See complete forecast
You are not logged in. (Log in • Create account)
13 June 2012
at 4:13 p.m.
You seem like a nice enough guy with good intentions, so I will offer you two pieces of advice:
1.) Focus only on what you can control. You can't change your past, you can't change the state of the economy - the only thing you can control is your resume, your attitude and your preparedness.
You seem to be getting caught up a bit in this victim mentality and letting your frustration cloud your focus. If you can't find a job in Craig, you might need to move to a stronger job market. Or you need to change your approach and sell yourself better. Regardless, the problem isn't Craig employers - it's your approach towards Craig employers. Even if the problem were the employers - you can't change them - so you're better off focusing on only the things you can control.
2.) You have to constantly add value in everything you do in life if you expect to get ahead. Learn a skill, outwork the next guy, make yourself valuable. And when you're just starting out - fake it until you make it. People respond to assertiveness - don't by wishy washy or sell yourself short.
Employers certainly won't respond to the sympathy angle. Explain to them why you are the best person for the job.
Keep your chin up. This job market is tough on everybody, but the cream always rises to the top.
13 June 2012
at 8:24 a.m.
Life is not fair and you are not owed a job. Welcome to the real world, kid.
8 June 2012
at 10:13 a.m.
I mostly side with Arnett on this one.
I don't think anyone is advocating doing away with standardized testing all together - but I think most would agree there is too large of an emphasis placed on the testing nowadays. And our public education system is in need of reform.
Meagan - I too am an MCHS graduate, and I also possess the necessary critical thinking skills to reject a ridiculous statement like, “we have stopped teaching facts and the necessary basics in order to help children feel 'warm and fuzzy' and to propel a liberal agenda.” I think you detract from an otherwise decent argument with a non-specific partisan talking point like that.
However, the one part of Ms. Harding's letter that I do agree with is that many times the teachers unions are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
7 June 2012
at 4:52 p.m.
STTAK - Why don't you debate the issues instead of making it personal? If you have a legitimate defense of the Fire Board, and why they don't feel like abiding by the wishes of voters in the community which they support, then we'd all love to hear it.
7 June 2012
at 4:49 p.m.
Two problems with that explanation WR -
1.) The main issue is that the campaign lied to Ms. Barrie and said all signs would be disallowed. Obviously there were a ton of Pro-Romney and Anti-Obama signs that made it into the event. It's one thing to disallow the sign and admit you are disallowing it because of its unfavorable content - they may have that right depending on where the event is being held. It's quite another to lie in order to avoid an issue.
2.) You can SAY that the use of a bus to display campaign rhetoric doesn't constitute an endorsement and that's half true because the district hasn't officially endorsed a candidate. But when pictures of the Pro-Romney signs start to pop up on the internet, displayed prominently next to “Moffat County School District,” it becomes a symbolic endorsement for all intents and purposes. School buses should NOT be used for partisan events - or at minimum they should not be used as props for campaign slogans at partisan events. Transportation is one thing, signage is another.
6 June 2012
at 7:50 a.m.
Finally, something I can agree with from the editorial board.
5 June 2012
at 1:14 p.m.
This is national politics in a nutshell - win at any cost. If you have to lie to a few people along the way, then so be it. It's a sad commentary on the state of affairs in Washington.
While denying a couple of signs certainly isn't a national issue - it makes you wonder what else Romney's campaign is willing to lie about in order to get elected.
5 June 2012
at 9:24 a.m.
I guess an optimist could argue that the increased market share is a sign that progress is being made.
But I am a pessimist. It would seem that a hospital in a rural county seat, where the next closest hospital is over 40 miles away, should boast a much higher market share. The fact that it doesn't leads me to believe there are still significant trust and staffing issues.
Further, my own personal trust in the hospital has been further eroded over the past year due to some anecdotal stories from friends whose experiences were less-than-stellar. So while I can't speak for everyone, I have actually noticed quality of care headed in the opposite direction.
I guess I'm just not ready to pat that establishment on the back yet. Seems like they've got quite a ways to go to bring that place up the curve. Maybe they're on the right track? Hard to tell.
1 June 2012
at 9:14 a.m.
“The idealistic few among us certainly have high hopes Romney will be victorious in November… In short, we hope a scenario plays out that makes Mead and her words prophetic.”
“The editorial board, with no unified consensus favoring Romney or President Barack Obama this November”
Well, which is it? The board seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth in this piece.
1 June 2012
at 9:03 a.m.
This is an incoherently partisan critique. Steve, go ahead and name one specific policy that has caused Peabody to change their hiring. I'd love to hear it.
or see results without voting.
This site is best viewed with
or the latest version of Internet Explorer
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.