So, I haven't posted in a while. I was going to post last week, but got side tracked working on school.
So, last Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday I was in California (though Tuesday hardly counts because I boarded a plane at 5:10 am). I went to interview with a company called NAVAIR. They do weapons testing and development for the Navy. Anyway, they are located by a town called Ridgecrest. Geographically, it lies between Bakersfield and Death Valley. Whoopee.
I got a site tour most of Monday. It actually was pretty cool. They do lots of top notch stuff (the military has a large budget). I was fairly impressed with the work. They pay a lot less (as much as 25%) to start than some of the other places I've been looking at. However, it's a pretty chill area. It's a small town with mountains surrounding it. I could probably even bike to work every day (when it wasn't too hot). So, it was a good visit, but not enough to declare it the winner yet. They did tell me they would offer me a position if I wanted it.
Yesterday I got a voice mail from Raytheon in Tuscon (yea, I know, it seems like too many places have their business in hot climates). The message I got went something like this "This is so and so from Raytheon in Tuscon. We wanted to know if you'd be interested in coming down for a hiring event on such and such a day. If you'd like to, please contact so and so. We hope to see you there. Thanks." End of message. Nothing else. No contact information, no clue who this lady was I was supposed to get a hold of was. Nadda. Fortunately I kept the business card of the guy who interviewed me and emailed him about it. He forwarded my email onto the lady I was supposed to track down. Quite nice of him, but I really don't know how they would have expected me to get in touch with her otherwise. Still not sure if I'll make the trip next weekend. We'll have to see how things turn out.
Anyway, nothing more to report on the job hunt.
20 comments:
First step in getting a job offer in Tuscon would be to learn how to spell the name of the city correctly.
Um actually no it wouldn't make a difference if he spelled it Tucson or Tux5son. Or tucyourlameson.
I actually find that I'm more emotionally disconnected if I don't spell city names correctly. Tuscon is hot enough that I prefer to not be too excited about it.
Oh don't listen to anyone else, Tucson is great and you will find the best Mexican food around!! You guys should totally go there then we could see you guys since that's my hometown! My bro interned for Raytheon last summer and might again this summer, it is a great company. Good luck on choosing!
What I find interesting is that although you guys are huge Ron Paul supporters, you're looking to work for companies that survive off of defense contracts. What if Ron Paul (or somebody else that is anti-war) gets elected and promptly cuts the defense budget by 50%? You should be supporting more wars and more violence because your future depends on it. McCain's looking pretty good now, right?
Anonymous says huh... you worried Brett? I'm definitely the you'd have to be insane to support Ron Paul group (sorry guys, but then it's not a surprise) but come on; you're just being ridiculous.
If that may have gone to fast for you here it is in detail. Military spending is not a form of government welfare. A booming economy caused by more freedom and less government welfare won't hurt engineering spending it'll help it.
Well, first and foremost, I don't think Brett has ever said he supports Ron Paul. That's me. Brett doesn't support any current presidential candidate. However, since we all know I support Ron Paul let me just clear up a few misunderstandings about his view of national defense.
He is not isolationist. He is non-interventionalist. The difference you ask? Isolationism means you don't interact with any other country. You produce and supply only within your own country and essentially pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist or matter to the well-being of your country.
Non-intervention means you don't believe our country has the right to go into other countries to police them or change their governments, even if they are corrupt, evil or murderous. The constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to do that. If you think I am wrong about that please find the article and section where that power in enumerated. Each country has the right to practice self-determination, so even if their government is horrible, the people of that country need to make changes within their own governments. Also, being non-interventionalist means you still believe in trade with other nations. You just don't involved in their nasty politics and act like the US way is only way countries' governments should be.
A non-interventionalist is all for self defense and would therefore continue to spend on defense to protect our country from invasion or attack. If a country were to attack US soil a non-interventionalist would not lay down and give up. They would take their strong military that is not spread thinly across the globe in bases in more than 130 countries and make sure to defend the country tooth and nail. However, they would make sure Congress actually issued a Declaration of War before engaging in the war, as the Constitution instructs.
In short, a non-interventionalist would follow what Thomas Jefferson said in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none." When we stick our heads in the business of other nations we put in power people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban and then have to engage in warfare with them a decade or two later to get rid of them because it turns out they aren't very savory people after all. Doesn't sound like a smart foreign policy to me.
I also agree with Ben when he says that any time you let the free market rule, there will be plenty of innovation. Brett would have no problem finding a job in a completely free market society. He might even find more opportunities than he currently has.
Finally, in response to McCain looking pretty good right now. McCain will never look good to me. You can vote how you choose, but I can not knowingly vote for someone who has been implicated in scandals such as Keating 5, or known to have affairs. To me it's important to vote for someone I at least thing has integrity. It is easy to find out McCain has none. You don't have to do too much research to find that info out.
I am not doing the lesser of two evils business either. Evil is evil no matter to what degree it is. I'd prefer to write in someone I can feel good about supporting even if he / she won't win than to have on my conscious that I supported someone I knew didn't support decent principles. Furthermore, he is not even close to conservative, so I don't know why anyone on the right is supporting him. However, to each his own. Again, I just hope people do their homework and know why they are voting how they vote rather than letting their family, friends or the media tell them how to think. We all have our own brains for a reason.
Sorry for the rant. Did you expect less though? I also challenge those of you who are posting anonymously to come clean with who you are. We still like people who think differently than we do.
Last I checked Ron Paul didn't want to disband the military. He just doesn't have an agenda to take over the world like neo-cons do. And just to be on the record, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. And no, McCain isn't good looking.
Brett, he certainly does want to decrease military spending of the kind you mean.
Sabrina, the relevant sections are Article I, Section 8 and Article II Section 2.
And now you're in the position of putting yourself in a non-tenable position. If HRC is the democratic nominee, then the minimal difference between the candidates makes your position reasonable. However, if BHO is the Democratic nominee, then if you choose not to vote for McCain that will be an error of tremendous proportions. Fortunately, you're probably in a place where it's safe for you to pretend that your actions have no consequences because they probably don't. But if you move somewhere that they do, you'd better realize that D&C 132:1 applies to you as much as it does to me.
--Ben.
So a quick thought or two for the day:
1) It's amazing how many of our posts turn into a political discussion, even those which were in no way intended to become such.
2) I somehow miss how polygamy (D&C 132:1) relates to the topic at hand.
3) And I believe Sabrina's point was that choosing evil is still choosing evil, regardless of whether or not it is the lesser of two evils. And if quoting scripture, remember that the Book of Mormon contains types and shadows of our days. Third Nephi, chapters 6 and 7 do a good job of outlining the decline of a society due to secret combinations. And I think the point is made well in 3rd Nephi 7:5.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I meant Section 134.
As for choosing lesser evils over greater ones the question becomes do we have to make a choice.
The yes argument is that you're going to have one or the other so yes.
The no argument is that your vote doesn't actually matter anyway.
But as a universal principle the second doesn't fly. Do you have another argument?
So, here's the deal Ben (gosh, it's been a while since we had a good old argument, I miss those days). You think that you have to choose the lesser evil in order to not choose the greater evil (assuming that we believe we need to choose, which I do believe). The thing is, a single vote doesn't make a difference (unless voting for a county position in southeast Idaho).
Difference is made by those who are willing to stand up and say what is good and what is not. Difference is made by not going with the flow, even if you are in the minority. As long as our voting habits continue to reflect our acceptance of mediocre candidates who we, in good conscience, don't feel good voting for, we will continue to get candidates who do not espouse the virtues and ideals we need in a leader.
You can choose one who is not one of the listed evils, but rather one of the people you feel would actually be a good person to choose. You claim that not choosing to vote for the opponent of BO (who I do believe will get the democratic nomination) is tantamount to some colossal blunder. I contend though, that not choosing to vote for someone who is not evil is the greatest mistake you can make with your vote.
Wow. First, I would like to wish Brett the best of luck on his job search and also to Sabrina who is most definitely a large part of this process.
Glad to see that Ben is once again spreading the love. We've only met once, but I'm starting to think that you hate me Ben?
In the course of two day's and 3 comments, I have learned that not only am I insane, but I'm a moron.
Perhaps I just don't know you well enough and your friends know that when you call them insane, it means that you really love them?
As for choosing between the lesser of two evils - this is a course of logic that is subject to flaws and certainly cannot be sustained by any reference to modern or ancient revelation.
For example, let's say I see a child drowning and the laws of the land in which I live give me three options. First, I can throw a rock out to the child, then leave and let the child drown. Second, I can throw in two more children so that the one will have company as all three drown. Lastly, I could lecture the child on the importance of learning to swim before entering the water.
If I am required to choose the best option of these three choices, I will still have done nothing to help the child and it will of course drown.
If all people in the world followed these same rules, it would be the same fate for all children who happen upon large pools of water in which they cannot swim.
It is the same with your logic of presidential candidates. If all people choose the lesser of two (or three evils), then we will only ensure that some aspect of our nation drowns.
Our most recent prophet has spoken much on the subject of governments, their leaders and the warnings given in the Book of Mormon.
One example is as follows "But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras."
How can we support men and women who have voted in our behalf to take away freedoms, to destroy our liberties and to ensure the demise of this great nation? Have you read the Patriot Act, Patriot II, or HR6166?
Our liberties are being destroyed before our eyes. Our economy is poised on the brink of destruction. The morals of this nation have eroded almost completely.
To sum up, you referenced D&C 134 and so shall I. Verse 7 "We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all acitizens in the free exercise of their religious bbelief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy."
With each passing day, we of this nation, even in Utah, are being deprived of the privilege and protection of laws that the members of Congress and the President himself are sworn to uphold. How long will you continue to support such men? How long will you influence your friends, neighbors and family to do the same? Now is the time for us to do as Moroni and his fellow prophets of our modern day have instructed - awake and arise.
Thanks for enduring my lengthy post and have a nice day.
Yes, it has been too long. Now, that puts you in my second reason. But you didn't address my point that it doesn't scale. It's fine for Sabrina to refuse to vote for McCain, he'll win Utah anyway. In fact, if she lived in Florida it would be fine also; he'd still win by a few hundred votes. But in Florida if she convinced a few hundred people to go with her. Say one single large ward's worth, then you'd have a problem because then you'd have caused the greater evil over the lesser one.[*]
As for the nomination, I actually still think the good money is on Clinton. Have you forgotten what good thieves those two are?
Justin, not sure where you're going with that; in fact, I don't remember who you are. But, to address your analogy, in your situation, the correct choice is to break the law. In that perspective, let me put an alternative to Sabrina. Suppose that you had the ability to cheat in the election and vote enough times to guarantee the difference. But not enough times to pick a third party candidate. What would you do with your votes?
[*] Assumes of course it stays as close as 2000. In a blowout any single action won't change the course.
Justin is responding to your comment "I'm definitely the you'd have to be insane to support Ron Paul group..." and figured you'd remember him from the last few political posts. We're big Ron Paul supporters, therefore candidates for the funny farm. ;)
As for breaking the law...that's not necessary...yet. :) Imagine everyone who hates both the Democratic and Republican candidate decides to write in or vote for a third party candidate. Let's just say that number exceeds votes for the other candidates(and YES that is a possibility) and all those people aren't willing to settle for the lesser of the two evils! As Jack Kemp says..."The power of one man or one woman doing the right thing for the right reason, and at the right time, is the greatest influence in our society."
Karen, if it becomes a possibility then sure it will become reasonable to consider it. However, at present there isn't a viable third party candidate who can get the most votes. (And in fact, a plurality isn't enough, he actually needs 271 per the 12th Amendment).
As to Ron Paul, I've been pretty clear on that before, but if he were electable than we could discuss the merits and significant shortcomings of his position, but the complete unreachability of the second question makes supporting Ron Paul very short sighted in my mind.
Utah certainly was not guilty of this what with the 90% cushion Romney had, but in many many places if the Ron Paul supporters had instead voted for Romney, we wouldn't be faced with the choice we now have. It seems a little disingenuous to now complain that the choice is poor if you didn't do what you could to better the choice in the first place.
(As for the phrase, "you'd have to be insane to" it's not meant as an actual diagnosis of mental instability, so don't have yourself committed ;-). It's commentary on one bad choice and as mentioned in the parenthetical was merely meant as shorthand for everything I've already said.)
wow...I just wanted to wish you good luck with the job hunting, now I feel compelled to make some political statement,but maybe I'll just do that anonymously...
You're all crazy for not voting for Barrack. He came to my show with his daughters and they are so CUTE! He's obviously a good dad to go to my show with them, and I think we should be more focused on electing people who are good people and fathers, than we should be about economic stability, foreign policy, or anything else.
Hannah Montana is soooo cool!
I wish I had voted for Mitt Romney, he has the most amazing hair.
Now I'm for sure going to vote for John McCain, he is a proven leader and will assure we win the next war we engage in.
All I really want is safety and protection from the terrorists. I hope the terrorists don't screw up our economy anymore.
Have you guys ever heard Sean Hannity? He is amazing! Fox News is the only channel that has the truth.
Anyway, I'm going to go watch the Bill O'Reilly show I tivo'd yesterday.
The next war we engage in? With all the wire-tapping, warrantless searches, torture, and holding "enemy combatants" indefinitely without being bogged down with the due process of law we are safer than ever! We shouldn't have to worry about any more war. Thank goodness for an administration that recognizes it's more important to protect us from terrorists than protect our liberties. I am excited to think McCain could continute to carry that torch.
Actually, now that I think about it, maybe we'll need to go to war. That Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sure seems to want to pick a fight with us. Iran is a huge threat to our national security with all those nukes they could possibly make in about 5 years. We better nip it in the bud. I am sure they'd throw a pre-emptive strike at us if we don't do something about it first. They are hardly intelligent enough to realize we could obliterate them in a couple of days. I think they think we could take them over. They're a definite threat. Besides, aren't they training Al Qaeda there?
Post a Comment