come to the conclusion that “the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action”. Scrap, wrap, and toss; it’s not guaranteed to be granted by the Constitution after all.

So, while Jaq is happy that Gonzo and his ceaseless, somewhat insane looking sycophantic grin are even now packing their crap out of D.C., Jaq is less than happy about the lead up or the execution of this. Fire the bastitch, and fire him for being a scary freakin’ fascist. Don’t play games.

And for all the people who keep saying, “What a shame he failed, because he’s Hispanic,” haven’t we moved past this b.s. yet? I sincerely doubt that anyone but a fringe minority of gas station employees working in rural regions containing five counties to a high school remotely ever thought that Gonzo was somehow less than qualified because of pigmentation, or where his ancestors lived. Don’t be sensitive about this. No one person can represent their entire race, and Al’s miserable failure means no more in racial terms than Michael Brown’s vast sea of incompetence meant that people ever would say, “what a shame he failed — he’s so white!” At most, Alberto only ever represented the dimbulb who thought his name was actually “Alfredo”.

Leave a Comment

Opposite of Cognitive Dissonance…

…Is of course, Focus.

You may have heard this song before, but probably not at this kind of speed.  So without further ado, I’ll let Gladys Knight here explain.

Put some freaky-looking virtuosos with quirky senses of humor, and this is what you get.  What’s not to like?  Who doesn’t like a little yodelling now and again?

Amazingly enough, these guys are on tour again, thirty-five years later, but unfortunately will be missing the States entirely.  And even more unfortunately, can no longer yodel.

Leave a Comment

Yes, Virginia, There is a Cognitive Dissonance

Four year old Jaq walked down the stairs Christmas morn to a scene straight outta Hollywood.  Tree, trains, tinsel, toys, tanks of tropical fish, with all the trimmings.  There was absolutely none of this when Jaq had gone to bed Christmas Eve.

“You think maybe Santa was here?” sez one sleepy-looking parent.

Nod, nod, said Jaq, in a tone of open mouthed wonder.  In all the world, there is no better friend than SANTA!

The trouble didn’t start until the next year.

Five year old Jaq is handed a package.  “This is from your Great-Aunt Eurythmia,” sez the other sleepy looking parent.  “Wait a minute,” Jaq responds.  “I thought it was from Santa!

“Well, it was, but this one is from your Great Aunt, too.”  And thus was a dissonance born.

It wasn’t quite the earliest such in Jaq’s pack-rat memory, but it comes pretty close.

Toy X is from Relative Y, who lives ten miles away.  Toy X was made by elves in the North Pole and hand-delivered by Santa.  Both are true, because my parents say so.  One asks Santa for a gift list, but one then thanks one’s relatives for the gift.  Don’t ask why, you’re just being polite.

At age 6, Jaq was growing in sophistication, but still believed both mutually contradictory ideas.  Jaq went through some hefty mental gymnastics to make it make sense, like Santa coordinated my wish list and asked Great Uncle Dmacaroniof to buy/pay for/sponsor somehow the elves to make this toy.  The toy is clearly marked as “Made by Mattel” but the elves either copied this to make it look like it came from the store, or else Santa has some kind of subcontracting relationship with all the toy manufacturers.  Santa’s main function is just like the postal service, except that they’re closed on Christmas because they can’t compete with someone who can deliver everywhere at once in the same night.  Because “Santa” must be true.  After all, didn’t I see irrefutable evidence of Santa’s existence when I was four?

At age seven, Jaq wised up, and decided to scientifically test one of the more rediculous assertions made by a parental unit regarding the Fat Man.  Santa will know what you want for Christmas even if we leave your list lying on the coffee table, instead of mailing it to the North Pole.  To make a long story short, the test failed, (Santa completely failed to take cognizance of the entirely separate list written and tucked away from prying parental eyes) and Jaq began purely pretending to believe for a few years.  In retrospect, it’s kind of ironic that the tables were turned — Jaq’s parents now had to believe in the fairy tale that the kid still believed the fairy tale.  Jaq had a hard time appreciating any humor in this situation at the time, however.

My parents have lied.  Over something really dumb.  In highly elaborate ways.  For no apparent reason other than to get a good laugh at my expense.

What else have they lied about?

Please don’t misunderstand the intent of this rant.  Jaq had a pretty damn good childhood, and ain’t knocking it, complete with caring, loving parents.  This is anything but a bitch and moan session about parental betrayal.  In fact, it’s probably a pretty good idea for the idea that “people you trust may lie to you” gets learned sooner than later.

One of Jaq’s children — call her “Jeena” — is like many children afraid of monsters lurking about in a dark room at night.  But there are no monsters?  “If the Easter Bunny is real,” she quaveringly asserts, “then monsters are real too.”

Who feels like a damn monster now, eh?

Can children not learn about less than trustworthy people in a slightly less malignant way?  In a fashion which perhaps does not undermine all trust in the central authority figures that are supposed to guide said child into relatively stable adulthood?  What the hell is the point of this whole silly ritual anyway?

“Yes, sweet child of mine, crack cocaine is BAD for you!  And meanwhile theft is bad, and so is beating the pulp out of your sister to force submission.”

Yes, but is this coming from the parent who also said that Santa was real?  Possibly this isn’t the whole story?  Maybe the thought isn’t couched in exactly those terms, but of such things is trust built and destroyed. 

Or is the dissonance good for them, a rite of passage that helps their brains grow?  And how much should a growing child rely on authority figures anyway?

“THIS is the kind of person you should marry (and THAT nasty person is too freaky, or fruity, or freckly for you, and what do you mean you do/don’t want to settle down?), and THIS is what you should do with your life, and NO, your loving parental unit tried that kind of life experience and it didn’t work well, so you shouldn’t try either.”  Jaq shall strive not to be this kind of parent, but in the end is only human.  Slips will be made.

Yuh-huh.  This is coming from the same person who was so emphatic about Santa, too.  Maybe I should learn how to live my own life, eh?

In purely cowardly fashion, Jaq avoids this issue altogether with the resident progeny, having been shouted down by every other member of the family.  Apparently, Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and possibly the Underpants Gnome are part of “the essential magic of childhood” or some kind of aromatic shitake fodder, so Jaq isn’t getting any help or cooperation on the issue from any corner.  And so now, questions related to any of these esteemed historical figures get referred to the other parental unit, grandparents, etc, who are more than willing to make wild, contradictory claims about the Fat Man.

In fact, a new dissonance would get created if Jaq were to openly fight this.  One that gets resolved quickly by setting parent against parent in a child’s mind.  Which one gets preferred?  Which one gets perceived as a liar?

It’s a sticky dilemma.  Parenting is HARD.


The Fat Man?
Please find attached one Santa Claus, patron saint of crass retail commercialism three months of the year. Can you hold that thought and this picture in your head simultaneously?

Take responsibility for your own braingasm…


Special thanks go out to wordpress, whose untimely site issues ate the first draft of this rant.  It’s hard to recover lost steam, ya know?

Leave a Comment

On Avoiding Childrens’ Hospitals

Jaq avoided an emergency trip to any of Atlanta’s phenomenal childrens’ hospitals this evening when their progeny failed to achieve full concussion.  Though not through lack of studious effort, as the egg-sized hematoma on one small head in the Phule chickencoop tonight can attest.

It is however a sharp reminder of their existence, and importance.  One tends to forget.  Jaq has had multiple encounters — joyous, tragic, and just plain panicous – at these institutions in the past, and no doubt will do so again in the future.  Atlanta hospitals, especially in regard to childbirth and pediatric care, are truly amazing institutions.  The level of care, service, and attention to individual dignity is absolutely stellar.  Anyone living in Atlanta should feel damn lucky to have these nearby.

Big thanks, guys!

Leave a Comment

Journalism’s Inner City Squeeze

Jaq has strong, personal feelings about Georgia’s HOPE scholarship, and will therefore recuse themselves from making any judgements on the program itself in this forum.

For the confused, the HOPE scholarship is a program available to seniors who graduate from public Georgia high schools with a 3.0+ GPA, and proceed to attend a public Georgia collegiate-type institution. The student’s tuition, fees, and even some of books are fully paid for, so long as the student maintains GPA and attendance requirements. The scholarship is fully funded by the Georgia lottery. For those not so confused, Jaq apologizes for the lack of a good footnote facility within wordpress.

On the other hand, it’s open season on this rather rediculous puff piece from Creative Loafing.  The implication is left open in the article that changes in the inner workings of the HOPE scholarship are racist, and indeed were done to foment a racial agenda.

The article commits some rather standard fallacies, like “Biased Sample”, when talking about an inner city high school’s performance:

At Crim, a school that’s 99 percent African-American, a mere 47 seniors were eligible two years ago for the HOPE scholarship, which requires that students graduate with a 3.0 grade-point average. This year … the number of scholarship-worthy Crim seniors sank to three.

Why did such a thing happen?  The article asserts that it was caused by an administrative change to the operation of the HOPE scholarship, which reduced the overall number of eligible graduating seniors, in order to save costs in a dwindling revenue base.  The sample’s bias is revealed in one of the article comments, a clarification by the author:

Booker T. Washington High School sunk from 163 HOPE scholars in 2005 to 80 in 2007; Carver Comprehensive High School from 21 to 10; Douglass from 221 to 94; Benjamin E. Mays from 218 to 81; North Atlanta from 192 to 87; South Atlanta from 73 to 30; Southside from 82 to 42; and D.M. Therrell from 75 to 28. … Grady High School managed to hold onto most of its HOPE scholars.  

Okay, so things are bad, but nowhere near the 94% drop as reported by Crim.  Okay, so the author ‘fessed up.  Is all forgiven?  One other commenter disagrees:

you should have also been able to determine that Crim was in fact closed as a traditional high school two years ago (the year that 47 students qualified) and was repurposed by APS as an alternative campus high school for adult students seeking their diploma or GED. These are not exactly “Outstanding” pupils, or necessarily seeking to move on to college.

Here’s another fallacy revealed in the original article, called “Questionable Cause”.  Crim’s HOPE enrollee counts dropped, but could that have something to do with other circumstances?  HOPE scholarship is not available to folks too far removed from high school… The author threw these figures in for shock value. Article comments by the author indicate that this was done with full intention. Negative points for style! This is a failure to establish *ethos*, or the character implicit in the writing. Clearly the author has pathos for the subject, but folks, this ain’t enough. Errors in ethos … journalistic ethics, anyone?

Logos has got some major problems too, specifically in the area of economics.

To start with, the article’s tagline is “Now more than ever, the HOPE scholarship is taxing low-income minorities to pay for middle-class education“.  Taxing?

A tax is a forcible, involuntary confiscation of money.  The state of Georgia is not forcing anyone to buy lottery tickets to fund educations for whitey, either directly, nor by being a “tax on breathing” like gasoline taxes, or sales taxes on food.  (If you really want to help families with low incomes, eliminate these ugly regressive things!)  Be careful with your definitions.

If “lower class” folk are more likely to buy lotto tickets, is that such a bad thing?  If it is, then the implication is to take away what is condescendingly known as a “tax on people bad at math.”  Talk about an elitist attitude!  Some folk see the remote possibility of a lottery win as even a glimmer of hope, a way out of a bad situation that only costs a couple of bucks per week.  Take away the “tax”, and you take away that hope.  Nice.

The worst thing wrong with the article is the unstated conclusion: roll back the HOPE administrative changes.

Why is this a problem?  After all, the scholarship isn’t as out of money as they had originally thought.

Because the rest of the unstated conclusion is that if HOPE runs into fiscal problems again, the scholarship should be restructured to account for race, or income level, or something else.

Ack.  This arouses Jaq’s ire faster than a 3 AM cockroach.

While the scholarship didn’t start that way, for years it was run in a purely merit-based fashion.  If you change it to be race based, what is the emotional blowback?  “I got this scholarship … was it because I know my shit, or because I’m black?” is one possible reaction.  “Did I miss that scholarship because I wasn’t good enough, or because I’m not black enough?” is another.  No, this doesn’t cause any strain in race relations at all!

Race-based quotas are out of vogue, so another way to cut it is by income level.  This adds more complexity, because on one hand, everyone will know that “income level” means the same thing as “race-based quota” even if officially everyone will tiptoe around that particular elephant.  On another hand … “I got this scholarship … was it because I know my shit, or because I’m an object of pity for my family’s low income?”, and “Did I miss that scholarship because I wasn’t good enough, or because I’m too rich?  Well, I guess I had better rely on daddy’s money for the remainder of my days.”  Yay, equal distribution of inferiority complexes.

The HOPE scholarship is the only hope for higher education for many children of low-income families.  Did no one ever think that that, for children of rich parents, that the HOPE scholarship is their only hope to escape the tyranny of daddy’s money?

If HOPE funding is cut, and Georgia has to reduce the number of eligible students, unless you resort to one of the above measures you can’t help but cut unequally.  It doesn’t help anything in this situation to treat people like labels.  One inner-city high school managed not to lose as deeply as others; this says something about the rest of the story that the article does not discuss, like: what the hell is wrong with the teachers and administrators of these other schools?  They knew the changes were coming, why didn’t they straighten up?  Grady HS did.  Moreover, what the hell is wrong with the students, individually?  It’s not too terribly hard to beat a 3.0 GPA in a Georgia high school.

In the long run, this big problem is endemic to the idea of the HOPE scholarship in general.  Jaq likes the fact that no cash is forcibly taken from anyone in the redistribution scheme, but it is an economic fact that when something is subsidized, you get more of it.  Per the law of supply and demand, costs will rise and quality will fall as more people want it.  Economic factors change; because a subsidized program is run on political factors rather than economic, you end up with necessary cuts, and people on all sides of the equation get hurt by the reversal of expectations.  Somewhat like what has happened in health care, too.  It’s kinda funny, in a sad sort of way, when even “conservative” types who crab about “entitlement mentality” somehow think that they are different, that they’re entitled to that free education which is supposedly a right.

What happens when demand far exceeds supply?  When conditions become such that lotto sales drop, standards are lowered, or tuition prices rise to meet demand faster than lotto sales?  Then it really hits the fan.  Fortunately, the state of Georgia cannot resort directly to inflation, but however could try to broach the issue on a federal level, so as not to piss off the voters who can no longer expect the existing system to pay for what they want for free.  The feds can inflate.  They can pay for anything!  Financial cannibalism on a grand scale.  It would even be ironic; paying for the education for the future of America by sabotaging the currency necessary for the success of the future of America.

Forcible wealth redistribution breeds contempt among classes when all classes expect to be recipients.  So much for the classless society.

This has been a bit more ramble-y than usual.  There was a point coming originally, which totally got lost.  Tomorrow shall strive for greater coherency.

 

Leave a Comment

Amusing Word of the Day

It’s a noun.  It’s a verb.  It’s … duck!

No, don’t duck.  It’s the word “duck”.

                                                Quack!

According to wikipedia, “duck” is an inherently funny word in almost any language.  Whoever wrote that portion of the articlue surmises that it is because a duck looks funny when compared to other birds.  Jaq doubts this, otherwise owls would be funny.  Jaq believes it has more to do with the quack.  Ducks “quack” in many different languages, which is kinda unusual, because not all animals talk the same in other latitudes.  One horrible example is the pig, who in Russian says, “Hryyou, hryyou”.  Oink?  Nuh-uh.  The duck is remarkably polyglotic.

To properly quack, you have to wrinkle up your nose and make that ‘a’ sound really nasal, keeping your upper lip really stiff.  The next time you’re feelin’ down, quack like a duck out loud as best you can, until you feel too silly to remain depressed.  It works!

The word “duck” is even more amusing when combined in situations where you don’t really expect a duck.  Some forms of obvious dissonance produces mental discomfort, the only relief to which is to laugh at it.  The “Mighty Ducks” is a funny name, because one doesn’t normally associate “mighty” things with all things ducky.  The statement, “go fuck a duck“, for another example, puts two very different kinds of images into your head at the same time.  It’s better because it rhymes, but “go screw a duck” works just about as well to produce a strong yet spikily humorous insult that shouldn’t be taken too seriously by the recipient.

Ducks are funny in the news, too.  The 2006 Chicago ban on foie gras would probably not have garnered as much attention if it were a ban on, say, beef liver.  Subversive black-market duck liver bootleggers?  Yes, says NPR, who would not be reporting if it were any one of the zillions of other things in which people bootleg random crap that doesn’t involve funny words.  (Louis Vuitton replicas smuggled from China, anyone?)

While Jaq was parked for 30 minutes on GA 400 today (literally parked, at one point Jaq got out and took a walk in the 179° heat along the fast lane) Jaq heard NPR quote one Chicago Alderman, Joe Moore, who sponsored the foie gras ban.  “Everyone keeps saying that the city is a laughingstock.  I don’t hear anybody laughing.”

Jaq believes Joe might not be listening too hard.  Go fuck a duck, Joe.

Leave a Comment

Positive Dissonance

You can’t avoid getting cognitive dissonance.  It’s fed to you all day long, unless you live in a cave.  But it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

The way Jaq sees it, you have three choices when confronted with two simultaneouly conflicting ideas or values:

  1. Let your brain collapse into a confuséd pool of jelly.  This puts you into a state where you accept, more or less uncritically, whatever happens next.  If someone has put you into this state intentionally, who’s likely to benefit from your fuse-blow?  Long term, if you accept both sets of ideas, the contradictory mess will not serve you.
  2. Run away from the whole crazy thing.  If you’re truly overwhelmed, this is an acceptable strategy, but not ideal.  You get to run away an awful lot.  Typically this is done by picking one side and backing it to the hilt.  Understand, someone might be setting you up for this, too…
  3. Grapple with it until you can see both sides and judge a way to live with both.  Jaq believes this to be the core process of all human growth — being faced with a deep and uncertain problem, and finding a way to add a strategy to cope.  This lets you set your own agenda.

Sometimes though, there is no one setting any other agenda.  Cognitive dissonance arises naturally when studying other languages.  Jaq, who believes it to be reasonable that if you’re reading this then you must understand English, would like to give you a new wrinkle on “yes” and “no”.  We all know what “yes” and “no” mean, right?

Well, sometimes in carefully defined circumstances, “no” can mean “yes”.

But this isn’t that kind of blog.

Jaq has heard many explanations why some Asians say “yes” when they really mean “no.”  These explanations involve cultural embarassment about disappointing the questioner, etc.  There may be a component of that, but for the Japanese at least, it is literally because “yes”, or <hai>, can also mean “no”, depending on the type of question asked.

This gets VERY confusing when attempting to be bilingual in Japanese/English.  And even more confusing when two native Japanese speakers attempt to communicate in English.  Which yes/no system do they expect to use?  For a fascinating, first hand tale of one journey to wrestle with this issue, click here.


For a completely unrelated use of the word <hai!>, the following is like at least the fourth weirdest thing Jaq has seen today.  So far.  Audio of this will fit nicely in Jaq’s iPod.

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »