April 27, 2005
A Heartbreaking Story of Rejection
Number 2 Pencil has a link to a simply hilarious article by a college journalism intern’s torturous experience of being rejected for a job.
The world of a college journalism intern is not glamorous. It's not exciting, and it isn't fun. It is a true test of skills and stamina, and above all, it makes you wonder if you really want to do what you thought you always wanted to do.Last week, I was flatly rejected by SPIN magazine for a summer internship in New York City. The "rejection e-mail" from SPIN's editorial intern coordinator said something like "after thoroughly reviewing all applications, we have come to a decision, and unfortunately you have not been selected." All I heard was, "You suck."
This girl better grow a thicker skin if she wants to have any job at all, ever. Unless you’re applying at McDonalds, many people have to apply for dozens of positions to even get an interview, let alone get a job. And these are people who actually have, you know, experience and stuff.
I first stumbled upon the internship opportunity on SPIN's Web site, and decided to take a shot at it. The application required a cover letter and resume, and three to five clips of published work. Three to five? I had at least six in my portfolio from my time here at the Transcript and with MCLA's paper, the Beacon. Along with camera-room experience and graphic arts certification, I assumed I was a shoo-in.
They required 3-5 clips of published work and she had 6. SIX. I mean, do you actually think that anyone else applying for that job possibly met those stringent requirements? She was totally a shoo-in. Totally.
[I] started looking for apartments in the East Village in my spare time. I told my friends I was moving to New York for the summer, and told them they should all come along, thinking they would all say something like, "Wow Krystal, I would, but I just can't right now, you know, work and all." To my chagrin, they all said yes. My friend Amy is moving in a few weeks, and I found her a job at a hip vintage store in the East Village. At least it worked out for someone.
Ok, I know I’m in the engineering department and most of us here would are probably familiar enough with reality to not do something like that, but I have never ever heard of anyone applying for a job and being so confident that they would get it that they started looking for apartments and telling everyone that they were definitely moving.
The rejection e-mail from SPIN also welcomed "questions regarding my decision." Naturally, I was a little more than curious. I was, and am, heartbroken, and like any heartbreak, I needed a reason. I asked politely, and received no response. A week later, I sent another e-mail, asking a little less politely, and a little more aggressively. This time I got an answer.
Heartbroken. I mean seriously, she was a shoo-in. This is comparable to divorce or something.
After telling me the delay in correspondence was because they had "fallen a bit behind in the creation of the next issue," I was told that being "snippy" to a prospective employer was "unbelievably off-putting," even if they had already decided not to give me the job.I went home and cried until I passed out, then woke up and cried some more.
Being unfailingly polite to a prospective employer seems like, you know, a good idea. What a surprise that they would get upset if you weren’t. I bet the SPIN correspondent was thinking, “Thank God we didn’t hire her.” I’d love to see her email. “You said you’d email me and you didn’t. Get on the ball!”
Then I thought about what the second rejection e-mail really said.First of all, what does an editorial intern coordinator have to do with the production schedule of a magazine? I read SPIN a lot, and have seen this man's name under a few minor album reviews. Nothing that would delay anyone's schedule. I had gotten a lame excuse for his procrastination, and he obviously didn't take my inquiry seriously.
Totally! I mean SPIN has 2-3 interns, after telling them what to do and corresponding with a few pissy applicants, what could he possibly be doing with his time? Sitting around sipping coffee while everyone else scrambles around?
I love her confidence that she knows what this guy’s duties are and that he should have emailed her back IMMEDIATELY since he obviously has nothing else to do.
Secondly, being "snippy" and being direct are two very different things. He said he would answer questions, and I took him up on the offer. When he didn't reply, I asked again. I wasn't mean or rude, just to-the-point. If he didn't have time to answer my first question, he wouldn't have time to read any unnecessary formalities. I had a question, and I wanted an answer. That's all.
She should have asked once, as politely as possible and if she never got a response, tough. They have no obligation to tell her anything, even if they said they would. I wonder if she would get “direct” with me if I offered to give her some cash, and then took more than a week to give it to her.
But, you know, she was just being nice and respectful of his precious time by leaving out "unnecessary formalities."
Lastly, and most importantly, his reasons for rejecting my application were the font I used in my resume and cover letter headings, and that I didn't show a "passion for SPIN magazine."So I used an interesting typestyle. I thought it was creative and would make my application stand out. Apparently, it made me seem "less serious."
My passion for SPIN is definitely waning, but I do have a passion for music, though rarely have the opportunity to write about it. Not everyone is lucky enough to write about whatever they want, especially if they want to get published. I thought an editorial intern coordinator would know that better than anyone.
Usually when people are going through resumes looking for someone to hire, they pay more attention to who they like and why, not why they are rejecting every single other person. Most of the reasons they would give for rejecting a particular person would be similarly pathetic.
But they totally should have had a good reason for rejecting this girl, because she was a shoo-in!
I was at a party last weekend and everyone asked me about the internship because I talked myself up so much. All I could say was I didn't get it. No one had the time to hear all the reasons why, and I didn't have the energy to talk about it.
Maybe you should have told them that you were an idiot for making assumptions and telling everyone about your cool summer job.
So I'm in for another six months at the Transcript until school starts in the fall. Besides, an internship with SPIN might not be the best thing for me anyway. I have a feeling I'd ask too many questions.
I love stupid kids. She gets rejected, but it’s not because she’s a poor applicant, it’s because she “asks too many questions.” She’s “standing up to authority.” I bet she even thinks her parents are, like, so totally dumb. Geeze, I'm 25 so it's not like I can't understand the hubris of the young, but I don't think I've been that presumptuous in at least ten years.
If there are any “editorial intern coordinators” reading this, while on one of their many coffee breaks, I hope they remember the name Krystal Grow.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:06 PM | Comments (1)
In Defense of Pedophiles?
I vividly remember a few years ago when I came across the NAMBLA website. (And I’m talking about the North American Man/Boy Love Association, not the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes) I was sick and depressed for days; I just couldn’t believe that not only did child-molesters exist, but that they had formed an organization where they tried to convince themselves and others that child-molestation was completely OK and children were sexual beings who should have the right to choose to have sex if they wished to.
What was most sickening was the section of their website where they have testimonials from boys as young as 11 with titles like “For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted” and “He Listens to Me, Unlike Most People.” Anyone who is not a child-molester can recognize in this the pedophilic tactic of preying on the abused and the lonely. I’m sure you could find some beaten women to praise their abusive husbands, too, and I’m sure that within their writings you could also find the tells of an abusive relationship.
NAMBLA claims that rape and sexual exploitation is grounds for revocation of membership, and I’m sure that there’s members who really believe that claptrap. They’re the same ones who read “For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted” and think it’s a beautiful tale of love rather than a story of abuse. NAMBLA puts out a publication called "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships" that explains how to lure children into relationships, how to fool the parents, how to not get caught, and how to escape if caught. Yeah, but, you know, they’re all about freedom for youth. Their capacity for denial is amazing.
Well this morning on Bill O’Reilly’s show, I heard about a 1997 case where two men, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari lured a 10 year old boy from his home, smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag, molested the cadaver, and threw the body into a river. Sicari was convicted of first-degree murder and Jaynes was convicted of second-degree muder and kidnapping. In 2000 the murdered boys parents filed a civil lawsuit against NAMBLA, having already won a civil lawsuit against the two perpetrators.
I think this was a wonderful idea. This is what civil lawsuits are for. Let’s put NAMBLA and their members out of business. Unfortunately there’s an organization who disagrees. Three guesses who it is, and the first two don’t count.
That’s right, the ACLU, and they’re doing it for free while the parents are footing the entire side of their bill. They’ve been holding up the case for the past five years; it still hasn’t gone to trial yet.
Information on this can be found here, here, here, and here. I'm suprised I haven't heard more about this case before.
Here’s the ACLU's press release on the subject from 2000.
In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech.
I’m sorry, but this is completely idiotic. NAMBLA’s content is not free speech anymore than my posting directions of how to build a bomb or exhortations to kill the president would be.
The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
Actually, when this lawsuit was filed, criminal and civil lawsuits had been won against the two men who committed the crime. This is hardly a case of blaming speech instead of people.
In fact, given Jaynes’s diary, I think it is quite easy to see that NAMBLA indeed contributed to his actions.
It was also revealed during the trials that Jaynes was a timid pedophile for years, until he joined NAMBLA in 1996, according to his own diary. Then he became emboldened by the idea that there were others who shared his twisted, sick obsession. He fueled his perversion through the group's Web site and e-mails filled with horrid, pornographic images of children. He read with great interest the NAMBLA publication entitled "The Rape and Escape Manual." [Nickname for “The Survival Manual“ – ed.]
According to the parents’ lawyer, the ACLU is now charging that the lawsuit would violate Jaynes’s freedom of association.
I’m not one of those conservatives who thinks the ACLU is evil incarnate, although they’ve certainly done things I disagree with, such as their seeming vendetta against the Boy Scouts. This case, though, is simply disgusting. My husband says I’m a libertarian except when it comes to protecting children. I agree with that, but I don’t even see how a libertarian could defend this.
Update: The current lawsuit can be found here. Here's some of the allegations.
28. Prior to joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes was heterosexual.29. After joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes received and read the NAMBLA Bulletin, accessed and read the NAMBLA website which is provided by John Doe Inc. and by said means of communication began to collect child pornography and various pedophile material.
30. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy conspiring and promoting of pedophile activity by John Doe Inc., NAMBLA Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen, Charles Jaynes became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy and promoting of pedophile activity by John Doe Inc., NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen, Charles Jaynes stalked Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts who was ten years old and tortured, murdered and mutilated Jeffrey Curley's body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library.
Linked at Outside the Beltway's open post.
Update: Today there's been a rumor going around (started by the LA Times) that pedophiles are almost always Trekkies. Turns out it's not quite totally true, but close enough. Right Thinking from the West Coast has a suggestion as to the reason.
I don’t think for a second that there is anything in Star Trek that particularly appeals to pedophiles. But pedophilia requires a high degree of imagination, such as imagining that little children can and will be receptive to sexual advances, that sort of thing. Nobody gets the idea in their head to molest a child and then immeidately runs out and does it. The action comes after years of fantasizing and imagining various scenarios involving children. So it seems to be to be completely reasonable that a large number of these type of criminals would have a passing to strong interest in Star Trek, a show which has always appealed to the imaginative.
Pedophiles definitly need a good sense of the imagination.
More here here and the guy who broke the story herehere
Posted by illuminaria at 12:32 PM | Comments (5)
April 20, 2005
Exercising the Constitutional Right to be Stupid.
Via Number 2 Pencil, see this story about a mall that, in response to several recent incidents, is passing out flyers about appropriate conduct and requiring that children under 16 are accompanied by an parent or other responsible adult.
In response parent Leann Newcomb said "I feel as though if I want to drop my kids off, I should. They're responsible." You may want to do it, Ms. Newcomb, but the mall is not required to let you, no matter how responsible you may think your daughter is. They are a private institution with no obligation to act as babysitter to your child.
What was even better, though, was her response to the mall’s rule banning dress "commonly recognized as gang-related…such as long chains …or studded dog or wrist collars, all of which can be used as weapons.”
"They sell that stuff," said Newcomb. "How are they going to tell the kids after they buy that stuff not to wear it? Isn't that a violation of your constitutional rights?"
Words escape me.
Do the schools still teach civics classes? Does anyone pay attention in them? Would it be a violation of Ms. Newcomb’s constitutional rights if I drove to Massachusetts and stuffed a copy of the Constitution where the sun don’t shine?
I can see the Supreme Court cases now – a customer of Victoria Secret sues the company because they objected to her wearing her newly purchased lingerie around the store.
Other annoying examples of constitutional misunderstanding – people who claim it’s a violation of their right to free speech for you to disagree with them or, *gasp*, even call them unpatriotic and children who protest “it’s a free country” when their parents attempt to lay down the law.
Posted by illuminaria at 01:53 PM | Comments (0)
Mayor “Are You Attacking My Manhood” Coleman
Recently talk radio host Glenn Beck has been covering the story of the 16 year old handicapped girl that was beaten and raped on videotape at Mifflin High School in Columbus, Ohio. (Audio can be obtained here. Registration required. Free audio avaliable here.)
While the actions of the students are obviously outrageous, what is even more appalling is that the administration at the school tried to convince the girl’s father to not call the police in order to “avoid media attention.” Surprise surprise, the father called the police anyway and now the school is getting even more media attention for that little gaffe.
But what is simply unbelievable is the fact that the school board decided to fire the principal, but only suspend the assistant principals and then move them to other schools. This, despite the fact that one of the assistant principals was the one that told the girl’s father not to call the authorities.
Glenn Beck was finally able to get Michael B. Coleman, the mayor of Columbus, Ohio on the phone today. (After he tried to back out of his promise to call in two days ago.) The conversation was quite interesting and perhaps indicative of why Columbus has such a problem with their school system.
Glenn attempted to talk to Coleman about the school board’s decision to keep the assistant principals on, and Coleman talked about the criminal side of the investigation and said that he was not allowed to reveal anything about it while it was open, but he was sure everything would be taken care of. Glenn kept trying to steer him back to the subject of the school board and their actions towards the assistant principals and Coleman kept insisting that he couldn’t talk about an open police investigation. About the only thing he said about the schools was that they had paid policemen there and that he, the mayor, had no control or influence over what the school board did.
The best part of the interview was when Glenn attempted to ask him a question, “Doesn’t it offend you as a man….” He didn’t get a chance to finish, but I’m assuming the end of that question was something like, “that the schools would allow something like this to happen to a girl and then do nothing to the people who allowed it to go on.” However, he didn’t get a chance because Coleman interrupted him with “Are you attacking my manhood?”
No wonder the Columbus school district is having so many problems, if no one in the city government is willing to get their hands dirty and deal with the problem. Sending the police over to patrol the schools is a good temporary first step, but it's not a solution. A little something more than that needs to be done, and it seems that the school board doesn’t want to do it and the mayor “can’t get involved.”
Apparently Coleman wants to run for governor of Ohio. I hope all you voters in Ohio remember this incident.
To end this article on a funny note, I’ll relate an exchange with a humorous man who called to say that this incident had nothing to do with Mayor Coleman, but instead was completely the fault of President Bush. When a stunned Glenn asked him why, he said “because Cameron Diaz said that if Bush was reelected, that rape would be legal.” Much laughter was enjoyed by all.
Update: Ohio for Blackwell has a post up on this also, and has the audio of the interview avaliable for free.
Update 2: I just spend a while talking about this with my husband. He listened to the entire Glenn Beck show, whereas I came in midway. Glenn was apparently ripping on the mayor the entire two and a half hours during which it seemed that the mayor was dodging the interview that he had previously agreed to. Glenn began the interview by apologizing for a scheduling mistake that Glenn, the mayor, and every single person in the audience knew that Glenn's staff had not made. Glenn was offering the mayor a way to save face for trying to dodge the interview.
However, my husband thinks, right or wrong, that Glenn treated his guest with hostility from the outset. My husband’s impression of the interview with the mayor was that Glenn had one major question to be answered and after the first time he asked it, the mayor stated concretely that he had no authority over the school board, but that his authority and duty was to the police department which was heading up an investigation into the matter and that to answer Glenn's question would most definitely compromise that case. Glenn persisted. The mayor never deviated from his insistence both that the police were doing all they could to investigate and that he was prohibited from compromising the case by answering Glenn's question.
The mayor did indeed say that he couldn’t talk about the police investigation, and it might be a possible interpretation of his words that the school board’s actions were included in the investigation, but I’m not at all convinced that that is the case. It can also easily be interpreted as him avoiding the issue. Plus, I don’t really see any reason why the school board’s actions would be part of the police investigation into the incident and thus covered by the mayor's inability to talk about an ongoing police investigation. My husband maintains, however, that when investigators initiate a media gag order, that they throw the net wide as to what can not be discussed to allow for possible unforeseen ramifications of information disclosure.
My husband also thinks Glenn, who he usually likes, was stupid and uninformed to be trying to talk to the mayor instead of the school board members. I agree. They are the ones who made this decision and should be anwering for it.
Also, directly after the “don’t attack my manhood” incident, the mayor did finally say “I’m not offended” to Glenn’s question about the school board putting the administrators back to work. That makes me think that he’s OK with the school board’s decision and explains why he’s avoiding the issue elsewhere in the interview. My husband thinks, though, that the mayor was flustered because he thought Glenn was attacking him with schoolyard insults. The mayor lost his composure and didn't really understand the question. He thinks that the mayor was reassuring Glenn that he had not offended his guest and that they could continue the discussion.
I still think the mayor was skirting the issue to cover himself and his people and his town, so I’m just recounting all this for the purposes of full disclosure, since I don’t want to be one of those hysterical pajama people who don't tell both sides of the story. I’m curious, though, as to whether anyone else has any sort of similar reaction to the audio of the interview, or if you all think my husband is nuts too. :)
Posted by illuminaria at 12:09 PM | Comments (7)
April 14, 2005
Burying Children Alive?
Via CNN, see this story about children being buried alive. (No, it's not what you first thought when you saw the title.)
Every two years, parents who have vowed to bury their first-born if they are blessed with a child, take part in the Kuzhimattru Thiru Vizha ceremony.The children are drugged to make them unconscious and placed in shallow "graves" in temple courtyards.
The pits are covered with leaves and dirt and the children are pulled out after Hindu priests chant a brief prayer -- lasting up to a minute.
...
Authorities have been trying for years to stop it and people found guilty face up to three years in jail and/or a fine of 5000 rupees ($114).
Wow, if all you have to do to get a child is bury it alive, then sign me up!
Seriously, though, I can't find a single other thing on the web about this, which is interesting considering the fact that it's apparently an ancient ceremony, plus it's just the sort of story that appeals to folks who love to be shocked.
Regardless, what I was curious about was whether the authorities actually starting trying to supress it in response to deaths. Sometimes when you hear about authorities trying to stomp out weird ancient practices, it is because they are odd, as opposed to dangerous. Not that I'm a relativist, but it doesn't sound as if this is a ceremony in which parents are actually trying to kill their children. I mean all they're doing is covering the children up with leaves for up to a minute. I really doubt children are dropping dead all over the place, although I can certainly see how it would be a practice that is somewhat prone to accidents, especially given the drugging.
Either way, it must really suck to be the first born child of parents with secondary infertility in India.
Posted by illuminaria at 04:56 PM | Comments (0)
March 16, 2005
Get Off My Lawn, Whippersnappers
Here’s a really cute AP story I saw on CNN today.
Third-grader commutes to school by muleSaje Beard's half-hour commute to class is the envy of her four classmates at a one-room schoolhouse just south of here.
Most mornings, the third-grader makes the trek on Ruth the mule.
…
Saje, 9, is an old hand at maneuvering mules. She's been doing it since she was in first grade.
…
Saje would ride Ruth every morning, but her dad won't let her if the temperature is below zero -- "even if she insists."Saje proved just how much she's willing to endure on a recent trek to school in below-freezing temperatures and strong winds.
"My cheeks are burning," she said, "but that's OK."
Saje gets up at sunup to prepare for school. She brushes Ruth and feeds her grain, then hoists an old saddle that weighs nearly as much as she does over the chubby mule.
Not only is it cute, but I always like hearing about kids who are still required to be age-appropriately self-sufficient and responsible. In today’s world it always seems that a lot of kids are being too coddled by their parents. Even ten years ago when I was a kid, this was often the case. Throughout my school years I almost always walked or biked to school, work, and friends’ houses if they were within a certain radius. My parents were never ones to shuttle me around, so I never really expected it. In fact, I usually enjoyed the walk.
One morning when I was about 15, I was walking to school,which was less than a half mile away, in the snow. (No, it was not uphill both ways.) A woman stopped to give me a ride and was simply horrified that my parents wouldn’t drive me to school. When I was working in a fast-food restaurant that was about a quarter mile away, my friends were horrified that I walked to work. I thought they were all nuts.
Obviously children who live on busy streets or in bad neighborhoods can’t do this, but for the most part I think providing your own transportation after a certain age is a great thing. It teaches children to trust their own abilities, gives them time to think, and it’s a good way to make ‘em exercise; all things that seem to be missing in kids’ lives these days.
I realize I sound like an old fogey here, but I promise I’m only 25!
Posted by illuminaria at 12:54 PM | Comments (1)