By Daniel B. Kline
Having given for a time the idea of full-time employment, I now find myself, like many Americans, cobbling together a series of freelance and contract jobs. I am perhaps uniquely suited for this type of life as my working history has been so varied that I’m qualified – at least vaguely – to do pretty much anything.
Though I fancy myself an editor and a writer, I make most of my money these days as a public relations person, marketing guru and Internet consultant. Until I started doing this in February, I had never actually done any of these things, though I’d dabbled in all of them at various stops along my non-linear working past.
I’ve run magazines and Web sites aimed at hip young men, middle-aged housewives, high school band and orchestra directors and rock star wannabes to name a few. I’ve also sold ladders and scaffolding, edited newspapers, fact checked TV Guide articles and (very briefly) sold greeting cards, fancy soaps and expensive chocolates to specialty stores.
As most likely the only former toy store general manager who once worked for a Web site that was bought by Playboy, I never consider myself unqualified for any job. I mean, I’m not applying to be a brain surgeon or a refrigerator repairman – or anything else that requires actual skill – but if it seems like someone smart and resourceful might be able to do the job, then I go after it.
I’m always looking to do new things and have a pretty strong sense of confidence that I can figure out most jobs. How different could running a cruise ship be? And, do you really need an ice cream background to run a frozen desserts factory?
I always assume I can do the job and that my odd mix of past experience represents exactly the perfect mix of skills that qualifies me for positions when my actual history in no way matches the job description. Through the years I’m sure this has led to my resume being put on the throwaway pile many more times than it has gone in the callback stack.
Of course, when your qualifications match nobody else’s then it takes a special breed of hiring manager to select my resume.
“Well, he’s never done this type of work, but I’m guessing this guy could run a dairy farm,” would essentially have to be the thought process from anyone considering bringing me in for an interview.
Fortunately, those types of people do exist and while many, many jobs I (and perhaps only I) believe I would be good at, pass me by without a thought, just enough people consider my mostly preposterous resume an asset to keep me solvent. Instead of a career, I’ve chosen to have a series of careers that are not entirely related.
That may not be so good for the bottom line, but it make me eminently employable for any job that nobody would be specifically qualified for. I can do just about anything because I’ve done just about everything. Hard to put that into a cover letter, but true nonetheless.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
New law would keep Tiger Woods single
By Daniel B. Kline
With the ink barely dry on his divorce papers, Tiger Woods now has every right to date as many strippers, skanks and porn stars as his heart desires. If the one-time-great golfer wants to become involved with two Kardashian sisters, a handful of “Hills” castoffs and the entire the entire waitstaff of the Indianapolis Hooters, Woods can fill his every waking moment with a flood of breast implants, hot pants, spray tanner and giant sunglasses.
What Woods should not be able to do again – at least for some time – is get married. If you get convicted of drunk driving then you lose your license for a period of time. The same should apply to marriage as Woods has certainly been convicted of being a bad husband of epic proportions.
As part of any divorce decree, judges should have the right to assign blame and impose a waiting period before each divorcee can marry again. Since Woods was a serial cheater who clearly placed little value in his wedding vows, he would be banned from remarrying for, let’s say, five years. His wife, however, whose only crime was being way too trusting and ignoring some pretty obvious signs would receive a lesser sentence of perhaps six months.
This new law should also impose penalties or consequences for creating pseudo-marriages like having kids with the woman you were cheating with or immediately moving her in with you. Let’s call that rule the Mel Gibson corollary as, had it existed, it may have stopped the movie star from the events that led to his recent, very public implosion.
While this new law would probably require an amendment to the Constitution, we should move forward with it as it not only protects men from making the same mistake over and over, but it clearly protects the women who would marry them. Why would any woman think Donald Trump, Kelsey Grammer or Larry King would suddenly be a better husband the third or fourth time around?
Woods has only been single for a few days and various news outlets have reported that more than one of his “ex-girlfriends” would be interested in marrying him. While the man certainly has money, he obviously lacks even basic moral decency.
Why would any woman ever trust Woods again? The golfer not only cheated on his wives, he actually cheated on the people he was cheating with.
Woods’ being a complete jerk and his obvious desire to sleep with more than one woman concurrently will not, however, deter him from getting married again. If women are lining up to date John Gosselin (and, sadly, they are) then certainly Tiger will have more than a few choices.
If Congress won’t pass my marriage moratorium, than let’s at least mandate that if any celebrity who gets divorced after a giant scandal chooses to remarry, he has to allow a reality show camera to follow him at all times. That way we could document the 15 minutes Woods remains faithful to his second wife and get to enjoy his next 17 affairs.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
With the ink barely dry on his divorce papers, Tiger Woods now has every right to date as many strippers, skanks and porn stars as his heart desires. If the one-time-great golfer wants to become involved with two Kardashian sisters, a handful of “Hills” castoffs and the entire the entire waitstaff of the Indianapolis Hooters, Woods can fill his every waking moment with a flood of breast implants, hot pants, spray tanner and giant sunglasses.
What Woods should not be able to do again – at least for some time – is get married. If you get convicted of drunk driving then you lose your license for a period of time. The same should apply to marriage as Woods has certainly been convicted of being a bad husband of epic proportions.
As part of any divorce decree, judges should have the right to assign blame and impose a waiting period before each divorcee can marry again. Since Woods was a serial cheater who clearly placed little value in his wedding vows, he would be banned from remarrying for, let’s say, five years. His wife, however, whose only crime was being way too trusting and ignoring some pretty obvious signs would receive a lesser sentence of perhaps six months.
This new law should also impose penalties or consequences for creating pseudo-marriages like having kids with the woman you were cheating with or immediately moving her in with you. Let’s call that rule the Mel Gibson corollary as, had it existed, it may have stopped the movie star from the events that led to his recent, very public implosion.
While this new law would probably require an amendment to the Constitution, we should move forward with it as it not only protects men from making the same mistake over and over, but it clearly protects the women who would marry them. Why would any woman think Donald Trump, Kelsey Grammer or Larry King would suddenly be a better husband the third or fourth time around?
Woods has only been single for a few days and various news outlets have reported that more than one of his “ex-girlfriends” would be interested in marrying him. While the man certainly has money, he obviously lacks even basic moral decency.
Why would any woman ever trust Woods again? The golfer not only cheated on his wives, he actually cheated on the people he was cheating with.
Woods’ being a complete jerk and his obvious desire to sleep with more than one woman concurrently will not, however, deter him from getting married again. If women are lining up to date John Gosselin (and, sadly, they are) then certainly Tiger will have more than a few choices.
If Congress won’t pass my marriage moratorium, than let’s at least mandate that if any celebrity who gets divorced after a giant scandal chooses to remarry, he has to allow a reality show camera to follow him at all times. That way we could document the 15 minutes Woods remains faithful to his second wife and get to enjoy his next 17 affairs.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Don’t build a mosque near ground zero
By Daniel B. Kline
Building a mosque near ground zero would be like building a museum dedicated to the history of the trench coat in Columbine, Colorado. There’s nothing technically wrong with it, but everyone with common sense not blinded by political correctness understands that the fact that it feels wrong should be enough to simply not do it.
I understand that the radicals who perpetrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 do not represent the Muslim religion any more than the nut jobs who shot up their school in Colorado represent the long-haired teenager in a trench coat sitting across from me at Starbucks. That, however, does not mean that we should ignore that it was, in fact, radical Muslims who caused the deaths of thousands on that day and building a mosque in the shadow of where the Twin Towers once stood would be a painful reminder.
Americans need to know that the not all Muslims are terrorists any more than all Germans are Nazis. We must work to have our citizens realize that a turban does not equal a terrorist and most Muslims are peace-loving people who simply want to live their lives.
That does not mean, however, that we should ignore the fact that this particular American tragedy was perpetrated by misguided radical Muslims. If 9/11’s villains were radical Christians, extremist Jews or a misguided hockey team it would be equally appropriate to not want to build a church, a temple or an ice rink near the scene of the crime.
Political correctness as practiced by President Barack Obama dictates that we should ignore the hurt that building a mosque near ground zero would create. It’s simply impossible to pretend that with all the places a mosque could be put in Manhattan, building one in the shadow of ground zero would be done for anything other than symbolism.
Admittedly, some of the symbolism would be positive – Muslims offering a sign of peace to help fix what their deranged brethren destroyed. That, unfortunately, won’t be the only symbolism evoked by the presence of the mosque though as made painfully obvious when the head of Islamic terrorist organization Hamas spoke in favor of the project this week.
In general, any project endorsed by Hamas should be met with extreme skepticism by any rational person. The terrorist seal of approval should raise a major warning flag that even if the builders of the mosque have positive intentions, their remain those who will pervert their actions for evil.
Nobody denies that Muslims have the same rights as any other religion to build their houses of worship wherever they want. Rights and right, however, are not always the same and just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
Building a mosque near ground zero would be like building a museum dedicated to the history of the trench coat in Columbine, Colorado. There’s nothing technically wrong with it, but everyone with common sense not blinded by political correctness understands that the fact that it feels wrong should be enough to simply not do it.
I understand that the radicals who perpetrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 do not represent the Muslim religion any more than the nut jobs who shot up their school in Colorado represent the long-haired teenager in a trench coat sitting across from me at Starbucks. That, however, does not mean that we should ignore that it was, in fact, radical Muslims who caused the deaths of thousands on that day and building a mosque in the shadow of where the Twin Towers once stood would be a painful reminder.
Americans need to know that the not all Muslims are terrorists any more than all Germans are Nazis. We must work to have our citizens realize that a turban does not equal a terrorist and most Muslims are peace-loving people who simply want to live their lives.
That does not mean, however, that we should ignore the fact that this particular American tragedy was perpetrated by misguided radical Muslims. If 9/11’s villains were radical Christians, extremist Jews or a misguided hockey team it would be equally appropriate to not want to build a church, a temple or an ice rink near the scene of the crime.
Political correctness as practiced by President Barack Obama dictates that we should ignore the hurt that building a mosque near ground zero would create. It’s simply impossible to pretend that with all the places a mosque could be put in Manhattan, building one in the shadow of ground zero would be done for anything other than symbolism.
Admittedly, some of the symbolism would be positive – Muslims offering a sign of peace to help fix what their deranged brethren destroyed. That, unfortunately, won’t be the only symbolism evoked by the presence of the mosque though as made painfully obvious when the head of Islamic terrorist organization Hamas spoke in favor of the project this week.
In general, any project endorsed by Hamas should be met with extreme skepticism by any rational person. The terrorist seal of approval should raise a major warning flag that even if the builders of the mosque have positive intentions, their remain those who will pervert their actions for evil.
Nobody denies that Muslims have the same rights as any other religion to build their houses of worship wherever they want. Rights and right, however, are not always the same and just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Political ads make everyone look awful
By Daniel B. Kline
Judging by the many, many political ads running in recent weeks, most candidates are not
only unfit for office, they’re likely criminals. Not only should they not be elected, but we should probably consider deporting them or at least putting them on trial for treason,
A few months ago, as the election season started, most commercials focused on the positive traits of the various candidates. “I’m John Smith and as a business leader, I created jobs, made tough choices and practiced sound fiscal management. As your next governor, I’ll do the same.”
The ads were fairly pleasant, focused on the positive and seemed generally believable. Perhaps, I thought, we have entered a new day where candidates run based on their accomplishments rather than their opponent’s alleged shortcomings.
That hope died in recent weeks as election day has approached and the campaigns have become more desperate. Now, nearly every single ad focuses on just how awful the opposing candidate is and what a horrible liar he was in his earlier positive commercials.
I’m all in favor of using advertising to publicize something negative about your opponent that the public may not know. If Candidate A raised taxes and Candidate B wants the public to know about it, that seems reasonable.
Sadly, that type of “fact” only represents a small part of the vicious commercials airing now. The body of most of these ads focus on making seemingly positive things seem horrible – even if when examined they were appropriate actions when viewed in context.
My favorite current ad involves a candidate for governor who attacks his opponent because of his actions as a CEO. Those actions, which involved laying off workers, moving jobs out of state and paying himself what sounds like a lot money, but would actually be low-end normal for his position, are painted as horrible.
In actuality, what the commercial tells me is that as CEO, this candidate acted in the best interests of his company. Despite his well-known desire to someday serve in elected office he executed his responsibilities to his business rather than serving his own ends.
Ads have become so vicious that some candidates actually accuse their opponents of committing crimes. Forget blaming them for the poor economy, or calling them “tax and spend” liberals, we have ads that actually allege fraud, misuse of public funds and outright solicitation of bribes.
I’m not precisely sure how to decide between any of these candidates because the ads make them all seem like horrible people who, if elected, will loot the treasury, have an affair with one of the Tiger Woods mistresses and change the state song to Ice T’s “Cop Killer.” Show me a few more commercials and I’ll be advocating not electing anybody and making decisions via coin toss.
I’m sure that beneath all the attacks and accusations, some truth exists, but I’m hard pressed to know who to trust. In some cases, the mandatory “I’m Candidate X and I approved this message,” makes me question the type of person who would sign off on ads filled with this much hate.
There must be someone running for some position who won’t bring about our doom either through incompetence or outright criminality but that person will not be discovered by watching TV ads.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com. See new content daily at WorstIdeasEver.com and follow Kline on Twitter at @WorstIdeas.
Judging by the many, many political ads running in recent weeks, most candidates are not
only unfit for office, they’re likely criminals. Not only should they not be elected, but we should probably consider deporting them or at least putting them on trial for treason,
A few months ago, as the election season started, most commercials focused on the positive traits of the various candidates. “I’m John Smith and as a business leader, I created jobs, made tough choices and practiced sound fiscal management. As your next governor, I’ll do the same.”
The ads were fairly pleasant, focused on the positive and seemed generally believable. Perhaps, I thought, we have entered a new day where candidates run based on their accomplishments rather than their opponent’s alleged shortcomings.
That hope died in recent weeks as election day has approached and the campaigns have become more desperate. Now, nearly every single ad focuses on just how awful the opposing candidate is and what a horrible liar he was in his earlier positive commercials.
I’m all in favor of using advertising to publicize something negative about your opponent that the public may not know. If Candidate A raised taxes and Candidate B wants the public to know about it, that seems reasonable.
Sadly, that type of “fact” only represents a small part of the vicious commercials airing now. The body of most of these ads focus on making seemingly positive things seem horrible – even if when examined they were appropriate actions when viewed in context.
My favorite current ad involves a candidate for governor who attacks his opponent because of his actions as a CEO. Those actions, which involved laying off workers, moving jobs out of state and paying himself what sounds like a lot money, but would actually be low-end normal for his position, are painted as horrible.
In actuality, what the commercial tells me is that as CEO, this candidate acted in the best interests of his company. Despite his well-known desire to someday serve in elected office he executed his responsibilities to his business rather than serving his own ends.
Ads have become so vicious that some candidates actually accuse their opponents of committing crimes. Forget blaming them for the poor economy, or calling them “tax and spend” liberals, we have ads that actually allege fraud, misuse of public funds and outright solicitation of bribes.
I’m not precisely sure how to decide between any of these candidates because the ads make them all seem like horrible people who, if elected, will loot the treasury, have an affair with one of the Tiger Woods mistresses and change the state song to Ice T’s “Cop Killer.” Show me a few more commercials and I’ll be advocating not electing anybody and making decisions via coin toss.
I’m sure that beneath all the attacks and accusations, some truth exists, but I’m hard pressed to know who to trust. In some cases, the mandatory “I’m Candidate X and I approved this message,” makes me question the type of person who would sign off on ads filled with this much hate.
There must be someone running for some position who won’t bring about our doom either through incompetence or outright criminality but that person will not be discovered by watching TV ads.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com. See new content daily at WorstIdeasEver.com and follow Kline on Twitter at @WorstIdeas.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Gentleman, start your engine
By Daniel B. Kline
If the term “grease monkey” had an exact opposite, I would be the physical embodiment of that entity. Next to the photo of the guy in oil-stained overalls wearing a shirt with his name on it, would be a picture of me trying to figure out where to put gas in my rental car.
My auto mechanic skills consist solely of being able to add windshield wiper fluid to one of our two cars (I haven't exactly figured it out on my vehicle yet) and knowing how to change a fuse on my former 1982 Chevrolet Malibu Classic. I got rid of that car in 1992 and, to be fair, in addition to changing its fuses, I also knew how to jam a pen in its air intake so it would start (often shooting flames into the air).
As someone who has no mechanical ability, even the most minor problem with my car scares me. If I detect a weird rattle, notice a clunking noise or hear some unexplained static on the radio I assume total disaster.
In general, my response to any suspicious noises my car makes is to turn up the radio. If I can drown out the problem with some music, perhaps it will resolve itself. Of course, that solution generally leads to louder, even more suspicious noises and the inevitable trip to the mechanic.
Not knowing anything about cars leaves you entirely vulnerable to people who have the superpowers required to change oil, replace shocks and who know the difference between the transmission and the carburetor. If a mechanic told me I needed a new flux capacitor, I could argue about that being a fictional part from Back to the Future, but ultimately, I’d have to pay the man to get a new one so I could get my car back.
It’s not that I don’t want to know about cars, it’s just that my brain tends to not be wired that way. This week, I actually paid my very nice appliance repair man $80 to tell me that my dishwasher was not in fact broken; the plug had simply come loose.
He pretended the problem might have been a bad wire, but I saw him push the plug in, causing all the lights to go back on. Prior to that, I did not even know my dishwasher had a plug despite the fact that it had been lurking under my sink for the last three years.
If a loose plug throws me for a loop then you might imagine my frustration when they key simply refused to come out of my ignition this weekend. The key would turn the car off or on, but it would not move into that last position where the radio goes off and the key slides out.
I ignored my initial instinct, which was to pry the key out and instead turned to the owner’s manual which told me there was a manual release switch in the steering wheel column. After 30 minutes or so of fumbling around looking for that, I found the switch and liberated my key. Now, of course, I was left with solving the problem which, according to the Internet, could either be a $40 lock cylinder or a mechanical problem requiring me to replace every piece of the car save for the cup holders.
Fortunately, I have a friend who runs the repair department at a local used car dealer. If I bring him my car, he can usually put his hand on the hood, whisper a few things and magically know what’s wrong. He actually still has my car, but he’s pretty sure I won’t need the full transplant and will probably just have to replace some sort of switch.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
If the term “grease monkey” had an exact opposite, I would be the physical embodiment of that entity. Next to the photo of the guy in oil-stained overalls wearing a shirt with his name on it, would be a picture of me trying to figure out where to put gas in my rental car.
My auto mechanic skills consist solely of being able to add windshield wiper fluid to one of our two cars (I haven't exactly figured it out on my vehicle yet) and knowing how to change a fuse on my former 1982 Chevrolet Malibu Classic. I got rid of that car in 1992 and, to be fair, in addition to changing its fuses, I also knew how to jam a pen in its air intake so it would start (often shooting flames into the air).
As someone who has no mechanical ability, even the most minor problem with my car scares me. If I detect a weird rattle, notice a clunking noise or hear some unexplained static on the radio I assume total disaster.
In general, my response to any suspicious noises my car makes is to turn up the radio. If I can drown out the problem with some music, perhaps it will resolve itself. Of course, that solution generally leads to louder, even more suspicious noises and the inevitable trip to the mechanic.
Not knowing anything about cars leaves you entirely vulnerable to people who have the superpowers required to change oil, replace shocks and who know the difference between the transmission and the carburetor. If a mechanic told me I needed a new flux capacitor, I could argue about that being a fictional part from Back to the Future, but ultimately, I’d have to pay the man to get a new one so I could get my car back.
It’s not that I don’t want to know about cars, it’s just that my brain tends to not be wired that way. This week, I actually paid my very nice appliance repair man $80 to tell me that my dishwasher was not in fact broken; the plug had simply come loose.
He pretended the problem might have been a bad wire, but I saw him push the plug in, causing all the lights to go back on. Prior to that, I did not even know my dishwasher had a plug despite the fact that it had been lurking under my sink for the last three years.
If a loose plug throws me for a loop then you might imagine my frustration when they key simply refused to come out of my ignition this weekend. The key would turn the car off or on, but it would not move into that last position where the radio goes off and the key slides out.
I ignored my initial instinct, which was to pry the key out and instead turned to the owner’s manual which told me there was a manual release switch in the steering wheel column. After 30 minutes or so of fumbling around looking for that, I found the switch and liberated my key. Now, of course, I was left with solving the problem which, according to the Internet, could either be a $40 lock cylinder or a mechanical problem requiring me to replace every piece of the car save for the cup holders.
Fortunately, I have a friend who runs the repair department at a local used car dealer. If I bring him my car, he can usually put his hand on the hood, whisper a few things and magically know what’s wrong. He actually still has my car, but he’s pretty sure I won’t need the full transplant and will probably just have to replace some sort of switch.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline. Follow him on Twitter, @worstideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
