Write Stripes

Hey everyone,

I am afraid that I got rather behind on my blogs ever since I was absent one week with strep. Anyway, I will try to keep my answers simple and to the point, as there are a lot of blogs to read through.

Interview Questions:
1. Tell me about a stressful school or job situation, and how you resolved it.

2. What would be your ultimate dream job to have on the side? (I knew a dietetic internship perspective who was asked a question similar to this. She said that she has always wanted to open up a chocolateria (spelling?)

Difference between being and performing:

In reference to what Anne was saying, I agree that performance is not a fair indicator of what it means to be a good citizen. I think that "being" simply might entail having no interaction with any aspect of society. For example, this might include living in seclusion from everyone. The point is that everyone has his/her own perogative or idea of how they want to live his/her life. Just because someone decides that they don't want to actively participate or perform in voting, etc., who is to say that they are a bad citizen. ur in a number of degrees. I would also agree that a person's intentions have a lot to do with being a good citizen in the extent that if you are trying to harm yourself or others, then you surely are not being a good citizen. So I guess sometimes there is criteria for a bad citizen, but it is hard to define what a being a good citizen involves.

In reference to the American Dream, I would definitely disagree with everyone who said that "all men are created equal." Due to biological and genetic differences this is already impossible. Since we are not all created equal, it would therefore be impossible to treat everyone equally. By no means am I saying that we should not try to be as fair as possible, but sometimes there is no avoiding it. Although I think the principles behind affirmative action (ie. trying to give disadvantaged people a boost, etc) are a nice idea, I think the actual practice of affirmative action is unfair. The cases where affirmative action really bothers me has to do with jobs that require a tremendous amount of skill such as doctors. I know that if I ever have a family member whose life is on the line, I want them to be treated by a doctor who had the best qualifications. I don't care if they are trying to make the doctor profession more diverse. I realize that being a woman has its disadvantages. I will probably run into cases where I get the worser end of the deal because I am a woman. And although I agree with Marcie in that I don't want to be hired just because I am a woman, I have to also keep in mind that being a woman also has its perks. For instance, I am not going to complain that I will be more likely than a male to get off a speeding ticket (now I realize this isn't fair, but hey).

I think that the definition of a good citizen is so subjective that it is a difficult question to address. In a real basic definition, a good citizen would be a law abiding and engaged citizen. Law abiding is obvious, but one can be engaged in so many different ways that it is hard to come up with specific examples as we all have such different ideas of how this country should be run and so forth. In addition, we might not necessarily agree with some of the existing laws. For instance, what about those crazy, outdated laws that noone has bothered to change. And what about these crazy blue laws that exist in SC.

I definitely agree that citizenship that works well in one country is definitely not basis for a template in every other country. The reason that they are not interchangable simply has to do with the fact that there are so many different cultures with different values, beliefs, and sociological practices.

I see the American Dream as a goal that we must continually work towards, but one that will never be a perfect reality. I do realize a lot of flaws in our system and sometimes the government makes decisions that seem very ethnocentric and injust, but no government is perfect. This is where we citizens step in to do whatever we can to better society. Awareness is one step. (NOTE: I encourage everyone to watch at least one of Michael Moore's film documentaries- Bowling For Columbine offers an interesting perspective on how our government works). A lot of times our voices are not heard, but sometimes we can make small steps. As much as I often hear people complain about the US, most of us are very lucky to live in a country where we have the opportunity to live the American Dream. As we are not all created equal, we do have different odds and we will reach varying levels of success. In fact, many people will fail in this American dream and it will not be their fault at all. Many homeless people simply became that way because of circumstances beyone their control. As much as this sucks, this is life. It is sometimes a harsh reality and it is not fair at all. Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that my great grandparents immigrated from countries like Poland and Lithuania in search of the American dream. Upon arrival they had to face many hardships and discrimination and lived nothing near to the American Dream. Nevertheless, hard work has paid off over generations and I am grateful to have the opportunity to go to college (unlike my dad even). Unfortunately for many, the American Dream has a lot of chance and risk involved.

In reference to job searching. I still believe that sometimes you really have to put on an inital "interview face." I know that Brandon agreed with Tripp in that he wouldn't want to work for a company that wouldn't hire him because of his name. And although I understand where you guys are coming from, sometimes you have to put on that initial front just to get your foot in the door. When they first meet you, they can categorize you however they want. Unfortunately their stereotype might work against you. As I said in class, I am going to take out my nose ring for my job interview. You could argue, "I am not going to iron my shirt because if don't care about my credentials and they just want some high maintaince...." The fact is that there are unwritten rules that it is wise to adhere to in job interviews. Although my nose ring might not affect an employer's decision, why risk it. For that reason, I will also show up at the interview in my most professional attire and I will give them what they want to hear in the interview. After I am hired and once they get to know the real me behind my appearance, name, ethnicity, background, etc.. then I might ask about the nose ring.
-Ashley

Question 1: Why did you choose this company/lab/etc?
This is a hard question to answer because you will have to have some knowledge of the company or lab. I guess it is a good way to weed out the people who aren't ambitious but it's a scary question. When I was looking for internships last summer, all of the people I interviewed with asked me about what I knew about the research in that lab. Companies and labs tend to be proud of their work so it is always good to have background knowledge before an interview.

Question 2: What are your plans for the future?
This is a very vague question but I guess it helps the interviewers see where your priorities are. Most people would talk about their career plans but it would be a good time to bring up other things that are important to you.

Question 1:
Where do you see your carreer going?
This question gets at the future plans of the applicant and can allow the employer to decide if the person is someone who will stick around or take off in a few years. It's a hard question because many college graduates don't know where their career is going.
Question 2:
What was your most difficult obstacle in college and how did you overcome it?
This allows the employer to deternmine how the applicant will respond and adapt to obstacles and changes in the workplace. This is also a difficult question because it forces the applicant to reflect on a question that was anticipated and unrelated to their obvious qualifications.

Kristian,
Do you not agree that the "native American girl who lives on a reservation" can do whatever she wants in life if she is determined enough? Yes, we live in a materialistic environment where most are concerned only with money, especially those of us who have none. The fact that we all have an opportunity to better our situation is the definition of the American Dream. While those who start with a disadvantage must try harder to achieve their goals they also appreciate the system that allowed them to do so. Working hard is not a bad thing.

Question 1 -- Tell me about yourself.
I know this isnt a question, but it is something that you hear in interviews and its a difficult question to answer. Some people would say something about their personal life first, but it is probably good to focus on your strengths or past experiences and proven successes instead. This gives them an insight into who you are without getting too personal and possibly turning them off to you.

Question 2 -- What qualities do you have that will help you succeed in this company?
I guess for this question it would be best to answer with talking about your strengths and experiences, past success stories and what you did in the situation, stuff like that.

For this week's blog:

1) What would you like for us to remember about you after this interview?

Think simple. Realize that everyone is going to have pretty much the same qualifications. Face it. What should set you apart is your personality. If they see that you can talk to them easily (yet in an appropriate manner), that you aren't a total bore, and that you can make them laugh, on top of your brilliant education and work experience, they will be sure to remember you.

2) If you had a choice between two projects and the only thing you knew about the projects was that one was a two week prject and the other was a six month project, which one would you pick and why?

This one's easy, if you think about it. If you are a person who works well under pressure (i.e. a procrastinator), say that you'd like the 2 week one. You get it done without fooling around. If you are a planner (Paul ;)) say the six month project. Also, if you are more detail-oriented, the six-month one would probably lean more that way.

Question 1 -- Why should we chose you over another person?

Question 2 -- What will you be able to offer us that will benefit our company?


Althought these are not extremely hard questions, they should be carefully thoughtout. An inappropriate answer could have a negative impact on your interview. The opposite is also true, these questions give you the opportunity to have a very positive impact on the interview. I would say you want to sound very impmressive, but not haughty, this may be difficult to achieve without proper preparation.

2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist (both in America and in the world) with "The American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men [sic] are created equal?

3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching?



2. "All men are created equal" does not specifically refer to everyone being exactly the same in every aspect. Of course some people are smarter than others, some people are able to preform certain tasks better than others, but this is all common sense. When you talk about ask how do you "reconcile the inequitites that exist" this could mean any number of things. There will always be things that are unjust to someone, whether the majority of people think it is or not. This is due simply to the fact that all men are not the same. We may, as humans, all deserve the same underlying repsect, unless of course that person has done something to destroy that respect, but the point is that it is not possible to reconcile all the inequities that exsist in the world. We can, and should, try out best, but we will never reach the ultimate solution.

3. With the above in mind, in job searching we must put on a false front if we want to ensure success. However sad this may be, most employers are not looking at the person you really are, but they are comparing you to what other people have demonstrated so you must also do your best to demonstrate that you're qualities are at that or above the other persons.

In response to what Brandon posted. We are all not born with the same opportunities. Not to sound mean, but it seems like you live in your own little perfect world if you believe that. For example, a white, upperclass, male had many more opportunities than a native American girl who lives on a reservation. Although they both share the same rights, it is obvious that one will already have a head start in opportunity category. I must agree if you really want to be successful you can do it but if we had to compare the amount of work that goes into one person being rich compared to another than there would be a huge difference.

Kristian

Question 1 -- How would your skills help improve our company's goals?

Question 2 -- If someone takes credit for work that you have done, how would you handle the situation?

For question one I would suggest that the interviewee research the company thoroughly before the interview so that they know the companies goals. Also, it would be helpful to give real examples. For example if a companies goal is to be the leading pharmaceutical company in the nation, you could emphasize your marketing and sales skills and convince them that you would be capable of contributing to their goal.

For question two I would suggest that the interviewee be honest. Also I would suggest that interviewee know the companies ethics/honesty policies and try to speak with some of the current employee to see if the situation has happened before and how it was handled. This can be a really tricky question because you need to be honest yet you don't want to sound like a complainer.

Well, if you were born in the United States than you are a citizen, however in order to perform as a citizen you must do some things to prove yourself worthy. Performing as a citizen will require taking an active part in making political decisions such as voting, or forming/supporting collations, and supporting the politicians that make decisions that you agree with. Also having a job and paying taxes is another way that people who are not as influencial can do their part to be a "good" citizen. I do agree with Matt in the fact that we should not gauge citizenship by actions, because like the second question refers to all of us do not have equal opportunities to demonstrate our citizenship. The American dream is not a reality for all. When we examine the amount of poor, underserved, homeless people there is no way that we could fairly rate their citizenship if it were only based on actions. I think that everyone has to be rated differently as to citizenship. The "American Dream" is only a cruel joke that only sounds nice but in reality is only experience by a select group of people typically the white upperclass within the United States. I cannot really speak for other countries and how their "American dream" works. I do know that within every society exists a hierarchy in which only the ones on the top get to make the decisions for all of those who are below. Therefore, the dreams of a citizenry could never be fully expericence due to the cap that prevents their voices from being heard. Also many other countries do not attempt to exist in a republic as we try to, therefore we know that the voiceof lower citizenry is silenced. As for the quote, "all men are created equal" it is another lie that sounds good but in actuality holdslimited truths. If we get basic no one is created equal. God makes us all unique in our abilities and disabilities, so therefore we start off on different playing grounds. Also, inequality among races and genders is very real today as it was back when that quote was first published. All men are not created equal and within the society that we live in today it is even more obvious of this discrepancy. All these questions affect a job serach in that employers are only looking for certain qualities, and even if you do have the skills your skin color or gender could prevent you from getting a job that you are equally qualified to get. The fact that all men are not created equal is not necessary a bad thing, if we all had the same chance of getting a job than it would be extremely hard trying to hire people who are all perfectly qualified.

Two Questions:
"Why should we hire you?" -- I would like to avoid the generic responses if possible.
"Where do you want to be in five years? Ten years?" Who knows?!

In response to Curtis, I don't think it's necessarily "wrong" to talk about your weaknesses. The interviewer knows you're not perfect, so I think the key is to find weaknesses to which you can give a positive spin. For example, as a graduate coming out of college, employers will know that you don't have a lot of experience, but you can tell them that you look forward to gaining experience with their company or something to that effect. You might also say that you were unable to test your presentation skills to a high degree while in school and you are hoping to be challenged in that area.

Jessica-
Money has nothing to do with equalty. The abilty to make money has everything to do with equality. We are all born with the same opportunities and rights, just different resources. But we also have the opportunity to get more resources. Nothing is stopping anyone from become successful and rich, if that's what you want.
Paul-
I agree that not everyone is born with the same abilities but does that mean that someone like Larry Bird can't become one of the best basketball players of all time. Through hard work one can achieve anything.

First in response to Robert-
All I am saying is that I don't think it is fair to be forced to join the military in order to achieve rights such as voting. We don't live in Korea, we live in America where citizens are allowed to choose their own future. You along with everyone else in the armed forces made the choice to join. Whether for educational, experience or career motivations everyone enlisted made their own choice, just as I have made the choice to not participate in the military. One of our inherent principles in the U.S. is that we have the freedom to choose our own path.

Being and Performing-
Being a good citizen and performing as a good citizen are connected in that to be a "good" citizen one must perfrom acts which make that person a "good" citizen.

The American Dream-
The American Dream is real and all men are created equal. Everyone in America is born with the same rights and opportunities. While some may have to strive harder to attain their desired goals we all have the abilitiy to achieve anything we want. While we don't all start with the same resources, we all have the ability to seek out and get the resources needed to achieve what we want. I'm remembering when Dr. Yancey said that not everyone can become president. I completely disagree. Just because something seems impossible doesn't mesn that it is impossible. There are amazing cases all the time of people defying the odds and doing what most would have considered impossible. In this country people can start with nothing and end up with everything through hard work and determination. Look at our class for example. We all come from different backgrounds financially. Whether school was paid for through our families, the military, loans, or our own money we have all figured out a way to overcome the burden of tuition and are trying to better ourselves through a good education. Some of us will have moved up in social class by simply graduating and that is the American Dream. All men are created equal and if that wasn't true most of us wouldn't be here.
Jod Searching-
The reality of job searching is that hard work will eventually pay off. While you may be discriminated on in the jab market eventually you will be rewarded for your efforts. Maybe that's an idealistic view, but consider this: Would you want to work for someone who discriminated on the basis of race, religion nationality...etc. Take Tripp's name for example. I think he should keep it on his resume. If someone doesn't want to give him a job based on some misconcieved perception about the word Tripp, than they are someone I don;t want to work for anyway and I'm sure Tripp agrees.

1. I think I already answered this, citizenship isnt just being. There is a big difference and actions are the most importance guage for how good of a citizen a person is. I do think, though, that just because one person is more active than another doesnt show how good the person is. I think it is intention for the actions, capabilities for action, and the simple fact that the person is taking action.
2. I totally agree with Paul. I'm going to save all the rambling because it has already been done, but we are definately NOT all created equal. Not to be cocky, but I know that I am smarter, and also dumber, than other people. There is no reason to think that we all should ever live an equal life. I think the idea of all people being equal is the idea that all people should at least be given the same opportunities. Even if we aren't equal, we shouldn't be discriminated against because of the inequalities.
3. These things apply to job searching from affirmative action, which I think is bullshit. I dont think that employers should higher one person over another just because they are trying to reach a quota. I think you should higher the person who is most qualified for the job. If that means that it is a white man or a black woman, who cares. And, if that means that it makes it harder for me or someone else to find a job, that tells me that I need to better qualify myself. I dont want a job because I'm a woman, I want it because I'm qualified, and I don't want someone doing a job that affects me to get the job because he or she is a certain race. It should all be based on qualifications.

Two questions that I myself have difficulty answering are "Tell me your strengths" and "Tell me your weaknesses." The first question is difficult to answer because I do not like bragging about myself and I always think my strengths sound pretty generic. The second question is difficult to answer because at an interview it is important to impress the interviewer, it seems "wrong" to talk about your faults.

1. What is the difference in "being" and "performing"? Matt says we shouldn't gauge citizenships by actions. What are the alternatives.

I think the only way to gauge things is by actions. As the saying goes actions speak louder than words. If I called myself a student, but never went to classes, did homework etc. etc. would I really be a student to the same extent of someone who goes to class everyday, does all their assignments, and actively seeks out knowledge? From what some of you have said on the blog, I guess you would say these two people are equally good students, I however do not. Your actions should be a reflection of your beliefs and the roles in which you are engaged.

2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist (both in America and in the world) with "The American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men are created equal"?

Money, as long as some people have more money then other people, no one will ever be equal

3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching?

I'm not sure...., i guess that your more likely to get a job if you're rich, which is true.

There are two parts to this week's first blog prompt. First, please suggest two questions for Thursday's job interview practice. To make this as useful as possible, suggest questions that you have been asked, that you (or someone you know) has difficulty answering, or that you anticipate being a "sticky" part of your interview. Try to have this first post done no later than early on Wednesday. For the 2nd half of the prompt, suggest some strategies that would be useful in answering a question that someone else has posted. Try not to answer a question that's already been addressed (and definitely don't duplicate anyone else's question.)

1. What is the difference in "being" and "performing"? So say that a person serves in the military, runs for public office, helps the needy, etc. and yet the reason is because he/she is a type of terrorist bent on destroying the country. I don't even think that performing is enough to be considered a good citizen. I guess it all depends on the intentions behind the actions, but even then I believe that most people (not all but a majority) may do the public service because of where it will get them. Maybe one could say that doesn't matter as long as the public service is done, but that's sort of a Machiavellian view. This is why I think that it is hard to determine what makes a good citizen. Oh, I got off on a tangent.
2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist with the "American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men [sic] are created equal? I agree with Paul and Beth that men are not created equal. I can sort of see both sides of the argument. It seems unfair that certain people are born into certain situations. Of course it is true that everybody can improve their situation but come on, how many of you people dislike that person who gets everything his/her way? I agree with Paul that transfer of wealth is not the answer, but I do not know a way that an equal playing field can be created gracefully. Even if we got to the point where everybody had the same opportunities and situations I think that people would make a situation where people were unequal. I think it is human nature to want to be better than someone else, and this means that everybody cannot be equal. Maybe that's a pessimistic view but can you actually imagine a world where everybody is truly equal?
3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching? I am not sure how it will affect job searching. I'm sure that it will probably affect me though. I am a minority woman in the chemistry field, and I am sure that eventually that will influence my ability to get a job. It perturbs me that this is the case, but I think that even without affirmative action, companies would still try to hire to maintain diversity (especially if it reflects well on the company). I think that everybody should get an equal chance regardless of color, creed, etc. but in a society that is in the process trying to make everybody equal, this cannot be the case.

1. First to clarify the situation.... my comment was "Actions can be a means by which to gauge whether or not someone "may" be a good a citizen, but in no way does it define what a good citizen is." Meaning actions are an indicator but not the only thing that should be taken into consideration and that there should not just be a definitive set of actions that one has to perform to become a "good citizen."

I'll post repsonses to other questions in a bit...

On citizenship, (in)equality, and the "rat race"...

1. What is the difference in "being" and "performing"? Matt says we shouldn't gauge citizenship by actions. What are the alternatives?

Simply put, I believe "being" means meeting the minimum legal requirements for citizenship. "Performing," on the other hand, involves meeting the obligations and responsibilities that citizenship implies. i.e., abiding by the laws of the country, raising your children and providing for their education (if you choose to have kids), pursuing gainful employment to at least support yourself (as opposed to languishing on welfare), etc. As Beth so aptly put it, one is a passive state and the other is an active pursuit.

2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist (both in America and in the world) with "The American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men [sic] are created equal?"

DISCLAIMER: Like Robert, I am about to ramble...

All men are NOT created equal. It is a ridiculous assertion to assume that all people are born with precisely the same athletic ability, intellectual capacity, and personality characteristics. The thrust of the notion of "equality" in this country, as I see it, is ensuring that no ADDITIONAL inequalities are artificially imposed to further widen the gap between us. Skin color, gender, and religious preference should NOT be seen as sources of inequality. Asians are not "better" than Hispanics... men are not "better" than women... and Catholics are not "better" than Hindus. To a large extent (though we still have a long way to go), I believe most of these "extraneous" perceptions of inequality have been erased. The greatest remaining source of "unnatural inequality," as I see it, is social standing. Two people with identical intelligence, physiology, and personality can be born into two different families and confront vastly different opportunities as a result. However... the solution is not as simple as transfers of wealth, as many assert. If you remove the incentive to better not only yourself, but future generations as well (for instance, by imposing a 100% gift and death tax), you remove any incentive to pursue long-term productive tasks like business investment. Instead, you would have a nation of people who "lived for the moment," spending their entire income on consumption. Or, better yet, why not just let some OTHER sap work hard, and sit back and wait for your "equality check" in the mail? Transfer of wealth is not the answer, in my opinion. See the next question for possible solutions...

3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching?

Primarily, the government should not allow any artificial obstructions to the pursuit of the "American Dream." Hence, the Equal Employment Act. No one can be "discriminated" against on the basis of race, nationality, gender, or religion. However, discrimination IS allowed based on skill, physical ability, and other RELEVANT criteria. Not to be flippant, but I would not want a quadraplegic trying to rescue me from a burning building... nor would I want a high-school dropout working the night shift at the nuclear plant. Secondarily, the government can help by providing the OPPORTUNITY for people to acquire skills... e.g., public education, to one extent or another. In this way, people are not given a "handout" of cash, but rather provided the means by which to improve their (and their progeny's) station in life. I know sociologists claim there is very little "vertical movement" in society, but I believe that, in America, that is more a result of lack of motivation than lack of opportunity. My granddad was born into a dirt-poor family in the slums of Baltimore. He worked as a bridge painter for years, and eventually saved enough money (while raising five children) to start his own fledgling company (long after my Dad, the oldest child, had moved out). My Dad worked to pay his way through Virginia Tech to get a degree in Mechanical Engineering (the first college graduate in his family). And now here I am, going into public accounting, and considering law school... only two generations from the poverty line.

And now I've rambled way too long... see you all on Tuesday!!

I have been really hesitant to post, mostly because I am very very confused. Before this English 314 class I thought that I was a very pessimistic person, but you guys have made be begin to doubt my dedication to my pessimism.

**** DISCLAIMER ****
1) I don't want this to be a long post, but there are some many things running through my head, I don't think I will be able to keep it very short
2) Everything I am about to say is just my opinion, and I don't mean to offend anyone. If I do, please know that I am deeply sorry for it.
3) These are just thoughts rambling in my head, good luck with any sort of cohesion of thought or natural flow. You have been warned!

I guess I would like to start by asking Brandon a question. You said in your post that you are not willing to die for a country that forces people to server in the military of that country. Does this mean you are willing to die for your country now (assuming that is the United States)? This is an honest question. I read your statement a few times and I was just trying to get it straight in my mind what exactly you were saying, but it never did stick right. We currently do not have a mandatory military "sentence" requirement for men, something like what Korea has now. And I think that this is very applicable to you especially, and this is why: As the United States forces itself more and more to the epi-center of global finance, then financial institutions are going to become a bigger and bigger target for targeted bombings and terrorism.

You (Brandon) had also mentioned a couple of things that caught my attention and I thought it might be prudent to say a couple of things about them. You had said in your post "...being required to experience military combat .. "; to me, this implies that you think that everyone who joins the military will experience combat. This, just for Tripp, reflects alot about the power that the media has over America's perceptions of what is going on in the rest of the world. There are quite easily millions of people who are currently in the military, and I would be very surprised if more than 15-20% of these people are forward deployed (currently in areas considered to be combat or hostile areas). It is kind of naive to say that everyone who ever joins the military will experience combat. You had also said "Think about what you are suggesting: Only military personnel are allowed to vote."; and to me this says one of two things: 1) you misunderstood that she was actually saying that only people that joined the military had the right to vote, which is very different from say that only people that are in the military have the right to vote. 2) you are trying to imply that all people who join the military, join the military for life. The first one is a simple oversight, but the second one is kind of disturbing. And to some effect goes towards your argument that just because people join the military that they will take more interest in how their government is run. Every aspect of life that you go through will give you one more pool of experience to draw from when you make decisions. I was in the military, I did not join for life. Most of the people that I know from the military and most of the people that I meet that were in the military were NOT positively influenced by their ordeal with the military. There is, by far, a greater number of people who have joined the military and think that things need to be changed, than people who have joined who think that everything is just perfect the way that it is. You really have never seen an entire organization operate so blindly and completely in the ludicris until you have been backstage with the military. It is a joke.

I can not honestly say that I am for having a required mililtary service as a pre-requisite for citizenship. It just wouldn't work for this country. Besides that, I was in, I know that the one thing I hated more than anything was to have someone join the military that didn't really want to be there. It is one of those jobs that you either do all the way, or not at all. If you do things half way, it gets really ugly, really quick. That being said, I can't say that the military is all bad. I think it is an experience that I would like all of my Presidents to have had at one time or another. The reason, to prevent what is going on now in Iraq. I don't like the idea of putting someone in office who doesn't really understand what goes on on the front lines of a war. It is crazy out there. The one distinct advantage that a military President has over one that has not served is the needless war issue. With me, that holds a lot of weight. oh well, off that rant.

Citizenship: On almost any engine for any car that is driven today, there is this little clip. It is roughly the size of a quarter in diameter. It is made of (usually) some variation of aluminum compound. If you walk into any auto parts store it may cost you three cents American. I usually just ask for it and they give me one. Point is, it is inconsequential to the price of a car; but the thing is, no car on the road would last long if this little clip didn't do it's job. This is pretty much the way I see citizenship. If everyone does their job then everything is good, else.....

This is running alot more than I wanted it to, I will be back later for more
Sorry

I am responding to Dr. Yancey's second blog. I think that there are definately obligations in being a citizen but I still don't like having to decide that a person is a "good" citizen or not. I think that we have had a certain perspective of citizenship pounded into us since we were kids and that is why we feel obligated to be a good citizen. I remember in my middle school that there were citizenship awards that were given to people and those awards ranked up there with the best student and best leader awards. If we say that a citizen is obligated to contribute to one's country, one could argue that everybody contributes something. Another thing I always wondered about is the naturalization test. My uncle immigrated from Ireland and has lived in the US for close on to twenty years. He just recently was naturalized and had to study for the test. They have to know much harder stuff than the people who are born in the US. Is that really fair? Just wondering what everybody else thought.

1. What is the difference in "being" and "performing"? Matt says we shouldn't gauge citizenship by actions. What are the alternatives?

First of all, being has a very passive connotation, while performing has a more active one. Other than the difference in passivity (being good through not being bad) and true action, I don't think there is any difference in these words. I disagree with Matt; I believe that we can't gauge citizenship by actions ALONE. That is, however, a very good place to start. One's actions must also be measured against a person's capabilities and opportunities to act. I don't know of any alternatives for judging an utopian example of the citizen other than actions, but that takes a lot into account that is simply not feasible in today's world. Is it really possible to put the good of your country above all else?

2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist (both in America and in the world) with "The American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men [sic] are created equal?

All men are not created equal. Not everyone is given the same advantages, the same learning experiences, or the same opportunities as everyone else. It is vital, though (and I think this is where "The American Dream" comes in) that we strive individually and as a government/nation/society to make every person as equal as we can. This is where things such as equal rights, public education, and as wide a definition of citizenship as possible comes in. It's a hard fact of life that such inequities do exist, and our actions speak to this reconciliation. The idea of "all men are created equal" is that one is not more deserving of anything than the other from the beginning, so we must try to reach an equilibrium after day one where everyone can benefit.

3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching?

Affirmative action. Don't get me started.