Friday Trivia Quiz
Light blogging today - I am actually busy at work! So instead of writing something original, I thought I would do a short trivia test:

What movie has the opening line: "I believe in America"

If you don't know, the answer may surprise you.


posted by Director_Mitch @ 11:45 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Beware Headhunters
In response to my postings about getting job leads, I received an email from a reader wondering "how to get contacted by headhunters". For those of you not familiar with the term, headhunter refers to independent contractors that recruit people for companies. The term does not apply to internal "corporate recruiters" that work inside a company's HR department.

There are two types of headhunters: contingency and contract:

Contingency guys get paid only if/when some company hires you and are generally not under contract by an employer. These guys work on volume, sending anyone's resume they have to any employers that will accept them, figuring if they just get just a small percentage of hits, they will make money. They are the spammers of the HR world and are to be avoided. If they get your resume into an HR department, and you LATER go interview there based on something else, the headhunter still has a "claim" on you for up to a year after they sent in your resume. This claim means the HR department will have to pay the headhunter for hiring you, even if they were not involved. This is referred to having a "price on your head" and could actually HURT your chances of getting a job. This is why you see Principles Only or No Recruiters in some job ads.

Contract headhunters are just that - they are under contract for a particular company for a particular job. They get paid based on their time put it, plus a bonus based on the starting salary once they place a person. Since they want repeat business, they are usually very careful about who they put in front of an employer, so they usually take time to actually do a full interview with you before they even submit your resume with the client. Even if they don't place you, once you talk to these guys you are put into their database, so you may hear from them later about a completely different position. Contract recruiters usually specialize in an industry, geographic location, position (programming, marketing) or "level" (VP and up only , "C" level- CEO, CFO, CTO - only, etc.). Generally speaking, you should cultivate relationships with these guys, but still be careful. I had VERY bad experiences with them during the tech downturn when they felt they could treat unemployed people with contempt (and many of them still do).

Most job advisors will tell you to avoid headhunters and just target the companies you want to work for and do a concerted effort to get into them. Headhunters, however, are useful for finding companies you DIDN'T know about, which is actually how I landed my first job in California (it was a contract recruiter).

Here are some pointers to keep in mind when dealing with headhunters:

1. Don't Publicly Post Your Resume on the Internet - Do not lose control over who has access to your resume. My own resume is on Monster, but listed "anonymously". This means that there is no name or contact number. If anyone finds it interesting, they have to come to me via monster, and still don't know who I am unless I respond. If your entire resume and contact information is out there, then a contingency recruiter can pull it off the site, add it to his database, and spam it out to the world.

2. Always take calls from headhunters - be polite and ask right off if they are contingency or contract (or simply ask if they are calling about a specific job). If it is a contingency, get rid of them, but if a contract, find out more about the position.

3. If you are not interested in a position from a contract headhunter, send them to someone who might be interested - in other words, be helpful. They will remember that and call you back if they have something that is a better fit.

4. Remember that a headhunter does not represent your interests - they are working for the employer. While they may get a bonus based on your starting salary, this is not always the case.

5. If you are in a position to do so, spend money like a drunken sailor on headhunters - Okay, here's the REAL inside scoop on headhunters at the upper levels: If you are in the higher echelon, spend money like there is no tomorrow to contract headhunters to work for your company. I guarantee they will take care of you if you decide to leave or lose your job at that company. (While I have not had direct experience here, I have had several upper echelon people give me this exact advice and have seen it in practice).

The person who sent me the question also wanted to know how to get on a headhunter's list. One way is to get published in some way - as an author or as a quote - in your industry's trade journal since these guys scour the trades for people's name (I have been both quoted and published in my industry rag). In addition, you CAN call some of the contract headhunters that specialize in your area/region and make sure you get into their database. Otherwise, it is really a waiting game to see what comes in.

A good book that covers a lot of this in detail is Rights of Passage at $100,000. I read this a while back before it was updated for the internet and it covers a lot of ground of working with headhunters (its average review is 5 stars).

posted by Director_Mitch @ 5:00 PM (Permalink)
|

 
Will 9-11 Images be "Usable" in the Election?
First, several people have commented about the post below - as well as a post from last week - where I superimpose unflattering images with democratic front-runner Dean. Please note that these posts are just satire and a way for me to blow off political anger. But I find these sort of postings fair game in light of what I have to put up with from the left, the effigies that are burned at the anti-war rallies, etc. I think if the left could get into a reasonable debate without name calling, comparing Bush to Hitler, etc., that my own responses would be as reasonable, but that simply isn't going to happen.

Anyway, the post below generated some good discussion. Specifically, BFL leader Calblog commented "I am pretty sure that anyone who tried to use 9/11 images in a political commercial would be pilloried."

I agree, but I don't think this means they can't be used. I just think it means they have to be used carefully and only in certain cases.

The only side that can legitimately use the images will be the republicans - it is the event that shapes current U.S. international policy, which the dems are relentlessly attacking. If the dems are going to pretend it didn't happen - or that it doesn't matter - I think it is a legitimate argument to bring it back to the public consciousness.

Their use will bring immediate attacks from the dems - even if the voiceover is like my commercial idea below and just uses democratic words to go with the images, all sort of debate, discussion from the talking head shows, etc., which will bring more free airings of the commercial.

It may need only a single airing to have it plastered over the airwaves for free, like the Apple "1984" commercial or "Daisy". For those who are not familiar with the latter, "Daisy" had a little girl picking flowers and counting, the counting becoming a count-down to a nuclear explosion. This anti-Goldwater commercial ran only once before being pulled, had tons of condemnation, and is thought to have been EXTREMELY effective.



In fact, the democrats used a Daisy-like ad right before the war and are expected to run more like them during the election. If they use images of fantasy nuclear explosions, I think it is fair game to show terrorist reality.

However, I don't think 9-11 images will be used unless the election outcome is in question. I think the 9-11 images are the nuclear bomb for the election and won't be brought out unless it seems that the election is going to be lost. At that point, what do you have to lose? And since I think Bush will run a strong campaign, I think in the end that they won't be used.

However, I am not a political strategist, so don't take my word for it.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 9:48 AM (Permalink)
|

 
My First Presidential Election Commercial...
...would simply superimpose footage from 9-11-01 over a certain portion of Dean's interview from Hardball the other night. Total spot would take 15 seconds, be cheap to produce and cheap to run due to its length. Whatdoya think?




posted by Director_Mitch @ 3:38 PM (Permalink)
|

 
Join the Club - I Think
My favorite (okay, only) Canadian cross-link Recursive Progress has a post about a recent study up there that forecasts the end of the Canadian military services by the end of the decade unless they put in a giant infusion of cash. He suggests that losing their military would lead to a loss of sovereignty (is a country that can't defend itself a country?) and that joining the U.S. would be one of the few solutions.

I have always been intrigued about having Canada join the U.S. Every time I have been there I have forgotten I was in a foreign country until I had to use cash for some reason (to be fair, I have only been to Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and Calgary and have never been anywhere in Quebec). Every once in a while I will see some editorial from one of several organizations that promote the integration of the two countries and think "you know, we should add a few more stars to the flag during my lifetime!".

The link above lists all sorts of pros and cons, but here are the ones that come to mind (and nearly all of these are covered on the above site):

Balance of the Senate - While the House could also come into play, the Senate is the most closely divided and it is likely that (assuming the same basic Canadian "states" as there are now), there would be a large influx of Democratic Senators, shifting power significantly - and perhaps permanently - to the Democrats. This is probably the issue that would kill the deal today.

Healthcare - This is probably a hot rail for both sides. While I think during my lifetime the U.S. will slowly migrate towards the Canadian system, I don't think it will ever get all the way there. There would have to be some sort of "state" health plan for ex-Canadians (the site above also says that capital punishment, gun control and other social issues would also have to be left to the new "states", which is the case now in the U.S.).

Quebec - They can go independent for all I care, but I don't think they really have any reason to worry about losing their ethnic identity if they joined U.S. One only needs to travel to various major cities where there are vital and growing ethnic areas where all the public street signs, store signs and language on the street is Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. And every ballot I have ever received in the U.S. has come in no fewer than five languages.

Social Infrastructure/Spending - One analysis I saw years ago showed that while a few new Canadian states would suck up more money than they bring in in taxes (Newfoundland and Nova Scotia), the other states would make up for them (Ottawa, British Columbia, etc.) since they bring in more taxes than they cost.

Change in Tax Structure, Currency - This would be a biggy. We don't have a VAT and a much lower income taxes here. In addition there would be a currency change, so there would have to be some sort of long-term economic plan to bring everyone on par.

Immigration Policy - Another big change. A lot of Canadians are proud of their lax immigration laws that let in terrorists from all over the world (sorry, had to get that dig in) and going to the U.S. standard would be somewhat stricter (if you ask my lawn guy, he would tell you it is no problem getting into the U.S. - at least illegally).

Identity - This I think will be more an emotional issue than a practical one. I am originally from Texas and if you want to talk about people who identify (almost) more with their state than their country, Texas is it. Remember that Texas was its own country for a while after winning its independence from Mexico, so it would probably give the closest comparison to what we would expect from our new ex-Canadian fellow-citizens.


Overall, however, I think integration is a pipe-dream unless something really nasty happened to push it together - like some sort of major world war (we are in one now - it just isn't "major" yet).


posted by Director_Mitch @ 12:29 PM (Permalink)
|

 
I Can't Wait
I am soooo jealous of people who have already screened the Return of the King. I got my Director's cut edition of The Two Towers last week and screened it over the weekend. When it was over Mrs. Director (who didn't see it in the theaters) turned to me and said what I was thinking: "I want to see the last one NOW!"

(As a side note, Mrs. Director didn't read the novels and I should note that Mr. Jackson did a good job of up-playing the roles of both Eowyn and Arwen in the movie to appeal to women. The Mrs. is quite intrigued with both characters and is really into the implied love triangle that was developed in TTT).

The movie is coming in at 3 hrs, 15 min, so I imagine the Director's Cut of this - next Christmas - will be between 3.5 and 4 hours.

Hat Tip for the review to Instapundit (no, I am not going to relink to him - you know where to find him).

posted by Director_Mitch @ 10:00 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Link Updates
Some link management:
- I need to apologize to Irish Lass - her link was being sent to Interocitor

- Jockularocracy has been added to the Bear Flag League and is a good read.

- I try to keep cross links with anyone who links to me. Apparently there are some people who list the BFL, but aren't members, like eTalkinghead. Also, Insults Unpunished is cross-linked.

- A new cross-link to a blogger I find particularly interesting is Forgotten Fronts. He has rather humorous interviews with famous dead people and some good political insight. I also found interesting his observations of U.S. soldiers while he was in Guantanamo Bay Naval Station before immigrating (escaping) to the U.S. from Cuba.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 9:40 AM (Permalink)
|

 
This is the Dem Front Runner?
A lot of bloggers have been tearing up the really poor showing of Dean on Hardball last night. Just imagine what the headlines would be at the NYT if a republican had done this:

Mentioned the (extinct) Soviet Union Five or Six Times - He did this the day after he blasted Bush for "lacking foreign policy insight". Remember how the press tore up Bush for not knowing the heads of state for Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan? Not knowing that there isn't country called the "Soviet Union" is a LOT "stupider", Howie (and I bet the press ignores this).

Promised to Meddle in the Press - Yeah, Howie, the First Amendment doesn't apply to you. Imagine the outrage if Bush promised to break up the NYT.

Showed Ignorance of Basic Business Economics - A rather inane point he made during his "destroy big media" outburst was "There are only two or three radio stations left in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore."

Howie, your tiny little state has a population of 613,090 (2001 number). Take out the 17,000 people below five (and let's just double that number for kids up to 10) - and you get about 580,000 pre-teens through adults who might listen to the radio. Let's assume half the population listens to the radio some time during the day (I'm being generous). Assuming two stations, that is a radio station for every 145,000 listeners (three stations would bring it down to 96,500). This is assuming an even split, of course.

So Howie, radio stations make money off "advertising" (except PBS which rapes the U.S. taxpayer). This is a hard concept, so pay attention: "Advertising" revenue (and thus profit) depends on the number of listeners. If there aren't enough listeners, a radio station is not economical. (Plus, I imagine that the Vermont station playing taxpayer-funded NPR 24/7 to the yokels who elected you probably gets 90% of the audience and drives the others out of business anyway).

So, Howie, the sad fact is that your piss-ant state can't support more than 2-3 local radio stations, so quit presenting the fact as some vast media conspiracy. The radio stations in the area have to cater to the other states near-by to get enough critical mass for advertisers, and this means less local news.

Update: Jockularocracy did more research than I did and found that there are lots of stations, but only a few with local news (like I said the other stations have to reach outside of Vermont to get a large enough audience so will downplay local news).


posted by Director_Mitch @ 5:24 PM (Permalink)
|

 
It's The Thought That Counts
Did you know bamboo blooms only once every 60 years?

I learned this from a Holiday Card from a colleague in Asia (and checked it on Google, with most sites saying "25 to 100 years"). Unfortunately, my friend left the greeting in his native language, so I tried using Babblefish to translate it. Here is the picture of the bamboo flower, along with Babblefish's translation:


The large bamboo tree flower which blooms at only 60 years. It shows good fortune and it gives a flower of legend all. Today the good fortune to you. Everybody, the delay which it loves or, tries to send up contents to the friends ~ the good fortune will search even at surroundings minute and it will come!

Okay - I think the general gist of the message is that the bamboo flower, blooming once every 60 years, is a harbinger of good fortune. Its rare blooming should remind us to keep up with friends and loved ones...or something like that. (Anyone else want to take a swag?)

Pretty nice card, really, and will likely be the most unusual this season.


posted by Director_Mitch @ 2:52 PM (Permalink)
|

 
So Bush Isn't Unilateral
Since Russia also isn't signing the Kyoto treaty, I think that the uber-left can stop calling Bush "unilateral" (yeah, right).

posted by Director_Mitch @ 10:52 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Monday Personality Test
I haven't done one of these in a while and in honor of the world opening of The Return of the King in New Zealand, this seemed appropriate.


To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?

Hat Tip: Accidental Jedi


posted by Director_Mitch @ 8:57 PM (Permalink)
|

 
If It's a New Week, It's Time for a New Job Lead
As I posted Wednesday, I seem to be getting a lot of unsolicited job leads lately, making me doubt this whole "jobless recovery" meme that the dems are pushing.

Although it is only Monday, I already received my unsolicited job lead for the week. This one is in Pennsylvania, so I won't be replying to it (SoCal to Pennsylvania? I don't think so). The one from last Wednesday is in SoCal, so I wouldn't have to move, although my commute would go from 10 minutes to an hour. I am taking the call, but am not going to pursue it unless it pays enough for a really nice new car for me to relax in for that hour commute.

I should note that all these leads are with tech companies, which are suddenly white hot in terms of revenue growth. 2003 saw a 13.9% growth in semiconductor revenue (although from a down 2002) and 2004 is forecasted at an additional 17% growth. This demand is being driven by growing demand for the key products that use semiconductors: PCs, cellphones and consumer electronics, so companies in this segment should all be expanding hiring in the coming months (even if they are putting call centers in India).

posted by Director_Mitch @ 5:41 PM (Permalink)
|

 
They Always Cancel Shows I Like
This may be old news, but it apparently didn't make anything I read, so I just found out.

I was reviewing my Tivo "Season Pass" listings this weekend (yeah, I had a busy four-day weekend) and noticed that my pass for "Lucky" was still programmed, but nothing had recorded since last spring. A little internet searching today revealed that the show was cancelled in August, after only one season.




I really don't understand this decision since it was a critically acclaimed show. I thought it was an intelligent, if sometimes goofy, program and it was probably the first network show since "Seinfeld" that I actually looked forward to seeing every week.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 2:11 PM (Permalink)
|

 
More Bad News for the Dems
From the WSJ:

Manufacturing activity surged in November, logging its strongest growth in nearly 20 years, according to a closely watched survey of purchasing managers. Sector hiring grew for the first time since September 2000. Construction spending climbed in October.

I will be doing my monthly economic wrap-up and 2004 forecast in a couple of weeks. I don't think I will have to do any mental heavy lifting to predict that the economy is coming back fine.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 1:24 PM (Permalink)
|

 
I Called This One Wrong
I do admit when I'm wrong, and I am philosophically pleased, if politically surprised, that Bush is going to suspend steel tariffs. I had predicted a few weeks ago that he would keep them in place through the election.

It seems that indications of a trade war, which would hurt the economy, plus the fact that the economy is recovering anyway, plus the fact that the unions wouldn't endorse Bush anyway (they are already getting in line behind Dean) were the factors that pushed the decision to repeal.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 8:37 AM (Permalink)
|

 
My Entry in This Week's Carnival of the Capitalists
I am in this week's Carnival - a collection of economic and business posts - with my entry on outsourcing. This week's posting was done by Hobbsonline, who did a great job of putting in excerpts from each post as well as a short summary. This took a lot of work, so if you are interested at all, go take a look.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 10:23 PM (Permalink)
|

 
Memo to Paramount
TO: Writers, Television Show "Enterprise"

FR: Director Mitch

RE: Sloppy Writing

Gentlemen:

Since "Enterprise" takes place in the future I know that "fact checking" is not a normal part of your repertoire - everything from technological facts to history can be created out of thin air. However, please note that for episodes that go back to our "present", basic fact checking is needed!

Specifically, there were some glaring problems with this week's episode that 10 minutes of research could have resolved:

1. Blood Banks don't pay for donations - due to the AIDS epidemic, U.S. blood banks stopped paying for donations well over a decade ago. You had a scene where one of the "victims" in modern 2004 talks about the $25 dollars he received for donating blood earlier that day.

2. Blood Banks Frown on Prostitutes being Donors - Blood banks today try to screen out potential disease carriers by giving donors a standard questionnaire. Consisting of over 30 questions, they range from asking if a donor had a new tattoo in the last six months (disqualifying them from donating for half a year) to whether they have paid or received money for sex in the last 12 months (banning them from donating for one year).

In this week's show, you had a blood bank worker track down a donor who was a prostitute. While the prostitute may have lied on the screening form, or started walking the streets after waiting a year and donating, how did the blood bank worker know where to find her trying to ply her craft? Why would a prostitute donate blood in the first place? (assuming she wasn't paid for it, which takes us back to point 1).

There were several other problems, but I think these examples make my point. Please make a note of this for future episodes to ensure that it will not happen again.

Regards,
DM

posted by Director_Mitch @ 10:13 PM (Permalink)
|

 
Are Bloggers Weird?
Fellow Bear Flag Member Boi has a post where he lists four hypothesis of bloggers. Here are his points and my comments:

1. Bloggers are megalomaniacs - Boi's point is that anyone who believes that anyone else would want to read anything they're writing has a little bit of this. I have to agree with this to a point. I like to tell myself that blogging is my "hobby" and I do this for my own amusement, but the fact of the matter is that I make this blog public so other people can read it. And blogging wouldn't be fun if no one read it, commented on it, linked to it and posted their thoughts on their own blog on what I had to say. And dammit, what I have to say is worthwhile and people want to read it...right?

2. Bloggers are narcissistic - Boi is referring to track-backs, sitemeter statistics, TTLB status and other ways for people to "rank" their blog. For me, I don't think this is a form of narcissism, but a way to see how a blog is doing - sort of like weighing yourself to see how a diet is going or timing yourself in a marathon. If the whole point of blogging is to get people to read you (see 1 above), then you want to see how you are doing and perhaps change things to get more traffic.

3. Bloggers believe in community - I'll give him a bullseye on this. Part of the fun of blogging is that you can link, read and meet (on-line) other people who think like you do (or don't, but are still interesting to talk to). I have had a lot of fun belonging to the Bear Flag League as well as meeting other bloggers on-line.

4. Above all, bloggers are weird - Since a minority of people are blogging, by definition bloggers are outliers and are "weird". But as Rorschach commented to me, blogging is about "writing on the margin", in other words writing about things that haven't already been written about in the mainstream press and magazines or broadcast on radio and television. Those are the outlets for the "normal" people. For a blogger to be interesting, he has to be writing about what hasn't already been written about, so being "weird" would give bloggers the insight, experience, what-have-you, to write about what hasn't been already observed.

In addition, the rightward tilt of the blogosphere is because the "normal" mainstream press is left-wing. We weirdos on the right are using blogging as an outlet over frustration of not getting ourselves heard and continually having to read and listen to the slanted information of Major Media.


posted by Director_Mitch @ 4:57 PM (Permalink)
|

 
Sending in a Helicopter for a "Domestic Argument"
No, this didn't happen in Iraq, it happened in my back yard. And it is a perfect example of how California taxpayer money is being wasted by our police departments.

I have had an ongoing argument with my local police department over "appropriate use" of the police helicopter. I find nothing as more annoying than enjoying a day outside in my yard and having a low-flying helicopter come swooping in and circling for 20 minutes. And I get REALLY enraged when I am woken up in the middle of the night by a low-flying helicopter, only to find it was sent for some minor problem. If the helicopter were sent for a serious call, I wouldn't complain, but the vast majority of my inquiries over the years revealed minor issues where a helicopter has no business:

Domestic Argument - this happened today and several other times. What's a helicopter going to do? If the argument escalates and the husband decides to take a swing at the wife, or if the wife decides to grab the pistol, there isn't a lot the helicopter is going to do.

Suspicious Car - I'm serious, the police department sent a helicopter hovering over my densely populated neighborhood (like all of California) because a "suspicious" car was driving around. Thanks for waking me up, guys. It was probably someone who was lost.

Parked Teenagers - This one really pissed me off. A late-night call to send a helicopter after teenagers groping one another in a parked car?

Strange Noises - Another late-night hovering woke me up due to someone hearing strange noises. Maybe it was those parked teenagers deciding to move to a front lawn.

Most Unusual - A few blocks away is a major street with strip malls and a five-story office building. One night I called to find out why the helicopter was circling and found out there was a suicide threat at the top of the building (the helicopter actually isn't allowed to "hover" but has to circle, which brought it fairly close to my house). I asked the police department if the helicopter was going to catch him if he jumped, and all I got in reply was silence (guys on the ground ended up talking him down).

Only once did my inquiry turn up a good use of the helicopter - an assault happened at a party (i.e. a fight) and the guy took off on foot jumping people's fences. This was several miles away, but the helicopter's search pattern took it right over my house. I said thanks and hung up, but this was one time out of dozens over the past few years.

It's not like I live in a high-crime area. In fact, this area has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, and it's not because criminals are afraid of police helicopters. The bottom line is that there isn't enough crime in this area to justify a helicopter, which is why it is being sent out for minor calls. It is a waste of taxpayer money and one of the reasons why I don't cry when I hear about California police departments moaning about their funds being cut. I'm a pro law-and-order kind of guy, but when I see waste like this at my local police department, it just makes me angry.

I have exchanged letters with the police and the mayor on this matter, but this is going to be an ongoing fight that I am never going to win. The city has the funds for the helicopter and they are going to use that helicopter as an excuse to keep getting those funds - even if the helicopter isn't needed.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 1:53 PM (Permalink)
|