Here’s a fascinating account of the 1945 Yalta conference from the point of view of Robert Hopkins, son of FDR advisor Harry Hopkins, who attended as an official photographer.
(via Milt’s File)
Month: June 2005
Hires, Fires & What’s Important
I haven’t had experience with hiring in more than a basic sense. (Spousal hires for employees working part-time at minimum wage just didn’t come up.)
Many of you have hired – or been on hiring committees. Your experiences are likely to be varied: as a hiring member of A) Your own business; B) A professional partnership; C) A large corporation; D) A public bureaucracy, or E) Academia. Probably sometimes you had complete control & sometimes you were on hiring committees governed by strict rules.
Prompted by Conglomerate Blog’s discussion of whether a law school grad should sanitize his resume of any hints he is both a Republican and a Mormon, I wondered what others thought. Conglomerate Blog suggests honesty, but admits that will lose interviews. Complete objectivity is impossible; in some environments, noting that difficulty, it was given up as goal. Certainly the factional or tribal, nepotism or ideology, make the disinterested ideal difficult. Nonetheless, some institutions encourage a dispassionate approach by rules & company culture. How much does this vary by the kind of organization? the level of job security?
So, what are your opinions? What worked, what didn’t, what was legal, what wasn’t? Most of all, what would you like to do & what did you hate doing?
Foley’s Mission
Another apology. (Thanks, Instapundit.) Well, kind of apology; title is “Confronting Right-Wing Hysteria.” And its gist is that the “apology” concerns the niggling–an unimportance communicated by parentheses: “(Truthfully, I had to listen to a webcast of my presentation before I actually recalled what I said.)” So Linda Foley writes.
They Can Dish It Out …
Many highly visible members of the Democratic Party have, over the last few years, been more than ready to dish out venom and abuse, not only on their political opponents, but also on our men and women in uniform, who as an organization have not taken sides in the political wrangly. But, when called out on their own remarks, they are plenty eager to ignore the challenge and cast aspersions on the challenger.
Thus, after Senator Durbin referred to American soldiers as akin to the Nazis and Pol Pot, and stolidly refused to apologize for having made the comments (and only for people having been offended), the Democrats now are demanding the head of Karl Rove for criticizing the Democrats’ response to the 9/11 attacks:
Rove, in a speech Wednesday evening to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, said, “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”
He added that the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for “moderation and restraint” after the terrorist attacks.
During the 2004 campaign, Bush dismissed the notion of negotiating with terrorists and said, “You can’t sit back and hope that somehow therapy will work and they will change their ways.”
So, it’s alright and defensible for Democrats not only to disagree with the Administration’s policies, but also to denigrate and demonize any and all who agree with any portion of that policy, castigating them as the reincarnation of Hitler; but if anybody so much as criticizes the Democrats for their reactions, suddenly the Democrats have such thin skin?
Don’t think the Democrats have been behaving awfully rudely? Captain Ed has more on the thick-skinned Party of the Jackass (hey, I didn’t choose their mascot) and its tendency to become extremely thin-skinned when its own are being criticized.
[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]