I never quite understand why introverts are seen as negative people.
In a culture where selling predominates, they are not going to find themselves to the forefront of activities. But in a society where the ability to create and work upon ideas, to build the substance of the product and to flesh out the idea is important, then they are vital.
I am not the greatest verbal communicator in the world. Writing, and analysing though are my fortes. If you want a written assessment, I can be an excellent person to have around. And anyone who has read many of the articles on this blog will realise that I am always looking for positive answers (after analysing the problems, how we got there, and why going down that road was a mistake and must be avoided in the future).
As for the extroverts - why do we always think that they are right? Or bright? Or intelligent? Or honest? Some are, some definitely are not. Many are prone to open their mouth first and put their great big foot in it second.
I personally do not listen too much to what people say in the first place anyway. Ripping off the advertising gunge and replacing it with substance is what matters. People can and will tell you anything, if they are allowed to. Salesmen are notorious for this. As are many politicians.
I recall one American commentator once remarking that if the world comprised only introverts, nothing would ever get sold. Maybe (I would question the logic - the need would still be there where it mattered). But the levels of quality would IMHO almost certainly rise, which sounds like a massive plus point to me.
But (to rephrase Mandy Rice-Davies) I would think that, wouldn't I?
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Friday, 29 March 2013
Quote of the day
"The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas — uncertainty, progress, change — into crimes".
Salman Rushdie, author, intellectual and individual targeted by the ignoramuses of the fanatical Muslim world.
Quote courtesy of Wikiquote.
Salman Rushdie, author, intellectual and individual targeted by the ignoramuses of the fanatical Muslim world.
Quote courtesy of Wikiquote.
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
Waking up to reality
Or waking up to a nightmare?
I saw a placard held up among the protests being made in Cyprus before the agreement was reached the other day.
It read:
"Let us dream".
I know where you are coming from. At the same time, as a pragmatist I would suggest that we need to stay awake, be aware, and avoid any more of the nightmares that have been imposed upon us in the past few years.
A healthy degree of scepticism is needed to deal with what is thrown at us. We need solutions that work for all of us, we need practical solutions that will get us through the dark days we are currently going through and emerge into a better tomorrow.
If you can dream, if you can idealise upon what is needed, then I will not discourage you, but you had better be able to put proverbial meat upon the proverbial bones.
I have heard all the idealism that I can just about stomach over this too-long existence of mine. If that sounds cynical, I am sorry, but those ideas from whichever flank they came from have created the mess we now have.
Why did the "free market" solution of which many were so fond in the 1980s create the misery that we now have? Surely that should not have happened. Wharrever happened to the Socialist better world promised by so many countries in the post-war world? Why did it not protect us from the current nightmare?
Both were flawed? Too right.
Neither could work? The evidence is all around us.
So if we are to dream, let us dream in real terms, and work towards goals that can be achieved and will work - and not just for the few, but the many.
One of the reasons that the 2008 crash and the consequent nightmares occurred was that we were proverbially asleep. Like Cassandra in ancient Troy, some (like myself) had seen this coming for a long time. Like with Cassandra's predictions in ancient Troy, few people were prepared to listen and believe that things could go wrong.
Then people woke up.
The next time it will be better not to dream, or even to fall asleep. There is so much more to be said for staying awake - and alert!
I saw a placard held up among the protests being made in Cyprus before the agreement was reached the other day.
It read:
"Let us dream".
I know where you are coming from. At the same time, as a pragmatist I would suggest that we need to stay awake, be aware, and avoid any more of the nightmares that have been imposed upon us in the past few years.
A healthy degree of scepticism is needed to deal with what is thrown at us. We need solutions that work for all of us, we need practical solutions that will get us through the dark days we are currently going through and emerge into a better tomorrow.
If you can dream, if you can idealise upon what is needed, then I will not discourage you, but you had better be able to put proverbial meat upon the proverbial bones.
I have heard all the idealism that I can just about stomach over this too-long existence of mine. If that sounds cynical, I am sorry, but those ideas from whichever flank they came from have created the mess we now have.
Why did the "free market" solution of which many were so fond in the 1980s create the misery that we now have? Surely that should not have happened. Wharrever happened to the Socialist better world promised by so many countries in the post-war world? Why did it not protect us from the current nightmare?
Both were flawed? Too right.
Neither could work? The evidence is all around us.
So if we are to dream, let us dream in real terms, and work towards goals that can be achieved and will work - and not just for the few, but the many.
One of the reasons that the 2008 crash and the consequent nightmares occurred was that we were proverbially asleep. Like Cassandra in ancient Troy, some (like myself) had seen this coming for a long time. Like with Cassandra's predictions in ancient Troy, few people were prepared to listen and believe that things could go wrong.
Then people woke up.
The next time it will be better not to dream, or even to fall asleep. There is so much more to be said for staying awake - and alert!
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Time to look forward and plan for the future
I am pleased that the situation in Cyprus resolved itself.
At the last minute, as these things invariably do.
And isn't that simply part of the problem? Instead of having a long-term strategy, carefully and intelligently thought out with plans that provide a degree of resistance to external forces, everything still seems to have to be done on the fly.
When the crisis hits, are we prepared?
And how do we move forward from there?
Too much policy in Europe at least seems to be based upon looking over our shoulders and trying to fix what went wrong. I would like to know what the strategy for the future is.
Not just how do we get out of the current mess, but how do we create a future that is better, more secure and more resilient for citizens across the continent; and for the nationalists out there - when you can run your economies without any imports or needing to export you can have your silly party titles with "national" and "independent" in them! And how many of you are capable of providing enough of your own energy resources that you don't need to import any?
Otherwise, wharrever the arrangement (and as much as I support the EU, I will also agree with those that suggest that the structure needs a substantial overhaul) we are all facing the same problems, and without cooperation we are all likely to sink further into the proverbial quicksand.
What is needed though is positive thinking that will take us forward, improve living standards, remove the scourges that our affecting us (unemployment is disgusting at any level, at 11% it is totally and thoroughly unacceptable), and break the negative stranglehold that is dragging us down further and further.
Once in a downward spiral, things only get worse. That has to be reversed and quickly. Current policy is simply not working. We need to look at alternatives, and it is time for action not theory. Too many lives are being wasted, too many good people are being thrown to the proverbial wolves!
I personally believe that we need to start looking again at industry. Why we cannot help resolve the crises in Spain and Greece (and Portugal and Italy) by building light engineering plants and producing goods there - in the private sector! - I do not understand!
And getting things started now with some initial losses knowing that in 5 years time things will be a lot better makes a lot of sense. Investment, not speculation. Planning for the future, knowing that it is bound to be of benefit to us all. That is where we should be looking.
Going forward, practically and seriously, with positive actions not with fear and apprehension and constantly being dragged back by the negative forces that we have encountered in the past few years.
It can't be done? See Europe in ruins in 1946 and experiencing rapidly growing prosperity in 1960. History tells us otherwise.
But it needs ideas upon which we can act, it needs investment, it needs planning and achievable objectives. It also needs us to turn round and wave our middle fingers at the current situation and say "enough - be rid of you!" .... and then move on with bold positive steps forward down the road!
At the last minute, as these things invariably do.
And isn't that simply part of the problem? Instead of having a long-term strategy, carefully and intelligently thought out with plans that provide a degree of resistance to external forces, everything still seems to have to be done on the fly.
When the crisis hits, are we prepared?
And how do we move forward from there?
Too much policy in Europe at least seems to be based upon looking over our shoulders and trying to fix what went wrong. I would like to know what the strategy for the future is.
Not just how do we get out of the current mess, but how do we create a future that is better, more secure and more resilient for citizens across the continent; and for the nationalists out there - when you can run your economies without any imports or needing to export you can have your silly party titles with "national" and "independent" in them! And how many of you are capable of providing enough of your own energy resources that you don't need to import any?
Otherwise, wharrever the arrangement (and as much as I support the EU, I will also agree with those that suggest that the structure needs a substantial overhaul) we are all facing the same problems, and without cooperation we are all likely to sink further into the proverbial quicksand.
What is needed though is positive thinking that will take us forward, improve living standards, remove the scourges that our affecting us (unemployment is disgusting at any level, at 11% it is totally and thoroughly unacceptable), and break the negative stranglehold that is dragging us down further and further.
Once in a downward spiral, things only get worse. That has to be reversed and quickly. Current policy is simply not working. We need to look at alternatives, and it is time for action not theory. Too many lives are being wasted, too many good people are being thrown to the proverbial wolves!
I personally believe that we need to start looking again at industry. Why we cannot help resolve the crises in Spain and Greece (and Portugal and Italy) by building light engineering plants and producing goods there - in the private sector! - I do not understand!
And getting things started now with some initial losses knowing that in 5 years time things will be a lot better makes a lot of sense. Investment, not speculation. Planning for the future, knowing that it is bound to be of benefit to us all. That is where we should be looking.
Going forward, practically and seriously, with positive actions not with fear and apprehension and constantly being dragged back by the negative forces that we have encountered in the past few years.
It can't be done? See Europe in ruins in 1946 and experiencing rapidly growing prosperity in 1960. History tells us otherwise.
But it needs ideas upon which we can act, it needs investment, it needs planning and achievable objectives. It also needs us to turn round and wave our middle fingers at the current situation and say "enough - be rid of you!" .... and then move on with bold positive steps forward down the road!
Monday, 25 March 2013
All down to entitlements?
I was reading up further on the financial crisis in Cyprus yesterday.
Banks are collapsing. These are private institutions, which have to be funded by public (government) funds if they are to survive. As a result of the fact that the government has insufficient funds to bail out the banks, and it cannot get a loan on terms that it can accept, then the country is faced with bankruptcy.
Of course when governments want loans they often have to borrow the money from private institutions. When they cannot repay those loans, they also face bankruptcy - check out Argentina and what happened when they decided not to repay private lenders in 2002.
Governments often get themselves into a mess with their finances anyway, see Argentina again. Mishandling the economy can lead to ruin. The factor though that is playing a significant role in the European debt crisis remains the bank bailouts in 2008.
The EU can seemingly be split into two groups when it comes to examining the debt crisis. The countries that got into difficulties through mishandling their economies (Greece, Italy, Portugal) and the ones that got into trouble directly as a result of the bank bailouts (Ireland, Spain). While they were not open to the same publicity one can also add that the UK and the Netherlands had to take drastic actions to bail out their banks, ABN AMRO and ING made up a total of 13% of the Dutch economy. The economies of both countries are experiencing severe difficulties as a result.
That is taking a fairly easy analysis though. I was checking out Portugal this morning. Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal Europe dated July 26th, 2011:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576469991876291306.html#
The Portuguese government was obliged to keep €12 billion to one side to help with bank recapitalisation. Without 2008 what would happen to that 12 billion? Would it have been needed?
And the question then follows as to whether governments are required to keep reserves, collected as taxation, purely to cover for the foibles (see yesterday's article) of private banks?
Take the banking crisis out of the equation, there was still room for governments to be more efficient maybe. Not to spend so much perhaps. But the debt crisis across Europe would be nothing like as severe but for the folly of the private banking system in the first part of the first decade of the 21st century. The figures are there, the proof can be checked out.
Of course there is the odd conservative out there who would like to have you believe the nonsensical argument that it is all down to entitlement expenditure. The point with this though is that the so-called "entitlements" have been a feature of government budgets for generations. They are frequently discussed, frequently amended. Sometimes added to, sometimes subtracted from.
What constitutes an entitlement is also interesting. One entitlement is, for example, the national justice system. Government spending on the courts, jails, paying prison wardens usw.
Do you really want to let some hoodlum walk free because you cannot afford to lock him up?
Then there is the education service. Should we abolish free education and go back to the illiteracy and innumeracy prevalent at the start of the nineteenth century? Or pay teachers peanuts with the consequence that the quality of education remains mediocre to say the least? Would the societies that we have benefit from it? A super-dooper hi-tech society run for the illiterate?
We should not be paying out so much money for the unemployed usw? Then create more jobs that pay a living wage and people do not have to go looking for help in difficult times - WHICH THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!
About the last people who were responsible for the crisis that occurred in 2008 were the people who were on "entitlements". A close examination of the 2008 financial crisis will indicate quite clearly the disappearance of billions in values from the world economy was due directly to the irresponsible actions of private financial institutions. If we have reached the state where entitlements have to be cut, it is as likely as not down to the fact that governments have had to bail out what were the most affluent organisations in our cultures following their foolhardiness, and hence created more need for entitlements for which there is less money available (see Greece and Spain again). And not vice versa!
Banks are collapsing. These are private institutions, which have to be funded by public (government) funds if they are to survive. As a result of the fact that the government has insufficient funds to bail out the banks, and it cannot get a loan on terms that it can accept, then the country is faced with bankruptcy.
Of course when governments want loans they often have to borrow the money from private institutions. When they cannot repay those loans, they also face bankruptcy - check out Argentina and what happened when they decided not to repay private lenders in 2002.
Governments often get themselves into a mess with their finances anyway, see Argentina again. Mishandling the economy can lead to ruin. The factor though that is playing a significant role in the European debt crisis remains the bank bailouts in 2008.
The EU can seemingly be split into two groups when it comes to examining the debt crisis. The countries that got into difficulties through mishandling their economies (Greece, Italy, Portugal) and the ones that got into trouble directly as a result of the bank bailouts (Ireland, Spain). While they were not open to the same publicity one can also add that the UK and the Netherlands had to take drastic actions to bail out their banks, ABN AMRO and ING made up a total of 13% of the Dutch economy. The economies of both countries are experiencing severe difficulties as a result.
That is taking a fairly easy analysis though. I was checking out Portugal this morning. Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal Europe dated July 26th, 2011:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576469991876291306.html#
The Portuguese government was obliged to keep €12 billion to one side to help with bank recapitalisation. Without 2008 what would happen to that 12 billion? Would it have been needed?
And the question then follows as to whether governments are required to keep reserves, collected as taxation, purely to cover for the foibles (see yesterday's article) of private banks?
Take the banking crisis out of the equation, there was still room for governments to be more efficient maybe. Not to spend so much perhaps. But the debt crisis across Europe would be nothing like as severe but for the folly of the private banking system in the first part of the first decade of the 21st century. The figures are there, the proof can be checked out.
Of course there is the odd conservative out there who would like to have you believe the nonsensical argument that it is all down to entitlement expenditure. The point with this though is that the so-called "entitlements" have been a feature of government budgets for generations. They are frequently discussed, frequently amended. Sometimes added to, sometimes subtracted from.
What constitutes an entitlement is also interesting. One entitlement is, for example, the national justice system. Government spending on the courts, jails, paying prison wardens usw.
Do you really want to let some hoodlum walk free because you cannot afford to lock him up?
Then there is the education service. Should we abolish free education and go back to the illiteracy and innumeracy prevalent at the start of the nineteenth century? Or pay teachers peanuts with the consequence that the quality of education remains mediocre to say the least? Would the societies that we have benefit from it? A super-dooper hi-tech society run for the illiterate?
We should not be paying out so much money for the unemployed usw? Then create more jobs that pay a living wage and people do not have to go looking for help in difficult times - WHICH THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!
About the last people who were responsible for the crisis that occurred in 2008 were the people who were on "entitlements". A close examination of the 2008 financial crisis will indicate quite clearly the disappearance of billions in values from the world economy was due directly to the irresponsible actions of private financial institutions. If we have reached the state where entitlements have to be cut, it is as likely as not down to the fact that governments have had to bail out what were the most affluent organisations in our cultures following their foolhardiness, and hence created more need for entitlements for which there is less money available (see Greece and Spain again). And not vice versa!
Sunday, 24 March 2013
Are we getting to the point where we cannot put money in banks?
A few years ago my wife used to keep a security box around the house. Locked with a combination lock. If she ever forgot the combination all the stuff in there became inaccessible.
Ask her why we needed it, we are not zillionaires or anything close.
The answer got lost in translation from Thai to English.
Never did quite understand. Never understood either why she threw it out when she did. Her world and mine tend to differ at times. In the days I ever had money as regular income from my job, that went in the bank. Other investments? What other investments? We are not zillionaires or anything close ....
I grew up as a child respecting banks. I had a small savings account from a very young age. Every so often some money, with the help of my none-too-affluent parents, would get put in there. At secondary school (age 11 to 18) we were encouraged to put so much money into a savings book, and transfer that, when we had a suitable amount, to our savings account at the bank.
By the time I went to university at the age of 19 in 1967 I had 92 pounds saved.
Yee-ha! Those were the days.
Saving, not spending. Planning for the future. Having a savings account properly looked after by an institution that was secure and helped grow your small amounts of money - slightly, don't expect miracles.
Into a rare attack of nostalgia at this point.
Those were the days when banks were banks not casinos.
Those were the days when investment was investment not speculation.
Those were the days when saving was encouraged not debt.
And those were the days when countries were not brought to their knees by banking crises!!!!
And yet this was capitalism. Do not forget that!
The latest chapter in the European banking crisis following the 2008 international financial crash is Cyprus. The Cypriots last week turned down an EU loan as the terms were too severe. I understand their pain. They have a short period of time to come up with the money or go bankrupt.
Meanwhile, back in the world of the small investor:
One quote from a Facebook item I read this morning on European Parliament deliberations upon the Cyprus situation:
http://eu-infothek.ch/article/rettungsplan-fuer-zypern-eu-abgeordnete-fordern-faire-loesung
"Wichtig sei, dass Menschen, die ihr Geld auf die Bank bringen, es wieder zurückbekommen".
Translated that reads along the lines that it was a prerequisite of banks that investors should be able to access their money when they want.
Eventually the bank is their security box. The combination code is the PIN number on their bank card. And there should be no need for the owners of the money to have any difficulties with this. The money does not belong to the bank, they are merely the guardians.
Usually they get paid for the privilege of guarding your money by way of charges and the like. If you ask them to provide a service (a direct payment on a standing order for which you have insufficient funds available), they are only too keen to charge you for it.
But if you want to get hold of your money and they have a problem?
In Cyprus this weekend, DUE TO THE BANKING CRISIS, people cannot access the money in their accounts. In other words the banks are holding on to other people's money to save their own skins as far as it is possible!
And if the banks cannot return the money that investors have given them for safe keeping????
In 2008 let us repeat we had a worldwide crisis caused by banks and other financial institutions gambling (no other word for it) and losing heavily. They had to be bailed out by governments using taxpayers' money - often people (like myself among many others) who had not subscribed to the ridiculous speculation that caused the crash in the first place.
Don't bail out the banks? Check 1932 and the state of the capitalist world if you want an example.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Financial institutions are the core of the capitalist system. If those institutions are insecure .....
It stinks to high heaven. Frankly.
In a world where "moral justice" exists, the innocent would not have to suffer with the guilty. The wise would not have to pay the price of the behaviour of the foolish. The sane and the sensible would not have to pay the price for the crazy and the crooked.
And so much for "moral justice"! I am heading for the proverbial knackers-yard, where poverty is going to be an imposed norm despite all my attempts to prevent it. But I am not alone. Ask the people of Spain. Or Greece. Or Cyprus!!!!
_________________________________________________________________________________
Postscript: I noted yesterday that one of the Russian oligarchs and ultimate speculators, Boris Bereszovsky, died in the past couple of days. I will not risk prosecution for libel by saying that he was a crook. Let me merely say that the world is no worse a place for his demise, and possibly (and very probably) better!
Ask her why we needed it, we are not zillionaires or anything close.
The answer got lost in translation from Thai to English.
Never did quite understand. Never understood either why she threw it out when she did. Her world and mine tend to differ at times. In the days I ever had money as regular income from my job, that went in the bank. Other investments? What other investments? We are not zillionaires or anything close ....
I grew up as a child respecting banks. I had a small savings account from a very young age. Every so often some money, with the help of my none-too-affluent parents, would get put in there. At secondary school (age 11 to 18) we were encouraged to put so much money into a savings book, and transfer that, when we had a suitable amount, to our savings account at the bank.
By the time I went to university at the age of 19 in 1967 I had 92 pounds saved.
Yee-ha! Those were the days.
Saving, not spending. Planning for the future. Having a savings account properly looked after by an institution that was secure and helped grow your small amounts of money - slightly, don't expect miracles.
Into a rare attack of nostalgia at this point.
Those were the days when banks were banks not casinos.
Those were the days when investment was investment not speculation.
Those were the days when saving was encouraged not debt.
And those were the days when countries were not brought to their knees by banking crises!!!!
And yet this was capitalism. Do not forget that!
The latest chapter in the European banking crisis following the 2008 international financial crash is Cyprus. The Cypriots last week turned down an EU loan as the terms were too severe. I understand their pain. They have a short period of time to come up with the money or go bankrupt.
Meanwhile, back in the world of the small investor:
One quote from a Facebook item I read this morning on European Parliament deliberations upon the Cyprus situation:
http://eu-infothek.ch/article/rettungsplan-fuer-zypern-eu-abgeordnete-fordern-faire-loesung
"Wichtig sei, dass Menschen, die ihr Geld auf die Bank bringen, es wieder zurückbekommen".
Translated that reads along the lines that it was a prerequisite of banks that investors should be able to access their money when they want.
Eventually the bank is their security box. The combination code is the PIN number on their bank card. And there should be no need for the owners of the money to have any difficulties with this. The money does not belong to the bank, they are merely the guardians.
Usually they get paid for the privilege of guarding your money by way of charges and the like. If you ask them to provide a service (a direct payment on a standing order for which you have insufficient funds available), they are only too keen to charge you for it.
But if you want to get hold of your money and they have a problem?
In Cyprus this weekend, DUE TO THE BANKING CRISIS, people cannot access the money in their accounts. In other words the banks are holding on to other people's money to save their own skins as far as it is possible!
And if the banks cannot return the money that investors have given them for safe keeping????
In 2008 let us repeat we had a worldwide crisis caused by banks and other financial institutions gambling (no other word for it) and losing heavily. They had to be bailed out by governments using taxpayers' money - often people (like myself among many others) who had not subscribed to the ridiculous speculation that caused the crash in the first place.
Don't bail out the banks? Check 1932 and the state of the capitalist world if you want an example.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Financial institutions are the core of the capitalist system. If those institutions are insecure .....
It stinks to high heaven. Frankly.
In a world where "moral justice" exists, the innocent would not have to suffer with the guilty. The wise would not have to pay the price of the behaviour of the foolish. The sane and the sensible would not have to pay the price for the crazy and the crooked.
And so much for "moral justice"! I am heading for the proverbial knackers-yard, where poverty is going to be an imposed norm despite all my attempts to prevent it. But I am not alone. Ask the people of Spain. Or Greece. Or Cyprus!!!!
_________________________________________________________________________________
Postscript: I noted yesterday that one of the Russian oligarchs and ultimate speculators, Boris Bereszovsky, died in the past couple of days. I will not risk prosecution for libel by saying that he was a crook. Let me merely say that the world is no worse a place for his demise, and possibly (and very probably) better!
Friday, 22 March 2013
Letting a computer decide how good a candidate is
I am quite fussy about the jobs for which I apply.
Over the years I have had possibilities that I have refused as I did not think that my skills were appropriate. In my years in IT I have seen several "colleagues" who claimed knowledge of a certain skill which then turned out to be what was learned on a brief training course and never used in practice.
Apart from presenting yourself as a phoney, a liar and a cheat, you can also look like a complete idiot. In one case I remember that the individual was crashing systems all over the place thanks to his lack of knowledge. Ugh! No thank you!
So when I do apply for anything, I am serious. There is no intent at deception. If I do not think that I can meet the criteria then I will not apply. Frivolity may occasionally be part of my nature in social situations, but when it comes to my profession I am always serious.
So yesterday I found a job (with a company called Ariba) advertised in Frankfurt on LinkedIn.com. I read through it two or three times and eventually concluded that I would be able to do the job well and I had in fact over 90% of what was required. Not a conclusion that I reached immediately - close study eventually brought me to that conclusion, the way the advert was written did not make it immediately apparent.
I spent some time writing what I thought what was a relevant cover letter, picked the English version of my CV in Microsoft Word off the laptop documents, and sent them. I did not change the CV, the theory being that all the information was there and for an IT position it should not need too much restructuring.
A decision to be regretted.
I sent all the details to the company concerned at 1559 CET. At 1602 CET (a maximum of 3 minutes and 59 seconds later, if you work it out) back came a rejection mail with the explanation that "my skills were not appropriate"!
COMPLETE AND UTTER B***S***!!!!!
And how could anyone reach that conclusion so quickly?
My first assessment was that one of two things had occurred, those being:
Either
they had opened the CV, checked the Date of Birth, and finish. Ageism, pure and simple.
Or
they had sent the wrong message. Applications for the position had been closed, or someone had already been appointed. Somehow they had an automatic responder and the appropriate message had not been generated.
I can accept a position being filled, or the limit on the number of applicants being reached, although the advert should then have been withdrawn.
I was furious though about the insulting reply that I received and the minimal amount of time that it took to get there.
Some clarification on what was involved here came though from a friend in England. He informed me that it is commonplace these days for companies to use an automated system to check CVs called Application Tracking Systems (ATS). Apparently this does a check of certain buzz words and matches them against the vacancy and reaches a series of conclusions about what you have done, what your experience is usw.
Quite how nobody seems certain. That it may be all that accurate I would be liable to question very strongly. The potential for hit and miss is enormous. If you write your CV in the same manner as the way the ATS examines, all well and good.
My CV is written in UK English (no criticisms of Americans is intended here incidentally - it is merely a comment that there is a difference of style where the language is concerned in the two countries). It is literate, written in sentences or succinct phrases. It is built chronologically and the skills used are located alongside the periods spent working.
It is notoriously short on buzz words. To indicate the difference of what ATS wants and what I will offer, quote from one of my discussions on Facebook this morning - "It wants "I was the EDI Systems Integration Lead", not "I was responsible for integrating the company EDI systems" for example .... ".
The end product of this, if this becomes a widespread procedure, is that applying for jobs will get ever harder.
It is a sad comment upon where we are going. The world is, as my blog title indicates, heading down the sink (rapidly), and this sort of B***S*** is unfortunately helping it on its way.
And as a postscript to the five people who have offered me their sympathies and support this morning - my thanks and appreciation. All of you, rightly, believe that I have a lot of talent to offer. I live in hope that I get a chance to make positive chance to make use of it and earn summat from it before I get thrown entirely to the proverbial wolves!
Over the years I have had possibilities that I have refused as I did not think that my skills were appropriate. In my years in IT I have seen several "colleagues" who claimed knowledge of a certain skill which then turned out to be what was learned on a brief training course and never used in practice.
Apart from presenting yourself as a phoney, a liar and a cheat, you can also look like a complete idiot. In one case I remember that the individual was crashing systems all over the place thanks to his lack of knowledge. Ugh! No thank you!
So when I do apply for anything, I am serious. There is no intent at deception. If I do not think that I can meet the criteria then I will not apply. Frivolity may occasionally be part of my nature in social situations, but when it comes to my profession I am always serious.
So yesterday I found a job (with a company called Ariba) advertised in Frankfurt on LinkedIn.com. I read through it two or three times and eventually concluded that I would be able to do the job well and I had in fact over 90% of what was required. Not a conclusion that I reached immediately - close study eventually brought me to that conclusion, the way the advert was written did not make it immediately apparent.
I spent some time writing what I thought what was a relevant cover letter, picked the English version of my CV in Microsoft Word off the laptop documents, and sent them. I did not change the CV, the theory being that all the information was there and for an IT position it should not need too much restructuring.
A decision to be regretted.
I sent all the details to the company concerned at 1559 CET. At 1602 CET (a maximum of 3 minutes and 59 seconds later, if you work it out) back came a rejection mail with the explanation that "my skills were not appropriate"!
COMPLETE AND UTTER B***S***!!!!!
And how could anyone reach that conclusion so quickly?
My first assessment was that one of two things had occurred, those being:
Either
they had opened the CV, checked the Date of Birth, and finish. Ageism, pure and simple.
Or
they had sent the wrong message. Applications for the position had been closed, or someone had already been appointed. Somehow they had an automatic responder and the appropriate message had not been generated.
I can accept a position being filled, or the limit on the number of applicants being reached, although the advert should then have been withdrawn.
I was furious though about the insulting reply that I received and the minimal amount of time that it took to get there.
Some clarification on what was involved here came though from a friend in England. He informed me that it is commonplace these days for companies to use an automated system to check CVs called Application Tracking Systems (ATS). Apparently this does a check of certain buzz words and matches them against the vacancy and reaches a series of conclusions about what you have done, what your experience is usw.
Quite how nobody seems certain. That it may be all that accurate I would be liable to question very strongly. The potential for hit and miss is enormous. If you write your CV in the same manner as the way the ATS examines, all well and good.
My CV is written in UK English (no criticisms of Americans is intended here incidentally - it is merely a comment that there is a difference of style where the language is concerned in the two countries). It is literate, written in sentences or succinct phrases. It is built chronologically and the skills used are located alongside the periods spent working.
It is notoriously short on buzz words. To indicate the difference of what ATS wants and what I will offer, quote from one of my discussions on Facebook this morning - "It wants "I was the EDI Systems Integration Lead", not "I was responsible for integrating the company EDI systems" for example .... ".
The end product of this, if this becomes a widespread procedure, is that applying for jobs will get ever harder.
- Every time you apply for a job, you will not be able to use a standard CV any more. You will have to rewrite it using the jargon in the advert and fitting it in appropriately.
- If you normally write in UK English and the job advert appears in US English (or vice versa), you have to work on your communication skills and hope that you can make a good fist of that
- You are going to have to be a lot more careful about what you include and leave out of your application
- You may even need a training course in how ATS works, though from what I can gather it is an obscure art form where close definition of procedures is lacking!
It is a sad comment upon where we are going. The world is, as my blog title indicates, heading down the sink (rapidly), and this sort of B***S*** is unfortunately helping it on its way.
And as a postscript to the five people who have offered me their sympathies and support this morning - my thanks and appreciation. All of you, rightly, believe that I have a lot of talent to offer. I live in hope that I get a chance to make positive chance to make use of it and earn summat from it before I get thrown entirely to the proverbial wolves!
Thursday, 21 March 2013
Not wanting a multicultural society
As you will know from the title of the blog, I am a foreigner here.
Still a British passport-holder (for convenience, not out of any sense of misconstrued loyalty), living in what I regard as the most civilised country on earth - Germany. Behave here, you are tolerated. Go round threatening violence, as some extremist Salafist group did recently, your group gets banned and you get your name on the secret service watch list, otherwise ....
As I have said before, Britons and Americans get treated here a bit differently anyway. Where other nationalities might still be looked upon as having something a bit different (even the French, who have been the most significant ally for a generation, are regarded as a bit different), coming from the UK and the US gets you around a substantial bit of the cultural bureaucracy. I have never yet heard of anyone among the UK residents here being obliged to learn German, I have never heard of any American residents (unlike other non-Europeans) being obliged to attend the expected "integration course".
So where does culture start and end? "All Europeans have the same culture?" remains an interesting question. OK take the second largest group of immigrants here in terms of numbers - Italians.
I cannot quote how many of my German friends over the years have expressed an admiration for Italy - everything in fact except for some of its politicians (even German conservatives cannot stand Silvio Berlusconi). "Mediterranean cuisine", which more often than not means mainly Italian, has a unique place in discussions here, including those held in rehabilitation clinics for people suffering from heart disease - as I can tell you from personal experience.
So do Italians comprise part of a "multicultural society"? Or are they part of a "single culture" (a "monoculture"?)?
An excellent question, for which both answers are possible.
Which reminds me of a conversation that I had in Paris (where I was then living - as you know I have been around!) in 1993. The young lady with whom I held the conversation was second-generation French with a delightful Portuguese surname. We were in a group talking about foreigners living in France and the ultranationalist political party, the Front Nationale.
Translated from the original, the comments ran along the lines:
me: "if the FN gain power, it looks like you and I will have to leave with all the other foreigners".
her: "we're not the type of foreigners they want to kick out!".
In other words, there are "cultures" and then there are .... well, "cultures".
Often related to skin colour. White foreigners can stay, anyone else - go! In other words, blatant racism! Neatly disguised now in comments about religion, particularly Islam.
Apart from the fact that there quite a number of "coloured" (I do not like that word incidentally - it sounds pejorative) immigrants in Europe who are not Muslims - check out the number of Hindus among the Indian community in the UK, or the Buddhists in the Thai diaspora in Germany - there is also the strange growth of "white" Europeans becoming Muslims (why I cannot imagine - it is also indicative of the fact that many "white" Europeans are not all that intelligent! But then to each his/her own - if you behave yourself!).
What I do often read about multiculturalism though is often the ultimate non-sequitur. That being:-
"Accepting multiculturalism means accepting Sharia law!". Everybody starts getting scared, everyone dyes their hair peroxide blonde like Geert Wilders and starts preparing convict clippers to ship them all out before they start imposing the chopping-off of hands and the stoning of adulteresses upon us.
The point with Sharia Law is that it is itself as anti-multicultural as the people who want a "monoculture". It excludes any outside belief, law, practices. It prosecutes, enslaves and often executes non-believers. It makes no allowances whatsoever for any other "cultures".
A true multicultural society in fact will have no place for Sharia Law. It will allow Muslims to practise their religion within the confines of the society as allowed by the common law applying to all members of the society. This can affect personal diet for example. There is no reason to stop people eating Halal meat. There is no forcing people to eat pork if they do not want to (I have met several "white" European non-Muslim vegetarians who will not eat pork for obvious reasons - so no problem). And nobody is forced to consume alcoholic drinks if they do not want to - that is your choice!
The line is crossed where legal matters are involved, and choice is no longer the issue. If the society has "common law", passed by elected governments over generations, then in a multicultural society that applies to all - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, you name it. In the interest of the society as a whole, not just of a specific group, or if you insist - "culture".
"Ah but", you tell me, "there are certain areas in my country where Sharia is allowed, at least where family matters are allowed".
In my view this should not be allowed, and your elected representatives should take action to remove this as it is a preferred anomaly that works outside the principle of a shared common democracy. It does no harm? Then why have it in the first place? Why is it different, why is it needed?
And you are the likes of the wretched Anjem Choudary, insisting that Sharia Law is needed for all? Sorry, but it runs averse to the European democratic tradition. The lessons of imposed values stained the continent for a generation in the 1930s and 40s, and does anyone really want a repeat? If you desperately want Sharia Law, emigrate to a country where it is enforced. I am not sure how large a population Saudi Arabia can stand, but that would be a good place to start, and think of the money you would save for your annual trip to the Haj.
Meanwhile after my wife comes home from work later today, I anticipate that there will be Thai food tonight, she will at some point go and pray in front of the Buddhist shrine that we have in another room usw usw. I normally like the food, I think that the praying serves no purpose, but ever the tolerant atheist I will let her lead her life as she sees fit - it does no harm!
Maybe there might be pizza instead tonight. A British national married to a Thai living in Germany eating Italian food. Anyone for a multicultural society? Properly run and showing more than the necessary level of tolerance, I can see no problems with it!
Still a British passport-holder (for convenience, not out of any sense of misconstrued loyalty), living in what I regard as the most civilised country on earth - Germany. Behave here, you are tolerated. Go round threatening violence, as some extremist Salafist group did recently, your group gets banned and you get your name on the secret service watch list, otherwise ....
As I have said before, Britons and Americans get treated here a bit differently anyway. Where other nationalities might still be looked upon as having something a bit different (even the French, who have been the most significant ally for a generation, are regarded as a bit different), coming from the UK and the US gets you around a substantial bit of the cultural bureaucracy. I have never yet heard of anyone among the UK residents here being obliged to learn German, I have never heard of any American residents (unlike other non-Europeans) being obliged to attend the expected "integration course".
So where does culture start and end? "All Europeans have the same culture?" remains an interesting question. OK take the second largest group of immigrants here in terms of numbers - Italians.
I cannot quote how many of my German friends over the years have expressed an admiration for Italy - everything in fact except for some of its politicians (even German conservatives cannot stand Silvio Berlusconi). "Mediterranean cuisine", which more often than not means mainly Italian, has a unique place in discussions here, including those held in rehabilitation clinics for people suffering from heart disease - as I can tell you from personal experience.
So do Italians comprise part of a "multicultural society"? Or are they part of a "single culture" (a "monoculture"?)?
An excellent question, for which both answers are possible.
Which reminds me of a conversation that I had in Paris (where I was then living - as you know I have been around!) in 1993. The young lady with whom I held the conversation was second-generation French with a delightful Portuguese surname. We were in a group talking about foreigners living in France and the ultranationalist political party, the Front Nationale.
Translated from the original, the comments ran along the lines:
me: "if the FN gain power, it looks like you and I will have to leave with all the other foreigners".
her: "we're not the type of foreigners they want to kick out!".
In other words, there are "cultures" and then there are .... well, "cultures".
Often related to skin colour. White foreigners can stay, anyone else - go! In other words, blatant racism! Neatly disguised now in comments about religion, particularly Islam.
Apart from the fact that there quite a number of "coloured" (I do not like that word incidentally - it sounds pejorative) immigrants in Europe who are not Muslims - check out the number of Hindus among the Indian community in the UK, or the Buddhists in the Thai diaspora in Germany - there is also the strange growth of "white" Europeans becoming Muslims (why I cannot imagine - it is also indicative of the fact that many "white" Europeans are not all that intelligent! But then to each his/her own - if you behave yourself!).
What I do often read about multiculturalism though is often the ultimate non-sequitur. That being:-
"Accepting multiculturalism means accepting Sharia law!". Everybody starts getting scared, everyone dyes their hair peroxide blonde like Geert Wilders and starts preparing convict clippers to ship them all out before they start imposing the chopping-off of hands and the stoning of adulteresses upon us.
The point with Sharia Law is that it is itself as anti-multicultural as the people who want a "monoculture". It excludes any outside belief, law, practices. It prosecutes, enslaves and often executes non-believers. It makes no allowances whatsoever for any other "cultures".
A true multicultural society in fact will have no place for Sharia Law. It will allow Muslims to practise their religion within the confines of the society as allowed by the common law applying to all members of the society. This can affect personal diet for example. There is no reason to stop people eating Halal meat. There is no forcing people to eat pork if they do not want to (I have met several "white" European non-Muslim vegetarians who will not eat pork for obvious reasons - so no problem). And nobody is forced to consume alcoholic drinks if they do not want to - that is your choice!
The line is crossed where legal matters are involved, and choice is no longer the issue. If the society has "common law", passed by elected governments over generations, then in a multicultural society that applies to all - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, you name it. In the interest of the society as a whole, not just of a specific group, or if you insist - "culture".
"Ah but", you tell me, "there are certain areas in my country where Sharia is allowed, at least where family matters are allowed".
In my view this should not be allowed, and your elected representatives should take action to remove this as it is a preferred anomaly that works outside the principle of a shared common democracy. It does no harm? Then why have it in the first place? Why is it different, why is it needed?
And you are the likes of the wretched Anjem Choudary, insisting that Sharia Law is needed for all? Sorry, but it runs averse to the European democratic tradition. The lessons of imposed values stained the continent for a generation in the 1930s and 40s, and does anyone really want a repeat? If you desperately want Sharia Law, emigrate to a country where it is enforced. I am not sure how large a population Saudi Arabia can stand, but that would be a good place to start, and think of the money you would save for your annual trip to the Haj.
Meanwhile after my wife comes home from work later today, I anticipate that there will be Thai food tonight, she will at some point go and pray in front of the Buddhist shrine that we have in another room usw usw. I normally like the food, I think that the praying serves no purpose, but ever the tolerant atheist I will let her lead her life as she sees fit - it does no harm!
Maybe there might be pizza instead tonight. A British national married to a Thai living in Germany eating Italian food. Anyone for a multicultural society? Properly run and showing more than the necessary level of tolerance, I can see no problems with it!
Monday, 18 March 2013
Lionel Messi, Xavi, Andres Iniesta and a bit about Francesco Totti
Lionel Messi is without question the player of his era.
Anyone who has scored as many goals as he has in the past year would in any generation be a phenomenon, and the Spanish League (La Primera) where he plies his trade remains one of the two strongest competitions in Europe.
Is he as good as Pele - the best player there has been in my lifetime?
IMHO not yet.
With Barcelona he has won everything a club can win. The point often forgotten with Barca (and the headline writers seem to ignore this fact a lot), is that they are not simply Lionel Messi and 10 others.
2 of those others are called Xavi and Andres Iniesta. They are also to be rated among the greatest players of all time. Xavi remains at 33 still one of the greatest creative forces the game has seen. A lot of the goals that Messi scores (with aplomb and often brilliance) stem from superb defence splitting balls from Xavi. the ultimate pass master in the game.
A lot was made about how Messi turned around the Champions League game against Milan last week. Two brilliant goals from Messi. In that 4-0 win though, were also two assists from Xavi.
Andres Iniesta is also an exceptional passer of the ball and brings energy and no little danger in front of goal to the game.
It is notable that the great Spanish national team of the past few years with their extraordinary record in international competition did not have Messi, an Argentinian, available to them, but the driving force of Xavi and Andres Iniesta in the midfield still produced quality passing that was a joy to behold and a team that thrived on the impact that this had.
The only question with Lionel Messi remains as to whether he can help turn Argentina into a World Cup winning team. There is enough talent in Argentina to make them a formidable team, although they seem overloaded with front players (Higuain, Tevez usw) and are notoriously short of international class midfielders. Strikers can only do so much. Without good quality ball it is more difficult to make an impact.
Pele it must be remembered won 2 World Cups (but for injury in 1962 that would have been 3). Admittedly the support cast was exceptional, but nonetheless he was the greatest player in 2 great teams. A World Cup win on Lionel Messi's resume and I think that you might be able to put him in the same class. He is certainly not far short as it is.
That Francesco Totti has never quite achieved the international recognition that he possibly deserves is rather sad. True he never achieved a great deal with the Italian international team, and his loyalty to AS Roma has meant that he has never really had the opportunity to make that great an impact in European club competitions - Roma have in recent years never really quite manage to challenge the Milan giants or Juventus for any sustained period.
I noted though that yesterday Totti became the second highest goalscorer in the history of Serie A. 226 goals in that competition in the modern era is, by any stretch of the imagination, phenomenal. That he is still a first-team regular at the age of 36, and he is still knocking in goals as if he were 10 years younger .... enough said.
He is one of those players who has always been fun to watch (although I have really not seen enough of him over the years). I will offer my congratulations upon his performance. Not sure how much longer he intends playing, but if it is not much longer then thanks for the memories.
Anyone who has scored as many goals as he has in the past year would in any generation be a phenomenon, and the Spanish League (La Primera) where he plies his trade remains one of the two strongest competitions in Europe.
Is he as good as Pele - the best player there has been in my lifetime?
IMHO not yet.
With Barcelona he has won everything a club can win. The point often forgotten with Barca (and the headline writers seem to ignore this fact a lot), is that they are not simply Lionel Messi and 10 others.
2 of those others are called Xavi and Andres Iniesta. They are also to be rated among the greatest players of all time. Xavi remains at 33 still one of the greatest creative forces the game has seen. A lot of the goals that Messi scores (with aplomb and often brilliance) stem from superb defence splitting balls from Xavi. the ultimate pass master in the game.
A lot was made about how Messi turned around the Champions League game against Milan last week. Two brilliant goals from Messi. In that 4-0 win though, were also two assists from Xavi.
Andres Iniesta is also an exceptional passer of the ball and brings energy and no little danger in front of goal to the game.
It is notable that the great Spanish national team of the past few years with their extraordinary record in international competition did not have Messi, an Argentinian, available to them, but the driving force of Xavi and Andres Iniesta in the midfield still produced quality passing that was a joy to behold and a team that thrived on the impact that this had.
The only question with Lionel Messi remains as to whether he can help turn Argentina into a World Cup winning team. There is enough talent in Argentina to make them a formidable team, although they seem overloaded with front players (Higuain, Tevez usw) and are notoriously short of international class midfielders. Strikers can only do so much. Without good quality ball it is more difficult to make an impact.
Pele it must be remembered won 2 World Cups (but for injury in 1962 that would have been 3). Admittedly the support cast was exceptional, but nonetheless he was the greatest player in 2 great teams. A World Cup win on Lionel Messi's resume and I think that you might be able to put him in the same class. He is certainly not far short as it is.
That Francesco Totti has never quite achieved the international recognition that he possibly deserves is rather sad. True he never achieved a great deal with the Italian international team, and his loyalty to AS Roma has meant that he has never really had the opportunity to make that great an impact in European club competitions - Roma have in recent years never really quite manage to challenge the Milan giants or Juventus for any sustained period.
I noted though that yesterday Totti became the second highest goalscorer in the history of Serie A. 226 goals in that competition in the modern era is, by any stretch of the imagination, phenomenal. That he is still a first-team regular at the age of 36, and he is still knocking in goals as if he were 10 years younger .... enough said.
He is one of those players who has always been fun to watch (although I have really not seen enough of him over the years). I will offer my congratulations upon his performance. Not sure how much longer he intends playing, but if it is not much longer then thanks for the memories.
Friday, 1 March 2013
Linguistic Freudian slip
I wondered into a shop today where I wanted a quick service providing.
Friendly enough.
Muslim run (says summat - they are not all Jihadis!).
I ran into the situation where the reasoned atheist (myself) meets the rigid philosophy of the believer.
The service was not free, but there available was a free copy of the Koran.
Neither time nor interest in the aforementioned work. Interesting on the front though was a load of stuff in German about the "Holy Book" and the word "Lies"!
In English that struck me as nearly appropriate (I would say that about any myths incidentally! Christian, Hindu, Greek or Roman myths usw).
Not deliberate lies of course, just ancient stories with no basis in fact that have become the grounds for modern misunderstandings. Superstitious junk I would call it on my abrasive days, but if they want to read it for their own purposes only - fine! To each his or her own nonsense.
For anyone who is still confused incidentally, the word "lies" in German is an instruction to one person - meaning "read"! Pronounced a bit like the English word "lees".
Friendly enough.
Muslim run (says summat - they are not all Jihadis!).
I ran into the situation where the reasoned atheist (myself) meets the rigid philosophy of the believer.
The service was not free, but there available was a free copy of the Koran.
Neither time nor interest in the aforementioned work. Interesting on the front though was a load of stuff in German about the "Holy Book" and the word "Lies"!
In English that struck me as nearly appropriate (I would say that about any myths incidentally! Christian, Hindu, Greek or Roman myths usw).
Not deliberate lies of course, just ancient stories with no basis in fact that have become the grounds for modern misunderstandings. Superstitious junk I would call it on my abrasive days, but if they want to read it for their own purposes only - fine! To each his or her own nonsense.
For anyone who is still confused incidentally, the word "lies" in German is an instruction to one person - meaning "read"! Pronounced a bit like the English word "lees".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)