I'm educated and can't get know job!

By Joseph Walther

During an average week following the publication of this column, I receive around 360-emails plus another 10- to 15-letters or post cards through the United States Postal Service. These numbers jump considerably, to about 1,100 emails and 100-letters if I hit on the hot button topics: religion, homosexuality, or politics.

The greatest single week’s response, since beginning the electronic version over four years ago, has been 6,345-emails and 345-letters. While I can’t possibly respond to such large volumes of correspondence, I do read most of it. While the bulk of it has been thoughtful, some has not been. And, a few have been nothing more than sorry attempts at veiled threats.

About three weeks ago, I received a letter from a recent—two-years ago—college graduate asking me to write something concerning the plight of people with degrees who can’t seem to be able to land jobs.

Well, since our economy seems to be spiraling the drain of economic horror with ever-increasing orbital velocity, I thought it would be an opportune time to share the young man’s plight with you readers. Maybe some of you could give him some advice.

Here is his letter, verbatim. I’ve removed his name—the lawyers were quite animated about it, too! It’s a genuine letter, though. I have his real address. If any readers out there would like to send him some advice, send it to me via email or USPS mail and I’ll see that he gets it.

Feberary 3, 2008

True Facts Editor

1812 Marsh Rd.

Suite 6, B184

Wilmington, DE 19810

Dear Mr Editer,

2 yeers ago I got a BS degree in Socialalogy at the age of 30. I sent out hundreds of resumes all over the country. I still don’t have no job. Its as thoug employer’s don’t even read them. Some have said to me that I don’t have experience.

No matter how hard I try or how much resumes I send out I just cant get a job. Well, I can’t get experience if people won’t higher me. I even changed my cover letter, droping my salary requirements from $60,000 a year down to $50,000 a year.

I am at my wits end. I’m even thinking about checking with a lawyer about some employers discriminating at me because of my age. My neibor two doors down just won her case. She was fired after 26 years at the age of 50.

Rite now I have been working two part time jobs. I work 22 hrs a week at a local Family Dollar Store at minimum wage and no benifits. I work another 20 hrs a week at Taco Bell. It pays a little more than minimum but still know benifits.

It is so discurageing to be a college graduate working for minimum wage stocking shelves and serving food. If its realy this hard for college graduates to get job it must be inpossible for less educated people to fine work. No wonder people are gone broke.

What really upsets me is that within six weeks after I don’t here nothing about a job I applied for, I see it in the news paper again. This makes me fell like there is something awrong with me.

I have been using a goverment job service even. It don’t do no good thoug because the same people keep posting to it and most of them cant get jops. It makes me wonder why George Bush keeps saying the econimy is doing so good! Maybe he should try to fine a job.

I’m thinkin about gone back to get my masters. They told me that Socialalogy was a hard field to get into with out at least a master’s degree. I guess they were rite. I already took the GRE, but I was not felling well that day. I may have to take it again.

Well, any help you can give me will be fine. I’ve inclosed by phone number (cell). I’ll anser any questions you have.

Sinserely,

Name Withheld

This young man included a real telephone number. I called the number for obvious reasons, never expecting a legitimate response. I actually spoke to him. He verified that he sent the letter.

He’s as sincere as it gets and truly believes that he’s typical of struggling, unemployed, recent college graduates. I assure you that his verbal skills are much better than his written ones. While I discussed this with him, it did not seem to register.

I agreed to publish his letter but not his real name or phone number. People wishing to advise this young man can send it to me, via email or letter. I’ll be delighted to pass it on to him.

I don’t know what else to tell him that I didn’t cover during our phone conversation. Maybe some of you could give him some pointers. Since I’ve not met the man face to face, I certainly can’t rule out the way he dresses as part of his problem.

Next week… same time and channel and, oh yes, before I forget, what in the hell is “Socialalogy?” Admittedly, it’s been decades since I’ve taken college courses. I just assumed it was a misspelling. But… ya never know.

Saaay! It’s not one of those socially oriented, feel good degree programs aimed at “academic-hoop-lowering-so-everyone-can-slam-dunk,” is it? You know the kind… there’s no wrong answers; everyone in the program gets a college degree; and the institution gets tons of tuition income.

Curious minds want to know!

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

But, MAN, he don't say nothin' specific!

By Joseph Walther

I’ve listened to many speakers throughout my life; a few were absolutely terrible; most have been OK; a few more have been downright good; and two have been positively inspiring. This column is about one of the two in the latter category.

All good writers do a lot of listening. While all listeners are not good writers, I do the best I can with what I hear.

For well over three-years, I’ve participated in a couple of well-moderated forums where the topics vary considerably depending on what’s hot at the time.

For the past three weeks, the hot topic has been speeches, Barack Obama’s speeches in particular.

Those who have heard him speak—at least the ones who have emailed or called me—tend to classify his speeches as either highly inspirational or inspirational but devoid of specifics.

One emailer, Mark Gingrich, wrote; “Obama is an outstanding speaker but he doesn’t go into any specifics.” Another emailer, Jack Nubenski, wrote; “This man (Barack Obama) could motivate the devil to turn good! He’s got my vote.”

So far, the emails I’ve received fall into a variation of two basic themes that share a common agreement, but with a major qualification. A big time qualification, indeed.

The common agreement is his unquestioned inspirational ability and the fact that the Senator comes off as politically atypical; a person who does NOT sound like a politician.

The major qualification is that some people knock him for his lack of specifics while others do not seem to care at all about the lack of specifics.

Here’s the interesting part, though. The universal theme of those emails from people identifying themselves as Conservative is, “fabulous speaker but non-specific.”And, to this group, they see his lack of specifics as a serious flaw.

Those identifying themselves as Liberals, on the other hand, also think he’s unbelievably inspirational but don’t seem to care about his lack of specific remedies.

I’ve heard him speak on television and in person. If you’ve heard him speak on TV and think he’ inspirational, you’d be absolutely mesmerized if you heard in person.

Terms like captivating, motivating, and inspiring don’t begin to capture the mood in his audiences. It’s a truly amazing experience to watch his audiences as they literally fixate themselves on both his presence and his every word.

Personally, I think Senator Obama IS a motivating speaker of the highest caliber. I also acknowledge the charges that he does not get into specifics and that that he lacks some experience. But, there’s no question that he’s an atypical politician.

On the other hand, he seems well informed about most issues and he demonstrates a remarkable degree of intellectual curiosity.

Combined with a knack for surrounding himself with highly qualified advisors—both PRO and CON issue wise—his positive qualifications seem to outweigh his shortcomings and elevate his status to that of a serious contender.

I think he purposely fails to mention specifics and relishes in being politically atypical. Furthermore, I think he has surrounded himself with a superb campaign management team.

His campaign manger knows how to run a campaign effectively, but even more important, Senator Obama knows EXACTLY what he’s doing as a viable candidate.

The best presidents we’ve had as a nation have been those who have been non-specific relative what they’re going to “fix.” They were not specific because they knew that, alone, they couldn’t fix ANYTHING, let alone micro-manage specifics.

They’ve always seemed to know that our real underlying problems have had more to do with poor coalition-building on the part of its presidents, than a mere lacking in the ability to “fix” things at the micro level.

The main theme of Obama’s campaign is CHANGE. He’s said so from the beginning of the primaries. And, so far, he’s shown a potential to create this change through a means not seen in Washington, DC for the past twenty-years: UNITY.

He certainly has the oratory wherewithal. Combining it with his intellectual curiosity and general knowledge on most issues gives him a better shot than all of the others at creating the changes that WE, the people, mean by change.

This country has been in the throes of gridlock for many years. It began to increase in intensity with George H. W. Bush’s Administration. It increased significantly with the beginning of the first Clinton Administration.

By the end of Clinton’s second term, it was rapidly headed toward critical mass. Throughout George W. Bush’s two Administrations it’s reached absolute critical mass.

Blaming gridlock on the Executive Branch is easy to do, especially if you dislike the President. It might feel good, but it’s stupid. All it does in is throw the country into a state of political paralysis.

The Executive Branch, by Constitutional mandate, is only ONE of the three SEPARATE branches in our system of government. And, while important, it’s not the MOST important.

The Legislative Branch, not the Executive, runs the country. Our legislators enact the laws of the land and set the rules by which the country functions and the manner in which the Executive Branch operates. No matter WHAT the Executive Branch may want to do, Legislators have the power to legislatively hold them accountable.

The Judicial Branch, though a seemingly endless maze of federal and state courts, is supposed to ensure the legality and ultimate constitutionality of what the other two branches do.

However, replacing interpretation with activism relative to our Constitution only throws more sand into the gears of government.

Even though all three branches of government are independent, the entire system falls apart when any single branch fails in its constitutional responsibilities. And, RIGHT NOW, all three branches are failing miserably.

The current Executive Branch seems to believe that it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants and has proceeded to act exclusively in accordance with its OWN interpretation of the Constitution.

They’ve truly made convenience the imperative while effectively relegating truth to the status of a mere option. They’ve raised obfuscation to an art form of unprecedented proportions, while the Legislative gang has done nothing to interfere.

Meanwhile, all out pure partisan warfare has rendered the entire Legislative Branch politically impotent to a point that NOTHING of any real meaning gets done.

The gang on Capitol Hill has permitted the partisan extremes to hijack the entire process; replacing viable non-partisan issue-oriented dialog with partisan positional agreement at all costs. Positional veracity, or lack thereof, no longer means anything.

In other words, unanimous party agreement is now far more important than it is for both parties to test the effectiveness of various party proposals and work together to reach workable compromises.

The reason that little—much of the time NOTHING—gets done in Washington is unprecedented GRIDLOCK caused mostly by the United States Senate filibuster rules.

Under these rules, as few as forty senators, representing as little as 11% of the population, can bring the entire legislative process to a screeching halt for months on end.

Both sides are guilty of it, too. When the Republicans were in control, the Democrats had a filibuster orgy. The Democrats are in control now and the Republicans, having stocked up on plenty of lubrication, are making up for lost time in a monumental way.

Continuing at the present rate, this current gang of “Rs” will have broken all filibuster records by doing so a total of 140 times. And, this is ONLY during THIS term!

Presidential candidates can give all of the rousing, inspirational speeches they want. They can lay out their agendas with details galore as to how they’ll solve specific problems. But, none of it means a damn thing.

Write this down! A United States President cannot solve a single problem if our nationally elected legislators refuse of do their jobs. The United States Congress has to be willing to forego partisan bickering and LEGISLATE. Get it?

TV talk-show sages of either political persuasion, Conservative or Liberal, can call it whatever they wish and continue to blame the other side until pigs fly.

As well, political analysts representing ALL forms of media outlets, can pontificate, prognosticate, and predict outcomes until the end of time. It won’t solve a thing until everyone starts calling this crap what it is: OBSTRUCTIONISM.

Until then, none of the candidate-defined proposals—including the minutest of specifics—have a snowball’s chances in hell of succeeding.

I will vote—even to the point of self-herniation while racing to the polls—for the first candidate who demonstrates an ability to replace obstructionism with meaningful political dialog among our national legislators.

Neither will I care a hoot about the gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation—or NONE—age, race, nor political party affiliation of such a candidate!

If a President can accomplish this, delving into specifics won’t be necessary. The Legislative Branch will effectively deal with the specifics. And, once they begin doing this, the Executive and Judicial Branches will fall right into line, just as the Constitution intended.

At present, the only candidate showing any potential for doing this is Barack Obama. Additionally, he’s the ONLY candidate who has not claimed to have any secret solutions relative to any specific issues. And, he most certainly possesses the ability to inspire throngs of people.

IF he receives his party’s nomination, and IF the country elects him, and IF he can continue to inspire the people of this nation to move off of their collective butts with the same fervor he’s inspiring people to come out and support his candidacy, he may just be the ticket we need to get ourselves, as a nation, back on tract.

We shall see. Have a great week.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Let me take away some of your rights and I'll keep you safe!

By Joseph Walther

About two weeks ago, I found myself on the receiving end of a bit of a lecture involving the Patriot Act. The speaker, Mr. Harold Gerson, was extolling the virtues of the Act and how “patriotic” Americans need to rally around our President and support his bid to make it permanent in order to help assure our Nation’s continuity.

I have no real idea who Mr. Gerson is. He introduced himself as a member of some right-wing freedom organization. I’m not going to give it any free advertising here. The point is that I took significant offense at his little talk.

Like most of the blindfolded Bush diehards, he seemed to imply that those who disagree with making the provisions of the Patriot Act permanent are, at best, not patriotic and at worst, outright traitors.

What scared me even more than Gerson was the fact that several members of the audience seemed ready to run out and write letters to their congressional representatives in absolute favor of the matter.

I understand the Patriot Act—intimately… like, verbatim, dude! I have a copy in front of me as I write this. It has brought out the activist in me like nothing else ever has. I’ve written letters opposing it. I’ve given testimony about it.

In the interests of insight, I’m going to summarize my points relative to their Constitutional impact. Also, for our collective good, we need to start understanding that everything the government does, allegedly on our behalf, is not in our best interests.

Also, many of the things proposed by George W. Bush relative to his execution of the war on “terror” have been outright stupid. Expanding the provisions of the Patriot Act and making them permanent are just two more acts of sheer stupidity.

At the outset, understand that the probability of any one citizen of this country falling prey to the provisions of the Patriot Act is not worth the effort to calculate it. Collectively, however, it’s am absolute certainty that some folks are going to be screwed royally.

First, everyone needs to understand that ALL United States Presidents have ALWAYS had broad powers in matters of national security during times of war. As shocking as it may be for, I’m sure, many to find out, the provisions in our Constitution can be, and HAVE BEEN, suspended in times of declared wars.

This fact, alone, renders most of the Patriot Act as superfluous to begin with. Presidents already had very broad powers. So the point of the Patriot Act had nothing to do with “protecting” us citizens from the “bad” guys.

On the other hand, it had EVERYTHING to do with creating the illusion of doing something to guarantee our safety through the EXPANSION of certain PROVISIONS of those PRE-EXISTING powers. To wit:

The Patriot Act EXPANDS terrorism laws to include "domestic terrorism." I'm using quotes here for a reason. It isn't that domestic terrorism does not exist. It does. But then, it has always existed. I’m not trying to diminish its danger, either.

However, under the Patriot Act's EXPANSION, "domestic terrorism" is determined to be whatever the White House says that it is. Those involved, no matter how innocent the intentions, will have no say in the matter. All the White House will have to do is say the MAGIC words: "for intelligence purposes."

It exposes mere politically organized opposition to non-warrant surveillance. There'd no longer be a need for one of those pesky old warrants. It would open us up to virtually unlimited wiretapping, harassment, and criminal proceedings for nothing more than political opposition. And, all the Administration would have to say is... "for intelligence purposes."

Second, it EXPANDS law enforcement's right to conduct secret searches through the acquisition of phone records, Internet surveillance, medical records, financial records, mental health records, and student records, all WITHOUT an ounce of judicial oversight.

Again, all they'll need to say in defense of their actions are those wonderfully magical words: “for intelligence purposes.”

Third, it specifically EXPANDS the FBI's power to investigate, AT WILL, every American citizen over virtually any criminal matter—based on nothing more than someone's hunch. We might just as well remove “probable cause” from the Bill of Rights. Again, they'll only need to say the magic words... "for security purposes."

Fourth, it EXPANDS the ability of the Feds to go after non-citizens; putting them in jail for indefinite periods on nothing more than suspicions and denying them any type of judicial review.

And, before some of you "law and order" types tell me that such people have no rights, let me just say... um... well, BULLSHIT!

There are millions of non-citizens living and working is this country LEGALLY. Illegals—between 9-million and 14-million, depending on which set of data estimates you believe—comprise a small percentage of the total.

Even so, at a minimum, all non-citizens, once apprehended for whatever reasons, have the RIGHT to embassy personnel in their country of origin unless diplomatic relations do not exist.

Like it or not, the four expansionary areas I listed above jeopardize our rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

As I wrote above, the likelihood of any one U. S. citizen falling victim to these expansions is not high. Collectively, though, it's a guarantee.

If you’re thinking that they will NOT read YOUR emails, or listen to YOUR phone calls because you’re not doing anything wrong, you’re probably correct. The point is that they COULD do so.

While they are not likely to read or listen to YOUR stuff, it's a cinch that they'll be reading and listening to other people's stuff, though.

And, if they do hit YOURS, even if you've done something inadvertently, most likely with no idea that you've done anything wrong, your potential exposure to a sustained period of emotional and physical hell is assured.

It's assured because, by making these four expansions permanent, we will have granted the government carte blanche to decide, UNILATERALLY, that YOU have committed a crime. And again, they’d need only to have said those magic words: "for intelligence purposes."

A guarantee of security and safety is an impossibility. People who claim to have the powers to keep us safe are delusional. All they really accomplish is the illusion of being safe.

Whenever such people—no matter how seemingly sincere their intentions—include a few “minor” changes to our Constitution, we can be sure that Mr. Murphy, of Murphy’s Law fame, is lurking close by.

Interesting fellow, that Mr. Murphy. He’s roamed this planet since the advent of the human race. He's been present and taken an active hand in every catastrophe we humans have ever endured.

He was present in the World Trade Towers on 9/11. He was aboard the Hindenburg, Titanic, and Apollo-13. He was lurking in the early morning shadows at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. He’s played a significant role in every commercial and private airline crash we’ve ever heard of.

He was everywhere in Viet Nam, Korea, WW-I and II. And, if it occurs, he'll have played a significant role in starting WW-III.

What's more important to remember is that he's always left the scene, completely unscathed, with the snug satisfaction that he's completed his mission while eagerly awaiting the next one.

As usual, we’ll be left in an emotional daze, trying to legislate a way to inoculate ourselves against his future rages, which most assuredly will find us at the usual inopportune of times.

I have no problems granting our government leaders extraordinary powers during extraordinarily perilous times. I just don't want to make them permanent.

We can always grant them anew as conditions warrant. However, history has shown, repeatedly, that once we give up a freedom, we do NOT get it back. As for making these expansions permanent, I can literally smell Mr. Murphy!

Back at you next week. Stay safe, but don’t forfeit your rights to guarantee it, though.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Ya know what this country needs?

By Joseph Walther

Last week’s article had a definite political theme. Judging by the large number of responses—5,419 emails over a 6-day period—it hit some sensitive nerves. While I try to keep political writings to a minimum, I’m going to stay with a political theme for this week, also.

This general election year, for reasons I can’t quite figure out—other than the obvious ones of discontent over the same old crap coming out of Washington, DC, including the White House, has piqued my interests. It’s piqued the interests of many others, too, especially the younger set.

All of the candidates, as always, are long on what’s wrong with the country, as well as who’s to blame—the other party, naturally—but woefully short on specific solutions. Well… other than being absolutely certain that the other side’s solutions won’t work, that is.

The news media is supposed to be neutral on all of it and help us citizens to differentiate among political spin, outright lies, and pure bullshit. As has been the case over the past thirty-years, though, they’re not doing it.

They’re too busy replacing lucid discussion with heated provocation and playing “gotcha” with various candidates over unimportant issues.

Of course, we citizens are not blameless, either. We continually fail to realize that democracy is a perpetually evolving experimental process that needs meaningful debate in order to survive.

But, meaningful debate is impossible if we’re not reasonably informed on problematic issues, willing to overcome mutually exclusive positions, and prepared to engage in rational conversations based on facts instead of purely emotional adrenalin.

Since 9/11/2001, the Republican Party, having detected the presence of reasonable amounts of fear throughout the country, has assumed exclusive rights to monger it. Conversely, at least at this point, I have no idea what the Democrats have been trying to do or what they stand for. I don’t think they do, either.

We’ve spent the last eight years at the mercy of a President who seemed bent on proving his monumental lack of intellectual curiosity. Furthermore, his ship-of-state guidance system appears to have been based on nothing more than a guessing game of instinct and faith. So far, the inherent value of fact-based open dialog has soared well above his head.

While these circumstances have given the Democrats a golden opportunity to regain the White House, as well as a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, they seem more intent than usual on screwing it up big time.

When will we realize that there is not a person in this country capable of single handedly solving the myriad problems we face? Since our present political imperative has been reduced to all members of a given side agreeing on some action as opposed to any merits of the action itself, we can’t solve most of our problems… PERIOD!

This is what happens when the citizens of a democracy permit the proponents of invective and divisiveness to hijack both sides of the political realm: conservatism AND liberalism. Honest dialogs disintegrate to nothing, thus reducing political debate to mere multiple monologues with witnesses.

We don’t need candidates who promise to solve specific problems. They can’t deliver on such promises. We desperately need to send someone—male or female—to the Oval Office who is willing to abandon the old attack-and-defend model of debate and replace it with the conflict resolution model. Why? Because it’s so much better!

It places rationality above reactivity, sincerity above disingenuousness, authentic representation above dissembling, meaning above absurdity, and recognition above cynical suspicion.

As big and populated as this country is, such a person MUST exist. Please! Come forward. I’d vote to elect such a person in a heartbeat regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or religious/non-religious position: Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Other, Atheist, or Agnostic.

Now, moving on, I’d like to air two other pet peeves I have harbored for many years: moral absolutism and the way we treat our Constitution.

I recently heard a discussion between former Secretary of Education under George H. W. Bush, Bill Bennett, and some callers to his radio talk show. The topic was the ever-increasing threat to the “sanctity” of marriage by gays seeking the right to marry their partners.

Admittedly, I don’t like Bill Bennett… AT ALL. I think he’s a pontificating, self-absorbed, self-appointed moral windbag. So, I’m not the most even-keeled voice of reason when it comes to his views. Keep this in mind as you read some of what follows.

Mr. Bennett, like all loyal partisan absolutists, likes to define this issue as a mere definition of marriage and whether we need to place—on God’s behalf, of course—a “between men and women only” restriction on its participants. I disagree with such a position.

I don’t believe that homosexuality is a random fetish, something that people choose to do. I think the issue is more about who counts as human and about understanding sexuality as it applies to the human condition.

If people wish to object to gay marriage on religious grounds, fine. It’s their right to do so as it is religion’s right to set such rules for its members wishing to marry via religious ceremonies. They do not have the right, however, to set the rules for civil ceremonies. And, we don’t need to waste millions of dollars and years of time changing the Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Finally, the above reference to our Constitution leads me to my other peeve: our obsession with an unconditional interpretation of what our founders intended concerning the text they gave us.

We are too preoccupied with our attempts at perpetuating the long-lived myth that our forefathers were infallible. We continually worship at the altar of the forefathers, even though doing so does not solve many of our problems.

For the most part, I think we do it unconsciously. Regardless, we have to stop it. We live in today’s world with its own problems and conditions. It’s about time we develop the intellectual capacity to think for ourselves relative to our own time.

The thing about our founders is that they KNEW they didn’t know everything. This fact is what makes our Constitution a stroke of genius. It comes to us with a built-in method for making changes to it.

Some of the things they wanted to cover under the Constitution no longer apply to us, at least not in the same way it did to them. Conversely, they could not have conceived—in their wildest collective imagination—many of the problems we face today.

So, they gave us a neat little way to address the situation. Amendments! By God they gave us the right to amend stuff. With them we can cover things they never thought about. We can remedy mistakes that we’ve made by adding or subtracting stuff. We can even change existing Constitutional Amendments if so warranted.

They made it tough to do and that’s fine. We should be positively sure that we want to change Constitutional provisions, especially where personal freedoms are concerned.

I think it boils down to us ceasing to blame our own collective inflexibility on men who have been dead for centuries. The sooner we stop doing it, the better off we’re going to be.

OK, this is it for the political stuff for a while. Next week I’m going back to my wise-assed old self. See you then.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.