Would it hurt to show some consideration for the unemployed who are doing their best to find a job?

There are many employers who are using the Internet to reach out to applicants. This process provides both a time savings and a monetary savings to the company. Other companies require that you stop in to fill out an application or do one online.

The job search is often complicated when you go onto a company’s website only to find you can’t look at it without providing a cell phone number.

Many people have cell phones, but these days some people have to give that up because of the cost. A land line should be just as acceptable.

Regardless of which way a company chooses to select it’s applicants for further review, a bit of thought should be put into the process that reflects a sincere appreciation for those that have applied.

Today, there are people who will apply for any job, regardless of the job qualifications required.

Some have absolutely no experience or qualifications related to the job but are willing to try something new. Other applicants are overqualified, but are willing to do a portion of what they formerly did.

It doesn’t take long for a human resources person to figure out which category the applicant is in.

Applicants of interest to the company may receive an e-mail or postcard stating they may be contacted for an interview in the future with or without a time frame mentioned.

Those not to the company’s interest rarely receive anything. (Or perhaps two rejections in one week for the same position.)

No one likes to receive a rejection, but these days that is sometimes the only way an applicant knows where they stand with a particular company.

For companies using the e-mail option, it would be simple to notify applicants that their qualifications do not meet the requirements, and a post card would not be cost-prohibitive for those requiring you to apply in person.

As we all know, the job market these days is very tough. It could just be a bit more bearable to those looking if they thought someone was actually paying attention to their attempts to find a job.

J.R. Styga

There’s no reason to trust former president’s book 

George W. Bush lied to us for eight years. Now he has the audacity to put those lies in writing.

I just say, Bush go away.

James Foyles

Arms control treaty needs immediate vote 

Since the START I Treaty expired in December 2009, there have been no inspections of Russia’s nuclear weapons facilities.

During this time, the Senate held no fewer than 21 hearings and briefings on the replacement treaty, named New START.

Since it was signed in April by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a vast array of experts — Republicans and Democrats alike — have lined up in favor of the treaty, including four former secretaries of state, four former secretaries of defense, three former national security advisers, seven former Strategic Command chiefs and all three leaders of the nation’s nuclear labs. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted that New START has “the unanimous support of America’s military leadership.”

In September, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended ratification of the treaty by a bipartisan vote of 14-4.

It is time for Senate Republicans to work with Obama to cut bloated nuclear stockpiles and restore inspections of Russia’s nuclear arsenal by approving this treaty.

Treaties require careful consideration, but at this point Senators have all the information necessary to reach a decision on New START.

I call on Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to request that this item be put on the agenda for this “lame duck” session of Congress, to speak favorably about the treaty to their colleagues, and then to vote to ratify it.

It is the right time and the right thing to do for the sake of world safety.

Sally A. Breen

What’s unconstitutional? Let Supreme Court decide 

The letter by Russell Frank in the Nov. 5 Press Herald in defense of right-wing political columnist Jonah Goldberg borders on the nonsensical, in my opinion.

Frank says, referring to the Congress, “ but when as increasingly they seem want to do, they fail in their duty and pass legislation that is outside the bounds of the Constitution, the second line of defense lies with the veto power of the executive.”

What in the world is he talking about? The same argument he presents here has been brought up concerning every major piece of legislation that has ever been passed.

What he regards as unconstitutional, millions of other Americans regard as well within the bounds of the Constitution, and most Americans think the Supreme Court is quite capable of making the final judgment.

Ralph Rodway
Old Orchard Beach 

Search for ‘regular’ stuff futile in today’s marketplace 

Tell me I’m not going crazy.

The other day, when I went to the local grocery store to buy some “regular” shampoo, all I could find was strawberry/kiwi or blackberry/boysenberry or tropical rain forest.

“Regular” shampoo? No!

Next I went to find some “regular” SOS pads.

Not lemon-scented or lavender-scented, just plain old “regular” SOS pads. No!

Come to think of it, this all started a few years back when I went to look for a “regular” bookcase.

After searching 10-12 stores I finally found one. Then a “regular” floor lamp. Again, another 10-12 stores.

Onward to buy a “regular” couch (God help me). Not much luck at first, but finally success!

A friend made sense of it all when he told me they just don’t make that “regular” stuff anymore.

Guess it’s time to stop being a “regular” guy.

Steve Graney