Liberalism: One size does not fit all

With the news this morning that the Obama administration is considering off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and along portions of the Atlantic Coast, I began thinking about labels.

President Obama has been labeled a radical liberal by many conservatives. Yet, this is a president who increased our military presence in Afghanistan and supports the building of more nuclear power plants. There are some animal-rights activists, particularly those concerned about protecting whales from commercial fishermen in international waters, who are concerned Obama is not in their corner. These don't seem to be the things that define liberalism. Perhaps labels are nothing more than an easy way to cast stones at the opposition.

Here's what John F. Kennedy said about liberalism in a 1960 speech:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Second thoughts about an online presence

Blogging has not landed me back on a payroll. Nor has social/professional networking, a YouTube page or a Twitter account helped me find a job. As the jobless months drag on, I wonder whether all of this online stuff has actually prevented me from being hired.

The drill for most laid-off journalists is this:

Day one: Join LinkedIn.com
Day two: Get on Facebook
Day three: Start blogging

Then let it all simmer a bit and wait for the phone to ring.

Actually, there is more to it than that, but you get my drift. We're becoming a cliche and the results are the same. The phone rarely rings. The e-mail replies from employers are scarce. The job sites, like LinkedIn.com or CareerBuilder.com, yield tons of spam but no job offers. Employers who want to hire me can't. Just not enough pennies in the pot. The new online-revenue streams aren't very deep and advertising remains flat. Hiring, particularly for newspaper companies, is spotty at best. I sense some editors and publishers wanting to capitalize on my experience by bringing me on board, but there just aren't any positions available.

There is some evidence, more so in my gut than in any scientific poll, that suggests that life on the Internet isn't a cure-all and can actually do more harm than good when searching for work. Yes, all the media and some career experts say modern-day journalists need to be tweeting up a storm and posting text, photos and video on their blogs regularly to show they are progressive and tech savvy. I can do all of that with relative ease, but it's never set well with me. I feel it's self indulgent. I think it reveals portions of myself that may not come across the way I intended. It's too easy to be misunderstood here.

For instance, I am politically independent. Yet, someone reading this blog, particularly lately, might think I am leaning towards the radical left. If that someone is in a hiring position, I am potentially screwed, depending on their political views. One edgy post in a blog of well over 200 could lead to a snap judgment. The only snap judgment I want to hear at this point is "you're hired."

Is it better to put yourself out there and run the risk of being misread? Or is it safer to remain relatively anonymous and not interact in cyberspace? These are questions job seekers wonder about.

There is no foul language or bikini-clad women in this blog. But there are opinions. As a native-New Yorker, I believe debating issues is a good and natural thing. As a one-time newspaper columnist and editorial writer, I guess this stuff is in my blood. I would think that would be a positive quality to project, especially to media companies, but I can also see how one's image could be skewed through a simple Google search.

After many months of being relatively well connected online, I've never felt so disconnected from the working world. Unemployed journalists need to find a delicate balance between being engaged online while not blogging or tweeting themselves right out of a job interview. My blog posts, LinkedIn.com and Facebook profiles, rock 'n' roll YouTube pages or anything else that comes up in a "Mick Calvacca" Google search are not the total summation of who I am. In fact, my professional personality and sensibilities are considerably different than my online persona might indicate.

There is a lot to mull over about the value of blogging and other online activities. I blog to keep my brain working and because that's what unemployed journalists do, I guess. It helps me keep up with the news and I have learned a few technical tricks along the way that might come in useful at some point. Those are good things. With that said, there is very little evidence that there are any job-finding benefits to having an online presence. What I need to figure out now is whether I am doing more harm than good by sharing some of my thoughts and interacting in such a public fashion.

"Free agents" help some employers upgrade

Good news for seasoned professionals looking for work. Companies are finally discovering that hiring overqualified job candidates brings extra value to the workplace. Read more.

This is a great time for companies to upgrade their workforces at bargain prices. There are a lot of seasoned professionals searching for jobs -- "free agents" who could elevate businesses. Many of them would sacrifice salary and a fancy office for job security and quality of life benefits. The thought that these so-called overqualified candidates would grow bored or move on to a better job as soon as the economy improves doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.

For employers to be scared off by job seekers with vast institutional knowledge is to pass up an opportunity to upgrade their businesses. These are different times. The old rules and myths no longer apply. Employers who couldn't afford to improve their personnel two years ago might ago might be able to do so now.

Recruiters have a bird's-eye view of job woes

I e-mailed a newsroom recruiter acquaintance. He has worked at a Florida newspaper for over 25 years. The newspaper, which I won't name in order to protect this man's privacy, has always attracted top talent. The publication benefited from the efforts of this recruiter. It's been one of the best papers in the country, winning numerous awards and doing well in terms of circulation.

I discovered this week that the recruiter's job was eliminated last year. Another casualty of the recession. However, the company that he works for let him stay at the paper in a non-managerial editing position. I am sure it isn't ideal, but it's a job. As a senior staffer, at least he was given the option of remaining on the payroll when his recruiting job was eliminated. He didn't have to go on unemployment or relocate in his 50s.

I talked to another recruiter this week. She is at a well-regarded publication in Virginia. She is a couple years older than me. I told her of my situation. She was impressed by my resume. But I noticed a shift in her tone when she learned more about my extensive efforts to find work. She went from professional and complimentary to sounding scared and pessimistic -- scared for herself and her job, seemingly realizing that if I can struggle, so could she.

I figure my story scares a lot of people. Folks look at my credentials and can't believe I was laid off, let alone unable to find work for more than a year. They then look at their own precarious situations, wondering if they are about to fall through the ice.

The woman from Virginia told me how money is still being made at some newspapers, but that profits aren't going into hiring. Some papers are using revenue to pay down debt. She ended by saying she'd pray for me.

Another recruiter I know in another profession recently had to leave her job. It's not just newspapers that are struggling. Fortunately, she found a new job before being laid off. She saw the writing on the wall. The large company she worked for had lost a lot of employees in the last two years and wasn't hiring. Her position became unnecessary. She got out while the gettin' was good, something I regret not doing when I had the chance.

If you can break through the HR-speak, many recruiters will give you the real scoop on how bad the job situation is in this country. They are very well aware of the millions of very talented, very eager folks waiting in lines for jobs that don't exist. It has to be tough for these recruiting professionals to remain optimistic in the face of certain realities.

Graham does the right thing by not cashing in

The Washington Post Company's CEO, Donald Graham, has been refusing raises and bonuses for himself during the recession.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it upsets me when CEOs of other large businesses, particularly hard-hit newspaper companies, lavish themselves in cash while laying off employees, freezing salaries and forcing furloughs. However, Graham appears to have some scruples and leadership qualities that will benefit him and his newspaper company in a variety of ways in the long run.

The Washington Post is a quality publication. It still practices watchdog journalism despite shrinking newsroom budgets and a thinning staff. It apparently has a CEO with heightened sensitivities, a man who at least understands that you don't show employees the door and then give yourself a raise. I know things are not all rosy at The Post, but at least there is some sense of integrity at the top.

Read more.

Building wealth from the bottom up a good idea

Is there any question that the system is rigged to favor the rich getting richer? Is there any doubt that the middle class is falling off the cliff at a faster rate as a result of the fix being in?

When I learned that the top bosses in my former company got huge bonuses the year after cutting thousands of jobs (including mine), that was pretty much it for me. I don't need anymore convincing that the system needs to radically change.

The salary gap between employees and CEOs has been widening for decades. The trickle-down theory isn't working anymore. These same CEOs who are pulling in disproportionately large salaries are also driving regular folks right to the poor house with layoffs, furloughs and salary reductions. I don't condone a system that rewards the wealthiest people for eliminating the jobs of folks who are just trying to get by. Is that radical of me?

I don't understand the lack of character it must take to accept a million-dollar bonus only weeks or months after laying off thousands of employees, many who may never work in a good job again because of their age. Ronald Reagan's trickle-down principles only worked when there was a sense of fairness at the top -- a willingness to share the wealth. It doesn't work when one guy runs off with all the profits.

Even our tax system, with all the loopholes, favors the wealthy. I can't afford an accountant to find ways for me not to pay my fair share of taxes. But you can bet anyone of certain means isn't doing their tax returns with TurboTax software.

Is it time that the wealthy and powerful chip in a bit more? Certainly. They can do so in a number of ways, starting with hiring people in their businesses where existing employees are stretched thin. Getting people back to work increases the tax base and relieves some of the stress on the current workforce. If a company can afford to give out obscene bonuses, it can afford to hire a few people.

This brings me to the top article in The New York Times today. It talks about President Obama wanting to address wealth inequalities as part of the health-insurance reform bill. Instead of screaming about socialism, the more conservative-minded folks should understand that evening the playing field isn't a crime against capitalism. This country was built on a sense of equality and relative fairness. We've lost our way in recent years. What we have now isn't equal or fair. If the president wants to shift things back to a time where wealth was built from the bottom up, I don't see that as an act of socialism. I see that as a method of preserving and rebuilding the middle class.

Of course, I am speaking mostly to reasonable conservatives here, not people who think Sarah Palin is on an intellectual par with Stephen Hawking or that Rush Limbaugh isn't mostly motivated by protecting his own wealth and ego.

I am not a proponent of handouts. I don't want to see America turned into a welfare nation. But I do back efforts to stop the wealthiest 5 percent from walking all over 95 percent of fellow Americans. Just think how many jobs would have been saved in the last two years if there was more corporate oversight and less personal and institutionalized greed. Instead, the rich and powerful drove us right into a recession while they fattened their bank accounts and landed safely with their golden parachutes. They fired hard-working people in order to be rewarded by their boards of directors. The bankers, the CEOs and everyone who is unethically benefiting from this recession are the ones behaving in a very un-American way.

Health-care bill is a done deal, let's move on

Everyone knew there would be a lot of talk about the new health-care reform bill this morning. What's infuriating is that politicians still don't seem to understand that the economy is the No. 1 concern of most Americans. Our leaders in Washington are still focusing on health-care reform. Unbelievable. Republicans want to repeal it. Democrats want to enhance it. And the battle, which should have ended with last night's vote, continues on as job losses mount, roads crumble, wars rage on and the debt rises.

Generally, I support health-insurance reform, though I must admit that supporting anything that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, backs is difficult for me. It was tough listening to her babble during her victory speech late last night. At times, she seemed downright incoherent.

We need to move on. Health-care reform is a done deal. A lot of what is in the bill will be good for most Americans whether they realize it or not. They should stop listening to "entertainers" like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh -- two guys who are trying to protect their vast wealth -- and start paying attention to what really led to last night's historic vote.

The health insurance companies dug their own graves by exploiting Americans for decades. Greed and arrogance eventually caught up with the big insurers. They probably never imagined the party would end. But it has. And they only have themselves to blame. There should be a lesson in this for all corporations that lose their way. Few people want socialism, but measured governmental regulations seem to be necessary more often than not.

Both political parties would serve America well to shake hands and get on with more important business. If bad feelings linger from the health-care debate, and if the media can't also move on to other subjects of critical importance, we will surely be in far more trouble in the not-so-distant future. It's time for our leaders to start acting like adults and true patriots. Let's put the same energy that went into health-care reform into rebuilding our economy.

Movie touches a nerve or two

I saw "Up in the Air" this weekend. Perhaps not the wisest choice in a DVD rental, particularly a few days after I read that a certain executive at my former company received a million-dollar bonus for essentially laying off thousands of folks like me. Combined with a series of setbacks in my job search in recent weeks, and the harsh reality of how hard it is to find work at 52, the film didn't do a lot to improve my spirits.

So if you are jobless, or fear losing your job, I wouldn't recommend this movie. I appreciate Hollywood making a film that deals with real issues like aging, career and unemployment, but the people who really need to see it the most probably wouldn't fully comprehend the film. The basic plot is simple and the movie can be enjoyed on a couple different levels. But the subplots and messages are a bit meatier and, sadly, speak more to those of us on the outside looking in.

Reflecting back while looking forward

In 1994, after less than a year at The Associated Press in New York City, I was selected to go to Atlanta to cover the Super Bowl between the Buffalo Bills and Dallas Cowboys. It was quite an honor, especially considering there were far more experienced editors at AP than me at that time. I was so proud of being chosen that I kept my press pass for all of these years.

Even after I left the AP, I was contacted about a year later and asked if I wanted to return. I was flattered. They were offering me a better job than the one I had before. I declined for personal reasons. Soon after, I went to work at USA Today in Northern Virginia -- one of my favorite newspapers in those days. After hopping around a lot for the first 15 years of my career, I figured USA Today could be my last stop -- one of those places one goes to where they earn their gold watch after a quarter of a decade of service. I got my five and 10-year anniversary awards, but fell far short of 25 years.

Career moves came easily for me back then. In my first job out of college, I was promoted into a managerial editing position within my first six months. I was soon on a track to become a publisher in a small chain of newspapers, but I decided I wanted to live in Florida more than I wanted to be a publisher in Virginia. So after a short stint on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, I got a job as sports editor at a small paper south of Miami. I covered the Miami Dolphins and Hurricanes as well as the high school sports scene and professional boxing. Those were good years. Not much pay, but a lot of fun.

It never took me more than a few weeks to find a new job when I was younger. Sometimes they were marginally better jobs, sometimes they were significant leaps. It didn't dawn on me that I would be without work. I was fairly versatile and had a good work ethic that my bosses always seemed to appreciate. And it certainly never crossed my mind that I would be laid off.

Then on December 2008, as readers of this blog know, I was was laid off from USA Today after working there for 13 years. That was quite a shock.

The real harsh surprise for me came in the months following my layoff, when I began to search for work and encountered walls that were never there earlier in my career. I turned to friends and former colleagues, seeing if they could help. This was always a good method of finding work in the past, but not now. The recession wasn't helping, but there also seemed to be other forces working against me. The newspaper business began crumbling. A couple potential employers shockingly held it against me that I had worked at USA Today for so long. The national newspaper and parent company that owns it aren't well-liked within the industry for various reasons. It was guilt by association.

My early days at USA Today were filled with fancy office parties, views of Washington, D.C. from our windows and a pretty good newsroom staff. It was always tough work, but as a third-generation journalist, I was accustomed to the late hours, deadlines and contentious nature of the newsroom.

Here is a picture of me (left) at my first USA Today Christmas party in 1995 with two of my former colleagues who are still at the newspaper -- Dash Parham and Dave Merrill. These parties were very extravagant. The paper was doing well. The booze flowed. The shrimp were large. If you worked in journalism, it was a good place to be. Lots of resources. In fact, USA Today's parent company, Gannett, more or less had a hands-off policy when it came to its flagship newspaper. We enjoyed our independence and did good work. Eventually, Gannett got more involved with USA Today, which led to layoffs at the newspaper most people thought was immune. Read about the bonuses received after those record layoffs.

A lot has changed in the news business and my own career since the mid-1990s when that picture was taken. Essentially, I don't have a career right now. While I feel far from obsolete or incapable, I can't deny that finding work at this age is far different than finding work at 30 years old. There are days when I think back to how easily things flowed, the people I have met, the places I've been. And yet, things are so different now that it often takes my breath away how quickly one can go from cruising along in a modest career to ... well, I will let you fill in the blank.

One of the many lessons that I have learned from this is to never take anything for granted -- not even your own abilities. There is always something lurking out there somewhere waiting to take you down. If it's not a layoff, then it could be an illness. If it's not an illness, it could something else. So it's good to treasure what you have and not get too caught up in the little difficulties of a career, relationships or just everyday life, because when it's prematurely gone, it's awfully hard to rebuild.

Whether or not I get another shot remains to be seen. Whether I work inside or outside of the media, my batteries are recharged. I have a new perspective on work and life. I believe I have more to offer to an employer now than I did when I got laid off. Finding that right fit isn't going to be easy, but if I do I know that the latter years of my career probably will surpass the early days in some profound ways. Job satisfaction, I suspect, will come from other sources that don't necessarily include fat paychecks, free Heinekens and trips to the Super Bowl.

Obama lights up the Patriot Center at GMU

President Obama just finished giving a speech about health-insurance reform at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., just 20 miles from where I live. Whether you agree with Obama or not on this or any issue, you have to admit the guy can deliver a speech.

What struck me about Obama's speech and broad support at GMU's Patriot Center today was that he was speaking to folks who, for the most part, have health-care insurance. Yet, these people nonetheless support efforts to help other citizens who are less fortunate. They don't take the position that just because they can afford insurance others shouldn't have access to medical care. They don't take self-reliance values so far that they are incapable of lending a hand.

While you might not agree with the health-care bill that is being politically debated like no other issue I've seen in my lifetime, you have to respect folks who could easily turn their backs on the needy but don't. I hear too many overly judgmental people in my daily life who think everyone who has fallen from grace somehow did something to deserve being without health care, a job or a home.

I am glad that we have a president who can passionately articulate his views about helping others as he did at GMU today. I rather his beliefs be debated than his basic intelligence or compassion be in doubt. I see some problems with this bill, but I don't see the sky falling if it passes. I refuse to get into the parochial argument of whether or not Obama is maliciously trying to ruin the country.

One way or another, the debate needs to come to an end soon. America is dangerously divided. Other serious problems need to be addressed. If the bill passes, I hope conservatives won't try to do some of the crazy things that have been suggested on talk radio -- like impeaching Congress. If it doesn't pass, I hope the left can move on to other matters and revisit health-care reform later on.