whatever: interviews and then affirmative action

The title doesn't matter to me here. I am just riffing. These notes may be useful to me later, but in general I don't want to always think about structure, so why not just get it all out first, then take the good parts--if there are any--and put them to good use.

Speaking of structure, I need to get a new job and I came across these stupid interview questions at business week. The author Liz Ryan, opinions that asking an applicant about their weaknesses is useless, because you will likely not get a real answer. A few years ago ( and likely long before ), reporters have asked still President Bush about his past mistakes without getting any answers. His work, if he has any misgivings about it or not, will be well documented in history. If he does not admit anything to himself, is that unhealthy? I tilt my head back to the Radiolab episode about Deception , where Jad and Robert investigated and found a study where lying to yourself helped you to be a better swimmer. They said lying to yourself could be an evolutionary adaptation to be more 'happy' about life.

I have gotten way off track, but I feel I agree that asking someone about their shortcomings in an interview may not give you any direct answer, but that answer is more important, the more serious the post is. So when it really counts, you should likely ask everyone but that person.

Speaking of interviews, I was reading this pretty good paper by Louis P. Pojman, "The Moral Status of Affirmative Action" in this text book ( not mine ) called 'Ethics in the Workplace' , edited by Robert A. Larmer. I haven't fully decided what I think about Affirmative Action yet, but this essay is good to read to learn about many of the core arguments for and against A.A.. There is another source, written some six years after that 1995 Pojman source, at the University of Amsterdam : http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/affirmative-action/ . I think I'll check that out soon too. At the least, I think reverse discrimination isn't fair. My morals tell me that blaming those who have innocently benefited from past injustices is not right. It is mis-directed blame. Okay, so then who get's the blame? I read somewhere--I don't know where--that money is the main way to resolve all losses in this country. I think no amount of money could repay damages to a generation of people wronged, but it just so happens that 'money used in a productive way' to balance out the education system and punish those who still try to discriminate is a much better solution anyway.

I am sure someone has created a time line of civil rights history and maybe someone has even tried to write out a plan to equalize our society. I think there are many clear steps--many of which have already been taken--to increase access to education and reduce discrimination in the work place.

Here are some more links to throw around:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html , Bill Moyers : Buying the War [in Iraq]

http://change-congress.org/

ali allawi , "The Occupation of Iraq"

Bill Moyers interview with Jon Stewart: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04272007/watch.html

Stephen colert's 2006 press secsretary dinner is cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE

Lincoln and Obama

There has been quite a lot of Obama talking Lincoln for a while now. Obama has recently been interviewed again on 60 Minutes. When asked about what he has been reading, he mentioned Lincoln. As a follow up, it was pointed out that Lincoln had taken in many of his political opponents into his cabinet and the question was whether Obama would do the same. I guess Obama dodged the question, because he doesn't want to give 60 minutes any spoilers ahead of schedule? Though eventually, I think he should consider the benefits of a well-balanced cabinet.

I especially liked this quote when reading through the Lincoln-Douglas debates Wiki:
“ Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. ”