Fischkoepfin

I just posted in you other thread but it's gone for some reason.

Anyway, I think your resume needs some work.

1. Start with an objective statement that a)states what job you're applying to and b)explains why you would be a good choice.

2. Get rid of the profile, the qualification section and the career highlights

3. Instead move the education section up and add major qualifications, such as language and computer skills and whatever else might qualify you for the job

4. You don't need to include your interests.

5. Make sure that your resume fits the job you're appplying to. So make sure to add or delete relevant sections.

6. Keep the resume to one page. Employers don't like to look at more than one page unless your work experience section is extensive.

An excellent explanation of writing resumes and other job search materials can be found here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/564/01/

If you look at the navigation bar on the right side of the page, you'll find additional info on resumes, such as what to include in each section, and cover letters under job search writing.

Good luck!

Hi,

I'm not 100% sure but almost - I did hear something about aged out overstays and your overstay happened in 1992. I'm pretty sure nothing will happen to you anymore anyway. And other visas were issued to you after that....

Difficult decision to put in in or not, can't give you any advice on that... I guess I would not... But on the other hand...

Anja

Where did you hear about the age-out? I heard there was some sort of amnesty at one point too. But I also heard that if you have received other visas there is not guarantee that they're not aware of overstays anyway.

This is a complicated and sensitive issue, and unlike with other things immigration there doesn't seem to be too much info on the net.

i will not, nor should should anyone else here (according to the TOS) advocate anything less than honesty.

if you choose not to go the honest route ... be prepared to deal with the consequences should they occur, no matter how improbable that seems at the moment.

I'm not asking anyone to tell me to be dishonest, but I'm interested in finding out what people in general think about this issue and how they would respond in a similar situatioon. I have mulled this over for a while, and as I said I'm extremely torn on it. Right now and for the last six months, I have tended towards honesty. But the closer the sending off of forms gets, the more I'm doubting if this would be the smartest decision.

I'm not too sure as what the consequences would be either way, so if anyone has any details please let me know as welll.

I wonder, though, where this sits on the scale for placing the current civil liberties in jeopardy? Meaning, out of all these various historical events, if 9/11 has the largest potential for changing what are currently hard-fought and hard-won rights?

On that scale, I would think 9/11 has a high potential of changing access to these rights. All of the various measure taken before that clearly curbed civil liberties, the current situation is different because, thanks to technology, it has become much easier to enforce anti-rights legislation.

On the other hand, however, so far (knock on wood) every attempt to abandon the commitment to civil liberties in the past has eventually come to an end, usually shortly after it got so out of hand that the general public became aware of the inherent dangers. For example, in the 1800 election campaign, Thomas Jefferson was charged under the Alien and Sedition act by supporters of John Adams. He was found guilty and convicted of treason (while being absent at the trial) in some town in Connecticut. Similarly, it took the execution of the Rosenbergs, the indictment of many well-known intellectuals, and an investigation of the Army during the McCarthy-era to put an end to the anti-Communist scare in the 1950s.

All we can do is hope and try to put things in perspective.

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

I think that this statement may not be entirely accurate.

I guess it depends on how one would define American republic...because I believe that a republic is not only the political structure, or its fundamental existence, but also the way of life and what it stands for.

...

And to me, that change of perception and the knee jerk reaction to it threatens the survival of the American republic, at least in its present form. If the republic is the sum of it's parts, which include the factors/mores that it was built upon (which also require defending and upholding), then it has indeed had a threat made to its survival.

I agree that 9/11 does threaten the survival of the American republic because large portions of the American public were and are willing to dismantle civil liberties to continue going on with their "lives and lifestyles" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The threat to the republic is portrayed by the spin masters as external, aka "the terrorists," but is in reality internal.

What happens to the average American's perception of who they are and/or who their country is, if the basic tenets their country was founded on begin to split at the seams? What then?

This is an interesting question that history can probably answer as well. 9/11 has modified Americans' self-perceptions and it is in the process of modifying the national self. But it is by no means the first time this happens and most likely it is also not the most extreme transformation of American identity, especially if compared to the impact of the industrial revolution (ran contrary to the idea of the citizen as independent farmer/artisan), the Civil War (Southerners had the hardest time to reidentify with the Union) or the American entry in WW1 and WW2 (both of which officially marked the end of American isolationism).

You did a great job on this, Ewok!

I noticed two things, though. First, in the new Off Topic forum, there appear to be 257 pages, 255 of which are empty.

Second the assistant is now an internal pop-up that can't be moved out of the browser window. That might not be a problem is you have you screen is big enough but on a notebook it's bothersome because you have to move the pop-up window constantly. It also tends to stay where it was. Any way to get a separate window assistant again?

i ain't no fan of bush. definitely do not like the way he has handled the response.

but to classify 9/11 as not important? either historically or militarily/economically ? wow. dudes! surely you do not mean that nothing be done. right? do you think that America issomehow imune from the types of attacks thar are more common in europe and the mideast?

Daniel

:energetic:

I don't think that 9/11 is not important, but it is not the biggest threat to the US in history. What Ellis wants to suggest is that today's government spin portrays the situation as more extraordinary than it was to justify a response that is basically a remake of bad policy of the past.

What's most shocking to me about this is that it was in the NY Times. Wow, an American newspaper letting an American actually say 9/11 wasn't that important?

The NY Times has a tendency to do so. I have been positively surprised by their increasing willingness to stand up to government propaganda when it comes to national news. Their international section is lamentably missing this political independence, though.

What it surprising about the American author, though, is that Joseph Ellis is not what you would call a liberal academic, but a true conservative. To see him speaking up shows that something is not going quite the right way.

As a history buff, I was surprised to find this following editorial today:

January 28, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Finding a Place for 9/11 in American History

By JOSEPH J. ELLIS

Amherst, Mass.

...

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears. No historian or biographer has argued that these were their finest hours.

...

Source

The domestic response to 9/11 is going to be viewed just the same if not as the most excessive and embarrasing domestic response yet. History does have a way of repeating itself. Other than the 9/11 response, there is nothing this President has to show for his two terms. Sucks to be him...

You're so right on target.

I posted this yesterday, but it got deleted in the second crash. Here we go again:

I'm about to send my DS-230 but I hesitate because I'm not sure what to do. In 1992, I was stupid enough to overstay on a B2-visa. I did have good reasons at the time to do so. I lived with my aunt and her family and I did not work. I overstayed for approximately 5 months at the time and I left voluntarily. I regret having done so, but I was not aware there could be consequences later in my life. It was a stupid teenage thing to do.

Since then, I have visited the US several times, always on a B2. I have also lived in several location and went to school; I have applied for several student visas and never had any problems receiving them. Finally, last year I applied for a J1-waiver and obtained it. I have never overstayed my visa again, and I've been careful to obey SEVIS-regulations. All this leads me to believe that either USCIS and DOS are not aware of my overstay or they don't care, which would surprise me. Also, I was never asked on any forms I filled out to obtain visas etc if I had ever overstayed, so I have not lied about it either.

Now, my question is should I or should I not mention it on DS-230, part 1, where it asks to specify any stays and their lenghts in the US. I'm very torn because I don't like to lie about anything. Given the fact that the overstay was a long time ago and that even under current law (post 1996) it would not necessarily trigger a ban, I'm thinking of mentioning it on the form. However, I cannot afford to spend any more time in Germany than absolutely necessary. I do have professional obligations in the US that I need to attend to asap. I already looked at DS 230, part 2, and if I omit the overstay in part 1, it would not interfere with any info in part 2, where it specifically asked if you ever overstayed in the last 10/3 years. But I hate to be dishonest.

Any constructive advice is welcome. I just don't want to mess this up.

As a history buff, I was surprised to find this following editorial today:

January 28, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Finding a Place for 9/11 in American History

By JOSEPH J. ELLIS

Amherst, Mass.

IN recent weeks, President Bush and his administration have mounted a spirited defense of his Iraq policy, the Patriot Act and, especially, a program to wiretap civilians, often reaching back into American history for precedents to justify these actions. It is clear that the president believes that he is acting to protect the security of the American people. It is equally clear that both his belief and the executive authority he claims to justify its use derive from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

A myriad of contested questions are obviously at issue here — foreign policy questions about the danger posed by Iraq, constitutional questions about the proper limits on executive authority, even political questions about the president's motives in attacking Iraq. But all of those debates are playing out under the shadow of Sept. 11 and the tremendous changes that it prompted in both foreign and domestic policy.

Whether or not we can regard Sept. 11 as history, I would like to raise two historical questions about the terrorist attacks of that horrific day. My goal is not to offer definitive answers but rather to invite a serious debate about whether Sept. 11 deserves the historical significance it has achieved.

My first question: where does Sept. 11 rank in the grand sweep of American history as a threat to national security? By my calculations it does not make the top tier of the list, which requires the threat to pose a serious challenge to the survival of the American republic.

Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility.

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

My second question is this: What does history tell us about our earlier responses to traumatic events?

My list of precedents for the Patriot Act and government wiretapping of American citizens would include the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which allowed the federal government to close newspapers and deport foreigners during the "quasi-war" with France; the denial of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which permitted the pre-emptive arrest of suspected Southern sympathizers; the Red Scare of 1919, which emboldened the attorney general to round up leftist critics in the wake of the Russian Revolution; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which was justified on the grounds that their ancestry made them potential threats to national security; the McCarthy scare of the early 1950's, which used cold war anxieties to pursue a witch hunt against putative Communists in government, universities and the film industry.

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears. No historian or biographer has argued that these were their finest hours.

What Patrick Henry once called "the lamp of experience" needs to be brought into the shadowy space in which we have all been living since Sept. 11. My tentative conclusion is that the light it sheds exposes the ghosts and goblins of our traumatized imaginations. It is completely understandable that those who lost loved ones on that date will carry emotional scars for the remainder of their lives. But it defies reason and experience to make Sept. 11 the defining influence on our foreign and domestic policy. History suggests that we have faced greater challenges and triumphed, and that overreaction is a greater danger than complacency.

Joseph J. Ellis is a professor of history at Mount Holyoke College and the author, most recently, of "His Excellency: George Washington."

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

I agree...it is looking good....like a new toy to play with I did have a sense of panic last night, I thought I would wake up to find VJ gone

Thank you all for getting up and running again!!

I had that feeling too. But instead I find this totally awesome new look.

Cool! And thanks!