C-38.
Paul Martin - a leader who I was pretty apathetic towards until today - gave a speech earlier about his support for bill C-38, which would give equal rights to gay couples. His support isn’t crucial to the bill being passed, but he’s still the leader of the country voicing his support for not only gay marriage but true equality among the people:
The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.
To me that’s some inspirational stuff. And more so, near the end of his speech he indicated that his opinion on a subject is dictated by situational events and knowledge as opposed to being an immutable belief:
Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.
Let me say that again: our Prime Minister stood up and said that four years ago he was against this - and attributes at least some of the basis of that opinion to his faith. Then he stands up and says that he was completely wrong on the subject. He had faith, but then realized he was wrong. Awesome.
This genuinely makes me proud. The only downer is that most of the Canadian news sources are covering the hockey season’s cancellation more than this. Yet that too kinda defines us, doesn’t it?
Update: The Wikipedia has a page with recent numbers for the bill.
derek said,
February 17, 2005 @ 8:56 pm
Sometimes it’s great to be reminded that we ARE not the US. I’d love to see GWB stand-up and admit that he was wrong about something.
Not that I wanted to derail your post by talking about the US, but it is true. You going on Saturday night?
Luke said,
February 17, 2005 @ 8:59 pm
Man, that’s what I was trying to say without being blatant :-)
I’m waiting for Thom’s confirmation of the weekend - either Sunday or Saturday, whichever day he doesn’t have band practice.
derek said,
February 17, 2005 @ 9:12 pm
I was talking about the MeFi meetup.
Luke said,
February 17, 2005 @ 9:14 pm
Oh! So there’s now a date… Yeah I’ll probably go. We can talk about gay marriage! :-)
derek said,
February 17, 2005 @ 9:41 pm
Yeah, it’s Sat. night at the Bishop and the Belcher. Starts at 8pm. Apparently, there will be signs etc.
I’ll give you a call on Sat.
Tech Knight said,
February 18, 2005 @ 3:50 am
I ought read MeFi more now that I paid for it!
The text of the PM’s speech is inspiring, but the video is weak.. It’s distracting how much he looks down at his notes for words that should be coming from his heart.
(I feel bad making that criticism, because his speech is very welcome and important, but it just has to be said.)
Ron said,
February 18, 2005 @ 7:26 am
I’ve typically pictured the liberals as being kinda wimpy; prone to doing their best to be inoffensive to everyone while actually accomplishing nothing.
Yes, this gives me some hope for the future of our country, standing apart from our neighbours to the south, refusing to be absorbed or dictated to. It also gives me some faith that our politicians really do what’s right sometimes, not just what keeps them popular or what keeps them from being unpopular. It also makes me proud; proud to be a Canadian citizen, and also proud to have voted Liberal, not just because they weren’t far-right and stood a better chance of getting in than the NDP (that being any chance in hell), but because they actually represented some of the things I believe in. And now they’ve (mostly) proven themselves.
derek said,
February 18, 2005 @ 7:44 am
Derek,
While I agree, I think you would be hardpressed to find any politician that does not need some kind of visual queue while making their speeches. I noticed the page turning, but did you notice the amount of it? I seriously doubt the pages were word for word, and it also looked like he used them a lot more during the French segways.
Besides, with all the heckling etc. in the House, I would probably want an aid in any case you are derailed or lose your momentum throughout your speech. In particular, I think the Conservatives, and especially Harper, were very hurt by not only Martin’s words, but by their actions throughout what is possibly one of the best moments on the House floor.
Luke said,
February 18, 2005 @ 9:03 am
Ron: That kind of mentality gets fucked up leaders with their own powerful (sometimes dangerous) agendas elected. You don’t agree with their goals, but by God they’re sure of them!
I’d much rather have a leader, boss, commanding officer - any holder of power - consult with people and worry about the actual people under their power than someone who is self-righteous asking everyone for blind faith in their plans and agendas.
Since I was obtuse earlier in the whole Canada v. America comparison, I’ll just say it - lots of people favor Bush because he’s just so sure of his plan. People like that he has powerful beliefs and a clear direction. Many of those people don’t really care how the beliefs affect them - but wow, isn’t it better to have someone sure of himself then someone with an opinion that might change depending on the circumstances surrounding them?
Now if we can only convince Quebec not to leave…
P.S.: Derek, are you coming to the meet-up?
Ron said,
February 18, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
That’s not what I mean, exactly. I mean, sure I can see that side of it, but as you are certainly aware, there are two sides to every coin. I’ll explain if I can; I lauded our Premier for doing “what’s right sometimes, not just what keeps them popular or what keeps them from being unpopular”. Sure, you can take that to the GWB extreme, but that’s not what I meant.
By “what’s right” I actually do mean what you said they should do, “consult with people and worry about the actual people under their power”. How is that different from doing what keeps them popular and avoiding things that make them unpopular? Well, any strong stance on a polarising subject, like the one we’re seeing now, will draw ire from activists at either end of the political spectrum by the very nature of the argument. Often, the politician will seek to avoid pissing anyone off and so adopt a moderate stance, hoping to please everyone involved. Other times, they’ll consult with constituents, but the only ones consulted are those who hold the largest sway over their election chances, i.e. corporations, the wealthy (donors to their campaigns), and church groups (who tend to rally and vote as directed by their faith). You see where I’m going here?
It is this power play that leaves the everyday joe, the minority special interest groups, and the more leftist activists out of the equasion. Why? they don’t hold a lot of money, have little or no corporate interests, and not enough people of similar enough stripe in any one area to make an impact. This is one reason why you see the NDP come through strongly only in areas with a lot of Blue-Collar unionised workers, or minorities.
So while I agree with you about ‘the scary man with a plan’ scenario, that’s not what I meant about doing something unpopular “for the greater good” in this case. I was trying to underscore the controversy of the issue, and how I think that, for a politician to do what Paul Martin is doing right now, is a pretty noble thing. After all, it’s really going to hurt any chance he may have had of being re-elected, particularly with voters west of Ontario but east of the Rockies.
Am I making any sense here?
derek said,
February 18, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
You’re making sense, no worries. ;)
I agree with your final statement in that this is indeed a noble stance by the Martin government, however, I doubt it came about by any sort extra attention given to specific minority groups.
As Martin mentioned in his speech, they threw an enormous amount of legal experts (particularly Rights lawyers) into this debacle. Their eventual result is altruistic, however, it does not mean that their initial motives were at all (and Martin’s stance 4 years ago sort of confirms this).
I believe that this situation was “won” because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, by and large, a great document. No amount of constituent leanings, cash, or even personal opinion can trump its contents (well… notwithstanding clause aside) and I believe that the legal and moral minds behind its creation are the more deserving of praise.
Will this hurt his election chances? Most definately. Will it hurt Harper’s election chances? Probably as much as Martin’s. I say we are all better off in both cases.
RobertoShamasio said,
February 20, 2005 @ 2:15 am
First of all, the speech was ok, “Remember the Titans” was way better.
So was “A Clockwork Orange”
And “Footloose”
And the Holy Bible
His speech was no where near being in MLK or Woodrow or Rosevelt.
Secondly, standing behind the constitution isn’t really putting it out there. It’s a shure bet.
Always. Always Always.
I challenge anyone to find one time ever in canadien history where a primeinister was ousted for supporting minority rights by the consitution or the charter.
How about a big fat never.
How about Paul Martin is preaching to the converted.
Thirdly, the librals are invincible. Paul Martine could fuck a 10 year old boy live in the huose of commens, and shout when he comes, and people would still vote libral in the next election.
I know I will
If this bill fails, and nonconfidence is declared, he will wipe out the opposition in the next election, it would be like the good old days under cretian.
Watch for it, I’ll bet no less than $500 to any and all takers that the librels gain seats in the next election. Try me bitches, I’ll fuck up your savings acounts. I have some students loans to pay off so I’ll shamelessly take you cash.
So stop getting all misty eyed. His speech was actaully inferior to his source material, he admitted to something that was caught on camera, and his explanation of his retinking the issue was mean’t to cover his ass and shame the faithfull as being unprogressive.
You want inspiration? Tonight I was watching Tv and 4 leather chicks were licking and rubbing this pale naked chick on this alter type thing.
That was inspiring.
You don’t see Paully boy making those types of films, or pressing Canadien stations to show muffdiving at 3 in the afternoon.
Paul martin played the issue like it was suposed to be played and he’ll go down in history as the Cyrus of the gays.
I’m proud of the guy sure, like I’d be proud of my kid finally taking his first steps four years after he was born. Sure he’s walking upright, but it took several years to take those few shaky ackward steps.
He walking, and he’s your boy and all, so celebrate with a drink, but he’s no Ben Jhonson.
So dry your misty eyes and pick up the X, or “why we can’t wait”, or paine. Becouse everypage is as good as that. Seroulsy, just open one of those bitches up.
Or, check out Tony Pierces site, especailly the MLK day black man of the year award.
Roberto Shamasio
Ron said,
February 20, 2005 @ 11:26 am
Oh, I forgot; nothing can possibly compare to the genius of Tony Pierce in the eyes of Shamas. In fact, remember guys, none of us “bitches” know anything at all about history, Canadian politics, philosophy, or human rights now that Rob has a student loan to pay off. So let’s just give him all our money. Or how about, “no.”
Roberto Shamasio said,
February 20, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
If you reread my statement you’ll see that when I said I would take your cash for my student loans, I was refering to the line immediately prevoius (please read that line now), where I challenged anyone who disagreed with me to put there money where their mouth is.
The only way in wich anyone could interpret the statement to mean that I want my fellow bloggers to “give me all thier money”, is if I was so right about Paul Martin not taking a hit over this, that for someone to bet against such a statement would be as is as good as giving thier money away.
Wich it would be.
The bet however was rhetorical.
Becouse I lied about guiltlessly taking your money. I don’t believe in offering a suckers bet to my friends. Betting you (Ronald) that you’re wrong about Martin would be like betting you on a pre-recorded ball game.
That I had already watched.
Too easy.
That would be theft, and I’m not goig to steal money from from a friend just becouse he does’nt know what he’s talking about.
Unless he pushes then issue.
Then it’s game on bitch!
wallets to the ready gentlemen
Roberto Shamasio
Ron said,
February 20, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
Actually, Rob, I’m calling you out on your smug arrogance. I have no intention of betting with you, no matter how sure I may or may not be about my position. In fact, I have no intention of continuing this argument at all, since, rather than based on fact, it is a whole lot of opinions flying about; everyone is convinced that they’re right and that everyone else is wrong.
No, I’m afraid that arguing with you is like playfighting with a dog; no matter how bad you beat that doggie down, short of killing, or at least seriously maiming it, the dog will always think it has “won.” So, right or wrong, I’m not playing down to that mentality.
Roberto Shamasio said,
February 20, 2005 @ 11:20 pm
Thats the pussiest retreat I have seen in the blogisphere since you outright erased my opinions enmasse from your blog. You started a spat, then ran off with your tail bewteen you legs, and covered your tracks as you fled to your higher gruond.
You have my permission to intellectaully beat me down if you like. I invite it.
Can you hear me from your hiding place?
This is the net bitch,
it’s a place where ideas and ideology collide, its a battlegruond where wits and language are our weapons and armour. If you don’t have the equiptment, stay off the field. Becouse I have no tolerance for your lack of follow thruogh
Becouse this is a mans place.
I posted on the web becouse I was willing to go head to head, piont to piont, with the dedication of every geek and nerd and punk who got his ass kicked by bullies becouse he was smarter or stranger than they were.
Becouse
Here it doesn’t matter if youre oponent weights 300 pounds, you can argue him down to size. This is the world as we wish it was 15 years ago and now it’s here.
So show it some respect
And in this place, being a tuogh guy doesn’t get you very far, but being a sissy boy gets you less.
If everyone, as you say, thinks there right and the other person is wrong, than this is the place to hash out those differences, in black in white, for our peers to witness.
Were not playing schoolyard games anymore. No more walking away from the other guy becouse youre the bigger man. You sign your name you stake your claim to the ideas you believe in and want to share. You think it’s wrong to believe in something? In your own ideas? You call that being smug?
I laugh at that. Guess who the joke is on?
I like my ideas, I love my beliefs, and just in case there wrong I publish them in this and other blogs.
I challenge people in those blogs to disagree with those ideas and beliefs, and I challenge myslef to reconsider my beliefs in light of y challengers.
I will never stop believing in what I believe in until somebody challenges by beliefs. I will continue on with with my smugness until someone comes along who is intellectually big enuogh to school me. You don’t like my confidence?
Take me on.
Becouse this is my world. I helped biuld it. Not the machines and the parts and the code,
but the collective web of information
This is home turf for me and other geeks and freeks and people with big ideas and strong opinions and violent languege like
bitch and
fuck you.
Becouse here I am bigger and stronger than anyone who isn’t smarter than me. And if someone is smarter than me, I’ll still take them on.
Becouse maybe we’ll learn a few things before I’m beaten down like a dog.
Wich is better than running to the high gruond.
This is the place to Challenge and Educate
In the face of challenge and education, running away is giving in to weakness. It’s leaving the world ignorent of your truths.
Throwing insults and running away is to be small and what you do is who you are.
Am I wrong to think I’m right? Tell me why, and you’ll be finishing what you started. And you won’t be small anymore.
Until then, don’t tell me I’m wrong to think I’m not wrong.
Until you can tell me why I am.
Don’t tell me I’m wrong to think I’m right
Until you can tell me why I’m not
What it comes down to is me saying
Step up the plate, and I’ll give you respect and a piece of my mind. But if you don’t have the courage, or the patience, or the confidence to do that
then you can pack your bags bitch, and get the fuck out of my world.
Roberto Shamasio
Ron said,
February 21, 2005 @ 12:15 am
You know, you talk really big, but how long will you continue? Sometimes the internet is a battle of wits as you say, but on some subjects, subjective ones, it’s a battle of wills. Think you’re more of a bonehead than me? We’ll see.
I accept your challenge.
Where to begin? Let’s see…
First, you assert that the speech in question was ok, but not good, not as good as a half dozen examples. Fair enough, but no one said it was as good as your examples, or any other example, so what’s your point? All anyone said was that it was a good, not necessarily a great speech.
Next, yeah, standing behind the constitution or the charter may not be way out there, but it was harder than simply not making an issue out of it, as could have been done. Much face could have been saved by all involved to simply let the issue lie. I’m willing to say that, likely, more votes will be lost over this than gained, especially in light of the fact that most people don’t care enough about gay rights to NOT vote Liberal if Mr. Martin simply let this one slide. And that bit about being ousted for standing by the constitution? Where the hell did you get that from? That isn’t at stake here at all. Nobody is calling a vote of nonconfidence; it’s nowhere near that close. For another thing, this issue will be old enough news by the time the next election rolls around that it won’t have that dramatic an impact as to be worthy of the word ‘ousted’.
So, your inspiration? Please, enlighten me as to what is so inspirational about it? Why should ‘Pauly’ as you call him, be engaging in the making of the films you stated were ‘inspirational’? He’s not a film maker, he’s a politician… so you suggest that he should pressure Canadian television to feature ‘muffdiving at 3 in the afternoon’. If you can explain to me what this has to do with the issue at hand, that would be helpful. I think you just like to see your type in print on the screen.
So you think he’s not that great for doing what he did because it’s long overdue. True, but there are a lot of people out there that perhaps thought it might never happen. So tell me why we should not praise progress when it comes? Better late than never.
Now, for the fun stuff.
I never ran away to hide from this; you know where to find me and here I am now. Come get some.
Show the world / internet some respect? You know where that starts? It starts with every individual, including you. Take your own medicine mutherfucker, because you happen to be one of the mostdisrespectful assholes I know. And you prove it every time you open your mouth, every time you sit down at the keyboard to type something inane.
I don’t think it’s wrong to believe in something; I never said or implied that at all. I think you’re smug and arrogant because of the -way- in which you make your points. Sure, you’ve every right to say things however you please, but you’d be more likely to be listened to and taken seriously if you did it respectfully. There’s that word again; respect.
So here I am, throwing insults, but you don’t see me running away as you implied. Never did, never will. Remember, YOU came to my blog and pissed all over it and then YOU ran away when you didn’t like what I did in response. That was AFTER several explicit warnings which you likened to a GWB war speech. Who ran away? Not me. For crying out loud, you don’t even use your real name. Sure, we all know who you are, but I think it is you who are hiding.
I don’t think you’re wrong to think you’re right (nor did I ever say you were); hell we all think we’re right, or we change our point of view. Those who don’t are ignorant. You read an awful lot into that, and made some bad assumptions as a result. Do you fear me telling you that I think you’re full of it? Is that why you try to intimidate me into backing down?
So there you go; I stepped up. I told you what I think, as I always have. I can keep this war of words up as long as you can; my “weapons and armour” as you call it are as strong as yours; probably stronger - I can spell. I’ll get the fuck out of “your” world when you can fucking make me, “bitch.” Until then, no bags are being packed and I’m not going anywhere, so move over and make some room, because you have to share this world with me, like it or not.
Luke said,
February 21, 2005 @ 9:06 am
You sign your name and stake your claim? I find that a funny comment coming from “Roberto Shamasio”.
Just my two cents.
RobertoShamasio said,
February 21, 2005 @ 10:06 am
last piptns first, since they are feshist in my mind.
I am Roberto Shamasio. That is my real name.
In this place
In other places I’m called Shamus, or Robert or holmes
AI’ve actaulyy had Shamus apear on a paycheck
Before birth I had another name or no name. After death, I will have no nme or I will hopefully have a chance to choose a new name.
When I entered this world, the world of the wired I chose a name. I wasn’t here and then I was. And so I chose a name becouse nobody here chose a name for me.
I chose a name that honours my old name, but one that wouldn’t be picked up by google from a future employer. I was trained in the real world to earn a living helping people, and using my real name in the wired might have jepordized my oppurtinity to do that.
By using a new name, I can allow those two worlds to live in harmouny.
As for not making an issue of the gay maraige issue, we live in democracy with a free media, wich means that it is an issue whether the priminister wants it to be or not.
I don’t remeber Pual MArtin being the one to raise the issue. As a member of the united church of Canada, and a witness to Canada’s free media, I have seen people raising this issue for years.
Paully could not ignore this issue or let it lie inl ight of not only the media, but becouse by his own admission in the speech, homosexuals were allready being married in canada. If a practice is legally questionible, it has to be addressed one way or the other.
As for the vote of nonconfidence and him suffering in the next election. Plese reread you own initail comments on the matter. By implying that he did what was right and not what was popular and being great for that, implies that there was some sort of penalty for that, and in the world of politics that means seats.
You also say now that it will not be an issue in the next election. Well then what is the penalty you were implying? He becomes a human rights champion, he ditches his nickname ‘Mr. Dithers’
and takes the heat of the sponsership scandel
As far as me being disrespectfull, I’m not. I talk grownup talk. I treat people here like men. If I storm on a blog and disagree with people who suck rich white mens dicks for belatedly doing there job, I do it knowing that I’m not singling anyone out, and that I am of a minorty opinion. I use the word bitch becouse I don’t think it will make anyone cry. I call people bitch becouse this worlds relationships and conversations are less formal than the real.
As for the ponrography being inspirational, that was a gonzo statement, inspired by the likes of a man who died yesterday. It was false statement based on a truth that by being exagerated revealed an underlying truth.
That truth being that old rich white men have ruled the western world by doing the right thing when it profited them. Rich white men who claim puritan ideals while rejecting the underlying sufferage accociated with those ideals.
The 4 way was at least something counter enuogh to popular culture that it couldn’t be shown until late at night. I suppose such this should only exist in a seperate timetzone that childrens programming.
But sperate but not equal isn’t really equel is it?
Gotta go, not much left anyway, gotta drop off tiolets.
R_________________________
Luke said,
February 21, 2005 @ 10:14 am
Just to be clear - you have extremely strong opinions and beliefs, but you don’t want them to possibly get in the way of getting a job?
Ron said,
February 21, 2005 @ 2:12 pm
To back up my claims, I begin with ‘rereading my own claims.’ Penalty? Yes. Lost seats? Probably? When did I ever say it wouldn’t be an issue in the next election? What I said was that it would not likely be -enough of one- to ‘oust’ him. Still, it might have been politically safer to not press the issue, as I suggested.
So if your idea of ‘grownup talk’ is whipping insults and being self-righteous towards your friends, then I suggest you have a great deal left to learn about interpersonal relationships. You don’t treat people here, or anywhere else that I’ve seen, like people (”men,” as you say) at all; quite the opposite, actually, and nobody appreciates that. Calling people ‘bitches,’ while it may not make us cry, sets a negative tone and denotes the blatant lack of respect you have for everyone but yourself. The conversations may be less formal on the internet a lot of the time, but there is still such a thing as ‘netiquette’ here, which doesn’t include being a jerk. Also, the relationships you have with some of the people here extend beyond the virtual; you’d do well to remember that.
Now getting back to the alleged ‘issues.’ Your ‘gonzo’ statement was intended to provoke a ‘hidden’ truth about rich old white men ruling the western world; this differs from rich old yellow men or rich old brown men ruling thier respective domains how? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Can you claim that you would not do the same (doing the right thing when it benefits you) in similar circumstances? Besides, as I said, progress, regardless of what form it takes, or whom it comes from, should no less be praised.
RobertoShamasio said,
February 21, 2005 @ 6:12 pm
As for Ron, I believe we’ve come to a sort of aggreement, or enuogh of one not to continue this thread. On the issue of Marin taking a hit, we disagree, but our points have been made, as far as blogger morality, we are in agreement.
As for your question luke.
On my blog I will address the issue of my wired name being different from my given name becouse this is something that should be addresed on my own blog for my own readers, and also becouse it deserves it’s own post becouse this is an importent chioce for other bloggers to consider.
It does come down to my job.
As for the question of allowing my beliefs as they relate to my job.
I don’t believe that we are yet in a free enuogh society, that I can show up to a job interiew and believe that a stranger will not hold it against me that
I wear womans make-up on weekends,
that I’ve had a crush on a male friend,
that I’m glad there was an internal link in the Arar case,
that anti-gang legislation is undemocraic
that last winter I appraoched what turned out to be a teenage girl, with sexual intent
That I owe a whole lot of money wich is collecting very high interest
These are events and beliefs in my life that own up to. They are importent to me. I own up to them openly bfore my peers and my friends who are the most importent people in the world to me. I enjoy sharing, and I believe that sharing these things benifits the collective.
I don’t believe that I am comprimising my beliefs or identity by not sharing them with a prospective employer.
Hey Luke do you think oral sex is evil?
No? Are you sure it isn’t evil?
Then put that “oral sex is not evil” on your resume and see if you’re judged fairly on you abilities and emplyment experience agianst an equally quailified candidate.
Also include on your job application your views on partial birth abortion and the conflict in isreal. How about you include the bit on how you made out with a 15 year old at the youth conference, or sold drugs in high school.
Do you think that you have a right to discuss those events and beliefs on the web?
I do.
Do yo think that those things should have been bruoght up at your interview at Oceanlake? Or your current job? Were you comprimising in not submitting those events and opinions at your interview?
Did those events, and beliefs and your personal realtionships have anything to do with your programming abilities? Or your conduct with clients?
I strongly believe that I work hard at every job I do. No matter what it is or what the pay is I sweat my ass off and none of my beliefs or extra-ciricular mishaps have ever negitively affected my work.
Not ever.
Becouse I take pride in my job, wether I like my job or not. Read my bog, you’ll see that.
Nor has any job I’ve ever done aksed of me to act against my strong opinions and beliefs.
But I would be a fool to believe that the RCMP and law enforcement agencies I’ve applied to, would not hire another equally or slightly lesser candidate after reading my faults, and negitive opinions about thier organizations.
And why someone would think that I should carry a placard of my beliefs and history of personal failures into a job interview is beyond me.
Anywhere where I have been hired I’ve expressed unpopular beliefs. and those beliefs have hopefully spread. I would not have had that forum without first getting thruogh the interview process.
In Some things are none of my bosses bisness. First impressions are importent and I don’t want my employers first impressions of me to be me criticising his administration or his religoes beliefs or me talking about fucking.
My next job will be something that I will respect. It will be a job I would respect and it will be in alignment with my ideals. My ideals will be expressed thruogh protocol. Becouse ideals can be prioritized without being comprimised.
Maytredom is great, but wouldn’t it be greater to do 30 years of good before lighting yourself on fire?
Thats all I’m asking for, the chance to prove myself and do some good without being prejudged on my life chioces and beliefs that have nothing to do with the job.
So no, I would’t let my beliefs interfere with my job because I would not prioritize a lifetime of helping people five days a week for thirty years with full co-operation by the government.
To waste that opertunity would go against everything I believe in.
ROberto Shamasio
Luke said,
February 21, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
Rob, your argument makes absolutely no sense. I don’t put my sexual beliefs (as if I have any strong sexual beliefs!) on my resumé because it’s not relevant. It’s the same reason I didn’t write about COBOL when I applied for my current position.
And I do stand by my beliefs, and so does Ron. My boss reads this site, as well as at least two of my coworkers. And at at my last company, the situation was the same. And Ron has his resume linked right next to all his thoughts and opinions. And employers usually don’t go into, unless it’s in direct conflict with the job.
And that begs the question - if your beliefs are opposed to your job enough that it would affect the odds of your employment, then should you be even taking that job? Do you think I’d join the army? Or Microsoft for that matter?
I think that not signing your name is a copout. There’s a lot of people writing blogs using their full name voicing much stronger opinions than yours.