Bias against military?

March 30, 2011

Have you ever not received a job because you joined the military instead of going to collage?  What does that do to our country exactly?  Scenario, man walks into interview sits down, and the first question they ask, “You didn’t put your collage references down, which collage did you attend?”.  Man responds, “No collage, I joined the military.”   The interviewers look at each other and continue with some questions as if they are still interested.   Really?  Yes, it’s happened to me and I’m sure it’s happened to many others that stood up and said I’m willing to die for our country.   Why does society feel, that someone has to go to collage to be a good employee?   I think I have some answers, but who am I to say, I’m just a dumb Marine.

I worked for a company in the late 90’s that was bought out by a larger company.   At the time there were people leaving or being let go, because of all the changes.   My new boss from the bigger company had me helping him look through resumes and the first thing out of his mouth was, “weed out anyone that has no collage”.   Me looking stunned and him not knowing I had never been to collage I asked the question, “why must they have collage?”.   His response was if they went to school for 4 years, that means they are willing to dedicate themselves for a purpose.    I then asked him what if they were military and his response was quick with, as long as they have collage.   After informing him I had never been to collage, he now was the one looking stunned.

I don’t know about you, but joining the military knowing your giving up your life and all your rights to fight for everyone else’s, seems to be a bit more dedication than going to collage.  Now I’m not saying collage is not the way to go.  It should be required for some types of jobs like, but not limited too, lawyers and doctors.   I’m in the IT world and it changes constantly, so how is collage going to benefit me?   Take someone coming straight out of collage and everything they have learned about IT is no longer being used.  What they thought they knew is only a tip of what is needed to be successful at their job.   I write software in well over 15 languages and have been in this trade for 20 years.   Why would someone pick someone out of collage with no history over someone with 20 years of experience?  I have to wonder if it’s not the employer that spent $30k-$70k on collage that thinks, because they had to do it everyone else should too.   Or is it more like people that only want to hire from within their brotherhood of collage members, if you can even fathom that.

So what happens now to that person that didn’t get their job because they fought for their country?   They go home and tell their spouse and kids, I can’t get that job because I didn’t spend $30k for collage even though I’m over qualified for the position.   Our kids hear this and they choose collage over the military, because they want that job over hunger.  We now are weeding out people from wanting to ever go into the military and a war breaks out.  Now we have to draft those kids going to or have already been to collage.    Kids that are not wanting to be there because they choose to work over defending.   Now we have military that doesn’t want to defend, defending our country.

How safe are we?   Does this happen over night?   No, but requiring collage is fairly a new requirement in IT over the last 10 years.    Before the mid 90’s anyone looking for an IT job could get one, rather they had collage or not.    This day and age, most kids have a good understanding of computers and they see their mom and dads in IT so they are heading to collage just so they can learn an out dated process, but will most likely get that job before that patriotic parent does..

Advertisements

No question, the electoral process is obsolete.  Why is it still in place?   Why do people vote only for an electoral to vote for you?   Do you live in TX?  Are you a Democrat?  Is that a waisted vote?  Not for the Republicans.  Is the electoral process only in place to insure who is put into presidency while making us feel good about it?

I’m not Republican or Democrat and personally think calling yourself one or the other is very close minded.   Why can’t we have a president that says I’m not either, I’m just a guy here trying to do the right thing?   How many times as a republican you like some of the views of a Democrat and visa-versa?

The electoral process was put in place in the last 1700’s.  This was mainly to help people that were out in the deep woods/country to still vote and their representative who would in turn vote based on the majority.   These days, most are on the Internet, have access to phones, have cars, etc.   Are electors voting the way we want or how they want?   And if you look the votes are 100% one way or another.   There are 34 electors in TX and if 12 of them vote Democrat and the other 22 vote republican, the person running for president will get 34 votes.   So none of the 12 electors are counted for the person they wanted.  It’s not even thrown out.  They are changed to show 100% of the electors in TX voted Republican.   If this is a problem at state level, are your votes really counting for the county level and if so how does someone with the popular vote will loose an election?   Some say we can’t vote based on popular vote, because the only states that will matter are NY, TX, CA, etc.   Wait, I thought this was a nation of one?   Why are they being split up by state?   Also if the number of electoral in a state is based on the number of people in the state, isn’t it the same thing?  Are we the people of the United States or are we the people of TX?

This day and age people are screaming there is too much segregation, however, isn’t this the same thing?   My thought is electors are now voting the way they want or how they are told to vote.  People are put into power while we are put in a box only to make us feel like we have a say.   People need to start paying more attention to what our politicians are doing, because some day it will be too late to stand up for yourself, if not already.

I’m not a government official and I’m not an accountant, but it seems that the U.S. government is going about helping the poor the wrong way.   The way economy going, we all need to look more at how this process works before we all find ourselves in need and stuck with this kludged of a system.

What can the government do to make this process work better?   Is just giving fish to the hungry the best route or showing them how to fish a better solution?   Over the years, I’ve looked deeper at people on the streets and it brings a tear to my eye to see a 6% homeless go to 12% in New Orleans after Katrina.   Yet, we see Louisiana attempting to make a change by putting nicer homes, but forgot that not everyone can afford these types of locations, which in turn puts more people on the streets.   Is it the governments fault for giving them aid in the first place instead of giving them direction on how to change their life?   Is it the governments fault that there are people that don’t understand what it takes to be successful?   Is it the governments fault for setting up temporary HUD homes for people to live in and in some cases also paying the people to also live there, yet the next generation is getting their own HUD home?   No, the person isn’t getting a lot of cash for living there, but paying people to live in a house doesn’t really seem like we are solving the problem.   We are only creating a situation where kids are growing up seeing they can get something for free, so why try?   We are teaching our kids today that everyone is a winner, why?  So the kids that put in that extra effort have nothing to look forward to?   When you move the system the opposite direction then something else has to give.   Is a free place to live the best way or is it so some officials can keep people around to do the jobs no one wants to do?

What would this country do without the poor?   Does that mean the rich have to carry their own trash, clean their own house, or watch their own kids?   What a catastrophe!

Over the last few years, I’ve talked to some friends and family to find a hole in my thought process.   I haven’t really found one so I now come to you.   Here is my suggestion which I would love to over see, but current do not have the funds or the history of running a business to prove I can.  I have a lot of time and thought on the subject and figured it’s time to start writing it down.   Why can’t we setup a school for adults only?   Anyone making less than the poverty line, which is different based on the place of residents and for this example let’s saying its $20k a year.   They apply to the school and if accepted, pay them $20k as if it where a salary job.   Teach them the trait of their choice and help them understand, enjoying a job makes you more likely to succeed in it.  The training consists of a 7 days a week, 8 hours a day, for one full year.  That should wean out the lazy and concentrate more on the people that are willing to work hard for a year so they can change their lives forever.  They also have to have work ethics, the same as a job.  If they seem to only be there for the free ride, they would be replaced by someone that wants to be there.   Now, I know what you’re all thinking, that’s a lot of money not even talking about the $20k a year, but for the school, the teachers, the materials, and the training.   I also know there will be a lot of scammers that take part in trying to get in so they can have a free ride, screwing someone else over that’s still waiting to get in.    That’s going to happen there are just too many dishonest people out there to stop that.   Hints our system today has a very high percentage of that, just look around.   It has to be monitored and move quickly against the offender and move on.   Here is the plus side of it.

  1. The government can start pulling back on the hand outs.  Meaning our taxes should be less.
  2. They will spend less on this school than they do on the cost of maintaining the current process today.
  3. After the year is up for the student and they get their first job in what they have trained for, they have to put money back into the system, until their retirement.   Now because they have proven their work ethics and commitment, helping them find a job should be very easy.   They should be making more than double the poverty line so putting in a small percentage should not be a problem to someone that now has their life changed for the better because of it.   I know double the poverty line isn’t a lot, but this is someone that has only been doing this for a year, in a few years time it will only get better for them.
  4. After 40 years or so the people that have graduated now are putting cash back into the system that helped them, causing the school to be more self-sustained.   Finding that balance on how many people can be taught at a time per school, how much money will be brought back into the school and how much charity contributions the school gets can be tricky and would need a better suited person than myself to figure out.

This is all at a very high level and I can answer any questions anyone has for me.   Suggestions are very much appreciated.   I would like to see the people of the U.S. come together, build a system that really works and get some contributions to start a process like this.    A school like this in every major city could make a world of difference in many people’s lives and help teach our kids that working in the real world means you have to try, because you can succeed no matter who you are.   This of course isn’t for the U.S. only.  Once proven, it can be built in countries for those that are in need to find a passion and making money while doing it.