Well, as I've not really posted for a little while I felt that an update was warranted, this week I've been predominantly focused on job hunting, that most exciting and dramatic of hunts, in pursuit of the most quick-footed and stealthy of prey. Chasing over hedgerows and through open fields, with the quarry always in sight yet never quite within shot.
Anyway, having extended that metaphor for far too long, back to the point. Yesterday I was up in London as I had my first interview per se - it was technically an assessment day, but it was still close enough to an interview to have the general point. The company it was with was TNS, a market research company.
This was actually surprisingly fun. I know that's not the typical word associated with interviews and the like, but it wasn't too bad. There were seven people on the assessment day including myself, and the overall structure was very good and helped everyone relax, feel comfortable and it was a nice atmosphere - one which you'd think that you'd be very happy to work in.
The day included three individual assessments, as well as a group exercise. These were all preceded by an overall presentation providing a summary of what the graduate role was in the company. The first of these assessments was an interview in the more traditional sense, which I did not find went too badly, and was fairly standard - although in hindsight those things never do seem to go well when you look at them, but I was okay with it.
The second exercise was a data analysis one, where you were given data tables and had to interpret the data according to the brief and make recommendations in a brief presentation. This was quite engaging and I found this very interesting as well. It wasn't too bad.
We then had a break for lunch, where we got to talk to current employees who'd entered the company as graduates, and a group exercise before we got back to the final individual assessment. The group exercise was awesome - you had to build a six foot tall tower out of paper, with no other material involved. You were also restricted by time limits in that you had only 30 minutes total, and 6 minutes for the entire building phase. I was one of those in charge of the actual building and it was slightly panicky and took more time than we thought, but in the end we managed to complete the task and our tower made solely of paper stood tall and strong for five minutes and would've stood for longer if we hadn't knocked it down.
The final exercise was a numeracy test, which I found rather comfortable even if having to use a 5,000 year old calculator rather tedious and tiresome. This was one I didn't have any issues with.
Overall I felt I did competently, although whether that is enough to hear back I'm not sure. But I was fairly happy with my performance overall, especially for a first interview.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Okay, Perhaps I'm Wrong ...
I was wondering how long the nonsense I've written this past week was. My most recent blog post was 800-odd words. My first one on the subject was, and I have not edited a word of it, exactly 666 words long.
Perhaps the point that making a post about the values of atheism is 666 words long is someone trying to tell me something ...
Perhaps the point that making a post about the values of atheism is 666 words long is someone trying to tell me something ...
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Political Correctness Gone Too Far - Or Militant Atheism?
Following on from my post yesterday about atheism and threatening behaviour, I was doing some more research recently. One of the views of resentment towards atheism is the trend of 'militant atheism' - seen as a deliberate effort to remove Christian symbols from public view. This often overlaps with political correctness.
However, this is often blown out of all proportion by the media; we have seen the so-called wars on Christmas (it must now be called Winter or Holiday Festival, for example). But where is this political correctness and where is it an attack on Christianity?
As an atheist, I have no issues with calling it Christmas, or recognising it as an Easter Holiday or Christmas Holiday. Why? Because that's what it is - that is the traditional reasoning for the holiday, even if it doesn't hold that specific meaning for me. June 21st is still the Summer Solstice, even though there is little pagan religion nowadays. There is not the same level of political correctness on St. David's Day in Wales, for example, even though he is the patron saint, implying a Judeo-Christian belief system.
We don't hear of these because they are thought so commonplace as to be overlooked entirely for either a political correctness war, or perhaps more accurately, a chance for media to sensationalise and exaggerate a small element of political correctness.
However, this is Britain. It is very different in America, where atheists are viewed as the least accepted part of American society - making up between 3-8% according to recent estimates, and, astonishingly, not represented by a single congressman sharing their beliefs.
The two principal issues I have read of are firstly the use of images of the Ten Commandments. The second is the national motto, In God We Trust.
The first case is more straightforward. To me, there is a clear divide between the use of the Ten Commandments in appropriate placings - for example, courthouses, justice buildings and similar as a symbol of traditional dispensing of law and justice - and between placing them in schools for tenets of inspiration or guidance. There is no fuss about images representing the scales of justice from Ancient Egyptian religion in places such as courthouses - yet they represent the exact same thing, an ancient symbol of law, order and the dispensation of justice. That is perfectly right and proper and I, even as an atheist, have no problems with that at all.
The second is more complex. The original motto of the United States, set out on the great seal in 1782, was E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one. This was changed in 1956 at the height of McCarthyism to the current motto, In God We Trust. To me this is interesting as I was unaware of this. The background is one of redressing an American stance, behind a common Christian theme. I am unsure how widely known the situation here is.
Ironically, challenging the presentation of the current motto is a conservative traditional position, seeking the overturning of the change in 1956 to the original text as set out by the Founding Fathers. It is strange, and almost creates an appearance that the presentation of the American motto as an America united by a common Judeo-Christian background is a more valid one than the one representing the great cohesive society set out by the Founding Fathers themselves.
So in all this, what role does militant atheism have? What role does political correctness have? Certainly there are those who will be unbending to others' positions, demanding only their own way. There are some atheists who would prefer not to deal with religion at all, just as there are some religious people who have the opposite view. The vilification of 'militant atheism' as somehow undermining society, especially in America, is one that I find puzzling considering you would find the exact same proportion of religious people seeking to undermine the separation of church and state, for example - a situation barely touched on by the media.
Political correctness is also an easy target, dubbed as the cause of everything bad and ignoring all the good that it has done. This attitude is best represented by the media, criticising political correctness at every turn, and exaggerating and manufacturing small instances, save in the knowledge they will never be challenged by a public ready to listen to such comments.
So what to conclude? There is nothing to conclude really. In the end, realism is necessary, as is compromise. There is no other way between differing viewpoints. People must accept others' points of views. I can accept perfectly easily accept that the holiday around December is a Christmas Holiday. Can others not accept that an inclusive, traditional and representative motto is a greater symbol than a rebranding exercise - which while something that they may believe and may have a great deal of meaning to them personally - is by no means the potent and powerful symbol that its predecessor was?
I honestly doubt whether it will be so in my lifetime.
However, this is often blown out of all proportion by the media; we have seen the so-called wars on Christmas (it must now be called Winter or Holiday Festival, for example). But where is this political correctness and where is it an attack on Christianity?
As an atheist, I have no issues with calling it Christmas, or recognising it as an Easter Holiday or Christmas Holiday. Why? Because that's what it is - that is the traditional reasoning for the holiday, even if it doesn't hold that specific meaning for me. June 21st is still the Summer Solstice, even though there is little pagan religion nowadays. There is not the same level of political correctness on St. David's Day in Wales, for example, even though he is the patron saint, implying a Judeo-Christian belief system.
We don't hear of these because they are thought so commonplace as to be overlooked entirely for either a political correctness war, or perhaps more accurately, a chance for media to sensationalise and exaggerate a small element of political correctness.
However, this is Britain. It is very different in America, where atheists are viewed as the least accepted part of American society - making up between 3-8% according to recent estimates, and, astonishingly, not represented by a single congressman sharing their beliefs.
The two principal issues I have read of are firstly the use of images of the Ten Commandments. The second is the national motto, In God We Trust.
The first case is more straightforward. To me, there is a clear divide between the use of the Ten Commandments in appropriate placings - for example, courthouses, justice buildings and similar as a symbol of traditional dispensing of law and justice - and between placing them in schools for tenets of inspiration or guidance. There is no fuss about images representing the scales of justice from Ancient Egyptian religion in places such as courthouses - yet they represent the exact same thing, an ancient symbol of law, order and the dispensation of justice. That is perfectly right and proper and I, even as an atheist, have no problems with that at all.
The second is more complex. The original motto of the United States, set out on the great seal in 1782, was E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one. This was changed in 1956 at the height of McCarthyism to the current motto, In God We Trust. To me this is interesting as I was unaware of this. The background is one of redressing an American stance, behind a common Christian theme. I am unsure how widely known the situation here is.
Ironically, challenging the presentation of the current motto is a conservative traditional position, seeking the overturning of the change in 1956 to the original text as set out by the Founding Fathers. It is strange, and almost creates an appearance that the presentation of the American motto as an America united by a common Judeo-Christian background is a more valid one than the one representing the great cohesive society set out by the Founding Fathers themselves.
So in all this, what role does militant atheism have? What role does political correctness have? Certainly there are those who will be unbending to others' positions, demanding only their own way. There are some atheists who would prefer not to deal with religion at all, just as there are some religious people who have the opposite view. The vilification of 'militant atheism' as somehow undermining society, especially in America, is one that I find puzzling considering you would find the exact same proportion of religious people seeking to undermine the separation of church and state, for example - a situation barely touched on by the media.
Political correctness is also an easy target, dubbed as the cause of everything bad and ignoring all the good that it has done. This attitude is best represented by the media, criticising political correctness at every turn, and exaggerating and manufacturing small instances, save in the knowledge they will never be challenged by a public ready to listen to such comments.
So what to conclude? There is nothing to conclude really. In the end, realism is necessary, as is compromise. There is no other way between differing viewpoints. People must accept others' points of views. I can accept perfectly easily accept that the holiday around December is a Christmas Holiday. Can others not accept that an inclusive, traditional and representative motto is a greater symbol than a rebranding exercise - which while something that they may believe and may have a great deal of meaning to them personally - is by no means the potent and powerful symbol that its predecessor was?
I honestly doubt whether it will be so in my lifetime.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A Disstatement Of Belief
Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.
- H.L. Mencken
Firstly, I wanted to quote that because it is a most excellent quote. Secondly, because it's pure idiocy and totally meaningless. I don't pretend to understand a lot of things, and while I may not have any belief in deities whatsoever, it is only the arrogant and ignorant who think that something is not worth knowing. Everything is worth knowing.
To go on from that, I should point out that I am indeed an atheist. I didn't think this was a huge deal; the UK is a very secularised nation and it is not an uncommon view.
However, in current political climate, with governments charging ahead with faith schools, campaigning for the teaching of intelligent design in schools and so on, a large debate has centered on it. Columnists claim to represent the atheist point of view and how this is an outrage.
Which to me seems contradictory. Atheism is not a statement of belief; it is a rejection of belief. There is no common thesis uniting these individuals. For one to claim to speak for another is arrogant; what is even more laughable is the categorisation of all atheists as one in return. This is illogical.
To draw a parallel, let me think of religions as football clubs. Now, various people will support their own football club, to a greater or lesser extent. Some will just check the results in the paper, others will only have it as a statement of association. Others will be committed fans who go to cames every week. Some will decide that the best way to show their loyalty to their club is to go and beat up supporters of other clubs. This is actually a far better analogy than I thought when I started this comment.
In this metaphor, the atheists are those who may like football, but do not follow a team through choice. In some cases they may dislike football and therefore not follow any team. Regardless, their only common ground is that they have a common lack of commitment to a cause, in this case supporting a specific team. You do not have this collective lack-of-identity drawn up for football clubs. Why is it so in religion, when the unifying factor is a negative that affirms no beliefs, no common way those lack of beliefs should be taken, or anything more than a simple perspective on religion. It would like be saying all those who are religious represent the same viewpoint.
What I find even more curious is that far from being viewed as this, atheists are viewed as a threat. This linked article is a study by an American university into acceptance of minority views. I was absolutely staggered by the results upon seeing this survey. You should really read it to get the full potential, because summarising it will not do it justice.
This got me wondering in turn - why is atheism viewed as a threat? In modern society, where far from what could once have been an inevitable decline, religion has come to the forefront of debate. In this position, atheists are an acceptable target for religions to assert themselves on. But why? A resentment of change? A defensive attitude to belief?
I don't have an answer to this question. But I wanted to ask it. It is feasible to challenge atheism as an individual position. But to challenge it as a widespread, cohesive movement? It strikes almost as a paranoia of an army of secularist atheists, working together to tear down religions.
Why is it that religions demand in turn respect and tolerance of belief, yet at the same time attack atheism as an untenable position? Why are religions so convinced that those who are eternally damned, in their beliefs, are a threat to them and their movements? Why is there a need to build up lone individuals into a non-existent collective movement?
- H.L. Mencken
Firstly, I wanted to quote that because it is a most excellent quote. Secondly, because it's pure idiocy and totally meaningless. I don't pretend to understand a lot of things, and while I may not have any belief in deities whatsoever, it is only the arrogant and ignorant who think that something is not worth knowing. Everything is worth knowing.
To go on from that, I should point out that I am indeed an atheist. I didn't think this was a huge deal; the UK is a very secularised nation and it is not an uncommon view.
However, in current political climate, with governments charging ahead with faith schools, campaigning for the teaching of intelligent design in schools and so on, a large debate has centered on it. Columnists claim to represent the atheist point of view and how this is an outrage.
Which to me seems contradictory. Atheism is not a statement of belief; it is a rejection of belief. There is no common thesis uniting these individuals. For one to claim to speak for another is arrogant; what is even more laughable is the categorisation of all atheists as one in return. This is illogical.
To draw a parallel, let me think of religions as football clubs. Now, various people will support their own football club, to a greater or lesser extent. Some will just check the results in the paper, others will only have it as a statement of association. Others will be committed fans who go to cames every week. Some will decide that the best way to show their loyalty to their club is to go and beat up supporters of other clubs. This is actually a far better analogy than I thought when I started this comment.
In this metaphor, the atheists are those who may like football, but do not follow a team through choice. In some cases they may dislike football and therefore not follow any team. Regardless, their only common ground is that they have a common lack of commitment to a cause, in this case supporting a specific team. You do not have this collective lack-of-identity drawn up for football clubs. Why is it so in religion, when the unifying factor is a negative that affirms no beliefs, no common way those lack of beliefs should be taken, or anything more than a simple perspective on religion. It would like be saying all those who are religious represent the same viewpoint.
What I find even more curious is that far from being viewed as this, atheists are viewed as a threat. This linked article is a study by an American university into acceptance of minority views. I was absolutely staggered by the results upon seeing this survey. You should really read it to get the full potential, because summarising it will not do it justice.
This got me wondering in turn - why is atheism viewed as a threat? In modern society, where far from what could once have been an inevitable decline, religion has come to the forefront of debate. In this position, atheists are an acceptable target for religions to assert themselves on. But why? A resentment of change? A defensive attitude to belief?
I don't have an answer to this question. But I wanted to ask it. It is feasible to challenge atheism as an individual position. But to challenge it as a widespread, cohesive movement? It strikes almost as a paranoia of an army of secularist atheists, working together to tear down religions.
Why is it that religions demand in turn respect and tolerance of belief, yet at the same time attack atheism as an untenable position? Why are religions so convinced that those who are eternally damned, in their beliefs, are a threat to them and their movements? Why is there a need to build up lone individuals into a non-existent collective movement?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
I Suppose An Actual Update Is Warranted
Considering that I've not been giving any updates since I returned from university, I suggest that one may be in order.
Obviously since I've been back I have been looking for permanent work. I attended a graduate fair in London last week, which was very helpful and got me started in the right direction. I got a fair few ideas to at least start on employment directions, and a few graduate training schemes as well.
Since then I've been filling my day with exciting tasks such as writing my CV, rewriting my CV and composing covering letters. I've applied to several jobs and graduate schemes and have effectively cleared my collection of promising positions I found at the graduate fair. The next task is to start collecting more vacancies to apply for - so looking online, setting my CV up on websites, checking the paper and just going through the hard slog that is looking for work.
It's not exciting, it's not interesting, but it has to be done I suppose. Well, I could technically just claim benefits forever, but it seems like a waste of four years of studying and a lot of money to sit around the house doing nothing all day.
Anyway, update given. Hopefully the fact that I've written a post over two paragraphs won't intimidate some people who will remain nameless away from reading because it's too long for their poor brains to handle.
Obviously since I've been back I have been looking for permanent work. I attended a graduate fair in London last week, which was very helpful and got me started in the right direction. I got a fair few ideas to at least start on employment directions, and a few graduate training schemes as well.
Since then I've been filling my day with exciting tasks such as writing my CV, rewriting my CV and composing covering letters. I've applied to several jobs and graduate schemes and have effectively cleared my collection of promising positions I found at the graduate fair. The next task is to start collecting more vacancies to apply for - so looking online, setting my CV up on websites, checking the paper and just going through the hard slog that is looking for work.
It's not exciting, it's not interesting, but it has to be done I suppose. Well, I could technically just claim benefits forever, but it seems like a waste of four years of studying and a lot of money to sit around the house doing nothing all day.
Anyway, update given. Hopefully the fact that I've written a post over two paragraphs won't intimidate some people who will remain nameless away from reading because it's too long for their poor brains to handle.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Overdue Rant
This is a post I wanted to make ages ago, because it annoys the hell out of me. But it's the consequence of another conversation a little while ago, which reminded me to complain about this.
One of the things that drives me crazy is the constant tabloid screams whenever speed cameras are put up; the whole concept about how they're not there to reduce speeds, they're there to make money, and that it represents a stealth tax on motorists.
No! It does NOT! It represents a tax on criminals! How hard is this to understand?
When you speed, you are doing what is technically known as 'breaking the law'. Now, everyone does it, and that's obvious - it's one of those laws that is not really observed strictly, but it's still a law. And when you get caught, you're still a criminal, because that's technically what you are if you break the law.
Do you get any of the same sensationalist headlines when the fines for carrying a knife around are raised? 'KNIFE USERS IN STEALTH TAX' - yes, I can see the Daily Mail headline now, lambasting the government for taxing the poor middle class white families working in their kitchens with knives. Of course it doesn't. Because it's STUPID. Because people understand that it's targeted at people breaking the law.
Why can't people make this leap of logic with speed cameras? What is so hard about it?
One of the things that drives me crazy is the constant tabloid screams whenever speed cameras are put up; the whole concept about how they're not there to reduce speeds, they're there to make money, and that it represents a stealth tax on motorists.
No! It does NOT! It represents a tax on criminals! How hard is this to understand?
When you speed, you are doing what is technically known as 'breaking the law'. Now, everyone does it, and that's obvious - it's one of those laws that is not really observed strictly, but it's still a law. And when you get caught, you're still a criminal, because that's technically what you are if you break the law.
Do you get any of the same sensationalist headlines when the fines for carrying a knife around are raised? 'KNIFE USERS IN STEALTH TAX' - yes, I can see the Daily Mail headline now, lambasting the government for taxing the poor middle class white families working in their kitchens with knives. Of course it doesn't. Because it's STUPID. Because people understand that it's targeted at people breaking the law.
Why can't people make this leap of logic with speed cameras? What is so hard about it?
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Nitpicking
It has been pointed out to me that the title text of this blog is inaccurate, by referring to the word semi-daily. This is due to the fact that instead of meaning roughly daily, i.e. not to a stringent publishing schedule, it means twice a day. This is in part due to the confusing nature of semi- and bi- preceding time periods or measurements. Bi means two or double the period; semi means half or twice within a period.
Semicircle; half of a circle. Semi-daily; published twice as much.
Bicycle; twice as many wheels. Biweekly; published half as often (every two weeks).
Complicated.
To attempt to cut through this red tape of linguistic nonsensities, I have decided not to actually update regularly to actually fulfill my blog description. Instead I've tweaked the description. This is what is known in business circles as 'rebranding'.
Semicircle; half of a circle. Semi-daily; published twice as much.
Bicycle; twice as many wheels. Biweekly; published half as often (every two weeks).
Complicated.
To attempt to cut through this red tape of linguistic nonsensities, I have decided not to actually update regularly to actually fulfill my blog description. Instead I've tweaked the description. This is what is known in business circles as 'rebranding'.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
What's My Age Again?
Recently there have been all adverts on TV, radio, etc, plugging all sorts of stuff for Father's Day - best of The Clash CD, best of The Who CD, and so on. And my first reaction is, hrmmm, neat. I'll have me some of that. Then it goes on 'pick one up for Father's Day blah blah blah' and I think, bah. It implies that liking good music is only allowed if you're a father. That and it makes me feel like I'm 50 or so for liking it myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
