The job looked great. But I knew there would be, as there usually are now, many interested candidates. So, for the heck of it, I thought I’d have a little fun with the cover letter. After all, it was for a writing position and I wanted to be creative.

I know it’s a buyer’s market. You’ve got scads of perfectly-aligned-with-your-needs applicants. Blah, blah, blah.

Well, if you’re still reading, and just in case you are interested in looking at someone who can do the job, even if coming from a slightly different angle, please give me a look.

I have a lot of journalism/writing experience. I recently finished a short-term writing gig for the local Chamber of Commerce. I have a bachelor’s degree from just a “few” years back and a newer graduate business degree.

While I have been looking for full-time work since December 2008, I worked for several months as a part-time meat clerk at a major grocery chain. I am also a substitute teacher occasionally.

I have a passport so I can freely travel the “tri-state area” and farther.

In other words, I’m the total package.

I can be reached at …

Thanks,
…

P.S. If you find this cover letter a bit unusual, please, blame the coffee.

Well, I didn’t get the job. But I did get a gracious response, something quite rare these days.

This ad aired again recently; it needs to be stopped.

The greatest problem is the “atmosphere.” There is no chemistry here, not in the setting and, most importantly, not between the two actors. Who are these people?

Their conversation is forced, robotic. At about 20 seconds in, the male character looks as if he doesn’t even know what to say.

Her line that Strickland “lost us 400,000 jobs on his watch” is overboard. I know that this is the message but, really, the way she states it in this ad, does even the most rabid anti-Stricklandite believe he personally “lost us 400,000″ jobs?

And her pronouncement that she “read that his aides lied to investigators” is unconvincing because it means nothing. This is not to defend Strickland’s aides, but one can read all sorts of things that are not necessarily true.

This is a Republican Governors Association ad, not the campaign’s. Still, it’s ineffective and demeans the viewers’ intelligence. Pull it.

While listening to the radio this morning, I was absolutely shocked to hear about a comment from Kasich’s campaign spokesman.

A spokesman for Republican challenger John Kasich ruffled feathers when he criticized Strickland by saying, “Having grown up in a chicken shack on Duck Run, he has all but ignored our cities’ economies and their workers.”

While the spokesman claimed to only be using the words of Strickland himself, this was an egregious error. And it’s especially damaging on two fronts.

Its worst aspect is that it’s an insult to low-income people. Now, that’s not what was claimed (more on that later), but that is how it came across and perception is reality.

Trailing close behind in the how-bad-could-it-be category is that it comes at a time when the Democrats are running ads saying Kasich became rich on Wall Street. The ads are suggestive and misleading. But for those who don’t know John Kasich – and that’s what surveys say about Kasich in Ohio, most don’t know him – the comment reinforces what the ads imply. And perception is reality.

Regarding the spokesman’s apology: As is usual in such instances, it not only did not go far enough, it placed the blame for offense less than squarely on the person who made the comment.

“When he [Strickland] says those things about himself, it’s different than when others say them, and it could be viewed pejoratively. That certainly wasn’t intended.”

“…It could be viewed pejoratively. That certainly wasn’t intended.” Frankly, it seems there was no other conclusion than to “view it pejoratively.” Why else would you say it? So it’s viewed as a compliment?

If the reason such dumb comments spew forth is that the other side does it, save it. If that’s the reasoning used in political strategy sessions, then I would suggest it’s time to grow up. That “Teddy does it” ceased to be an excuse for most of us around kindergarten.

Kasich rightly disowned the comment and said he reprimanded the spokesman. Good. Strickland deflected the remark with self-effacing humor, one of the most endearing qualities Americans value. Better.

Kasich should be our next governor. But it’s not a gimme.

Round Strickland.

I’m sure the new iPad will be loved and wanted by all. Well, except me.

I used to be a big Apple fan but that has waned since I had to return to Windows.

And especially since the adventure of getting iTunes music from one computer to another, from Mac to Windows, and a child’s library shared on one computer to the child’s new computer, my thoughts on Apple and Macs are not pleasant.

So, with the introduction of the iPad, it seems appropriate to have a little fun with the product name and the companion products that might be spun off of Apple’s new tablet. (How the name got through the stages of approval at Apple is a mystery.)

I tweeted some of these last night and I have a few more today:

• iPaddle – a mobile tablet just for boaters
• iPaddington Bear – the tablet for toddlers
• iPadituptohere – for those tablet users who are frustrated with life, computers, what have you
• iPad is your Pad – the tablet specially designed for sharing
• iPad iSaw iConquered – for tablet users with delusions of grandeur
• iPaddy – the tablet for St. Patrick’s Day
• And since the iPad is kind of like a big iPod – introducing the bIpod for, well, bIpeds

Any names to add?

Network, be present, be visible. Write a blog, be on Twitter, Facebook. Oh, don’t forget LinkedIn. Never forget LinkedIn.

Apply for jobs? Ha! That’s the old way and it doesn’t work.

That’s the advice I’ve heard and read since being laid off a year ago.

And oh, one more thing. Pursue your passion.

But I wonder. Is pursuing your passion helpful or hurtful in a job search? And I have several passions, after wife and family.

I’m an ex-journalist. Nothing big but I had a solid career, beginning as a photographer, then moving to reporting. I eventually became an editor and managing editor. My passion in journalism was not sensationalism. Editorial writing was my journalistic passion. The dream was always to become a columnist.

I am also interested in business and investing. I returned to school a few years ago to pursue an MBA. It wasn’t Harvard but it was rigorous and I completed the degree while working full-time. Heck, I was even able to pay for it myself. And, I chose as my capstone finance. I am not a math wiz but I love the topic and wanted to challenge myself.

Combining journalism and business, I am also interested in social media and communications in general. In fact, my last journalism job was “community conversation editor.”

But the passions do not stop there. God and country are included as well.

I have touched on all these passions and more in this still relatively young blog. However, I have worried that, when the topics involve political passions, as can be the case with God, country, economics and so on, does the blog do more harm than good?

You see, I am a conservative. And I realize the passions that stirs in some people. In this case, the worry is that those who do not share this viewpoint will reject me based not on my writing, experience or education, but because of conservatism.

But I allay my worries, rightly or wrongly, with these thoughts.

No matter the topic written about here, I strive for a reasoned analysis in support of my views. I have no interest in being bombastic, in screaming. Some say this is a sure way to go missed in the vast pool of blogs. So be it.

Besides, I hope, of maintaining my dignity and respecting that of others, I like to think that whenever prospective employers stop by here, they, regardless of their political inclinations, see the same. And isn’t that the kind of employer everyone wants to work for?

Another thought of mine is that, especially at this stage in my life, writing simply to appease the viewpoints of others would be, frankly, shameful. “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?” (Mark 8:36)

Still, perhaps it’s better to just not write a blog.

Or should a blog be restricted to a narrow focus?

Should you pursue your passions or be somewhat more utilitarian in your efforts?

What do you think?

If there was any doubt about what side of the aisle the mainstream media prefer, it was made abundantly clear in the case of Rush Limbaugh and his bid to be an owner in the NFL. Even if you hate Rush you should be terribly concerned about what just happened.

Likely you know the story, at least part of it. A group wanting to make a bid on a team contacts Limbaugh to join in. Shortly after he says yes, this info is “leaked” to the press.

Well, it doesn’t take long for the controversy to kick off. And, lo and behold, Rush is declared divisive and unacceptable to the pristine NFL. As if almost every coach and a good percentage of players, let alone some owners, aren’t divisive themselves. And, as I believe Rush pointed out, anyone having an opinion can be called divisive by those who disagree.

But the worst part of this episode was the claim that Rush said some things kind to slavery and in support of Martin Luther King’s assassin. For the zealot left-wingers, these “quotes” were accepted as fact. Compounding this was the mainstream media taking the quotes and running with them as if they were said by Rush.

What was soon found out by people who care about truth, and what you might not be as aware of, is that the quotes were phony. Rush didn’t say them.

And when those who reported the quotes found out they were false, tepid words were all they could say or type: Well, they essentially said, if Rush said he didn’t say them OK. But you know he is a conservative and we all know about them….

One of the greatest concerns (or at least it is supposed to be) in the world of reporting is quoting people accurately. Even if a reporter slants a story to his point of view, at least if the quotes are accurate the judicious and fair reader will have the subject’s actual words to weigh.

To misquote someone — especially in a matter of such importance – and then act as if it’s no big deal is astounding. Not only should the transgressors be falling over themselves to apologize, they should be severely reprimanded, if not fired.

What good is a journalist or journalism that is unreliable? Absolutely worthless.

And those tough guys in the NFL? They backed away. The players can take a physical pounding each week; the owners can negotiate great deals that keep them in the money. But when it comes to the truth, they can’t handle the truth. In the truth, these “tough” guys met their match and lost.

Is anybody in it for the right reasons?

In Ohio, the FOP has come out in a strong way for the expansion of gambling in Ohio. Its ads have been especially bold because of the emphasis they have placed on “telling the truth” for the gambling interests. (Remember when gambling was a crime.)

Could it be the FOP’s support has something to do with 2 percent of the annual tax revenues from this gambling proposal being slated for law enforcement training?

Unions and, in some cases, businesses, are big backers of the kind of health care reform being pushed by Democrats in Washington. Is it to help their members’ (or employees’) health care, or for another reason?

Investor’s Business Daily reported last month:

Unions argue a medical overhaul will let them take health care benefits off the table during contract negotiations, freeing them to push for higher wages.

The House version of the bill also includes $10 billion in relief for troubled pension funds. While not specifically earmarked for unions, as written the relief would be available to most union-run pensions.

And, of course, businesses can see the government takeover of health care as a way to free them from the cost of handling it for their employees.

(Not that this is necessarily bad. Indeed, one reform that is worthwhile is breaking the lock of health care insurance with employment so that losing or changing jobs does not take away one’s insurance. But that’s not why many businesses want out of health care.)

Then there’s this, which is as funny as it is disappointing. Tom Suddes wrote in his column Sunday about how First Energy was going to give some ratepayers 2 CFL bulbs for “free” to, you know, save energy (just don’t break one).

However, these free bulbs, worth about $7, would actually cost customers more than $21 through a three-year monthly charge to, you know, compensate First Energy for possibly selling less power due to the use of the CFLs.

This came with a government imprimatur but the ensuing controversy has left the plan in limbo.

What’s next? A fuel-efficiency surcharge on cars that get more than, say, 30 mpg to, you know, compensate oil companies for the fewer barrels of oil they’ll sell?

(Note to potential employers: If I was in your communications department and presented with the CFL deal, I would have told you it wasn’t such a bright idea.)

Finally, though the list is probably unending, we have another example of the ostensibly strange bedfellows climate change/green initiatives create. Jonathan Riskind talked about how Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown is a key player in the cap and trade bill, though Riskind kept calling it a climate-change bill.

(My apologies if he was referring to some other legislation. Whatever it is, Riskind explained that “Brown’s short-term challenge is trying to keep a climate-change bill from harming Ohio. “Harm” being a point many supporters of such bills fail to mention.)

But for today’s discussion, Riskind noted that:

Brown has worked to placate not just the unions but the normally GOP-friendly manufacturers, as well. The National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed Brown’s proposal for a $30 billion manufacturing revolving-loan fund.

One could say this is the way it’s always been; “let’s make a deal.”

That’s not good enough. And wrong.

Do you  remember Alistair Cooke’s “America”? If memory serves, in one episode he said that one thing our leaders were able to do to move this country from concept to existence was “compromise, compromise, compromise.”

Now, this can be a pejorative but Cooke meant it as a compliment. Sadly, the examples listed above do not rise to such grand founding-of-America aspiration. They simply seem to descend to petty what’s-in-it-for-me compensation.

This is the latest installment in what I guess could be called my “No offense but…” series questioning the strategy/tactics of those people or organizations whose ideals I may share but whose methods sometimes leave me scratching my head.

Here is a screen capture of what I found after being invited, by an e-mail from the Kasich campaign, to take an “economy survey.” Now, it’s clear by the several posts here that I am a supporter of John Kasich for Ohio governor. Here is just one example of it.

But this can hardly be considered an “economy survey,” can it? It doesn’t, for example, offer much in the way of choices when it asks about “policy changes.” It mentions lowering taxes but is unspecific about the amount. And since no one seems to be talking about raising taxes in an effort to “attract new businesses and create new jobs in Ohio,” what’s the point?

The only information that might be gleaned from such a survey, besides adding contact information to the campaign’s database, is if it was sent to non-committed voters. But if this was sent to those supporting Kasich already, or leaning that way, how many answers will be received that go against what is expected, which is: Yes, No, Yes, Yes?

It’s innocent enough but a story in today’s Dispatch, “Expansion of Medicaid could impose costs on Ohio,” could be used as an example of why many taxpayers get upset, or at least disappointed, with “the news.”

As the Senate looks to expand Medicaid as part of its health care reform efforts, it looks like it will cost Ohio more money in the long term. This is a nice gesture – everybody wants to expand health care — but is problematic on so many levels, the discussion of which I won’t delve into here. Now it’s just about the reporting and what a couple of officials were quoted as saying.

Here are the pertinent quotes from the story:

the key U.S. Senate health-care overhaul package could cost Ohio $922 million in additional Medicaid spending

The Finance Committee’s bill attempts to cushion the burden on states by picking up most of the additional costs in the first five years

In Ohio’s case, the federal government would pay 95 percent of the additional costs

Ohio would still have to spend

does not say whether the federal government would continue to pay

Strickland said that he wants “a health-care package that is inclusive and provides for all citizens,” but he added that if Medicaid is expanded, he hopes to “see the federal government assume the greater portion of the costs, if not the total costs.”

Medicaid is a joint state-federal program created by Congress in 1965 that pays for health coverage of the poor and for long-term nursing care

The federal government normally finances

the federal government’s stimulus package is supplying extra Medicaid money

Ohio pays more than $12 billion a year for Medicaid.

revision that would have the federal government finance all the costs

a spokeswoman for Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said that when the bill reaches the Senate floor, Brown “is going to be fighting to make sure that states like Ohio with high unemployment rates receive an increased share from the federal government.”

In all the references to costs, those paying the bill are referred to as the “federal government,” “Ohio,” the “finance committee,” even “Medicaid” itself. But in all these cases those paying the costs are the American taxpayers. That is how government gets “its” money and how “it” can “pay for” or “fund” “spend” or “share.”

This is not a slam on anybody’s “well-meaningness.” But in order to be accurate and fair, journalists and politicians would do well to acknowledge that it is the American taxpayer who, willingly or reluctantly, is footing the bill for whatever “Washington” and the “50 state governments” decide to “finance.”