I had a former life as a plaintiff's trial attorney in El Paso, Texas. One of the banes of my existence was people who came in to see me insisting that they had a "case" against their employuer because their employer had been UNFAIR to them. This may shock some of you It must shock the INCOMPETENT female attorneys of the unfair and unbalanced network, who are perfectly willing to assert that the Constitutoin provides "rights" it does not provide (or are willing to pretend they believe that for RATINGS). In most states, youre employer can be UNFAIR to you. Texas, like most states, is an "at will" state. Taht means that a private employer, unless there is a contract, can FIRE you for NO REASON, or for any reason at all (other than the reasons prohibited by Federal STATUTES--mainly dealing with race, sex,, ethnic origin and the like). No, lprospective clients did not like this. "My bosss is irratioonal., and hates me hjust because he is a mean SOB.." So what, I told them. This is NOT a matter of opinion. There is NO oblication that an employer be "fair" to an employee. Among other things, that means that an employer in Texas can FIRE an emplyee for fialing to be caccinated against MALARIA or SMALPOX, even if malaria is not a lproblem for the employer and even though small pox has been eradicated from the Earth. Your remedy, as an employee? QUIT. Yes, there is a anger for the empolouyer. You would probably not be surprised at how many peple, when I explained the situation to htem, decided that they HAD been discriminated against because of race, ethnic origin or sex. I took a few of the more plausible of those cases. More I did not. Invariably--and this was before the unfair and unbalanced network, and the rest of the media, became obsessed about "rights", the employees wo came to me asserted they had a RIGHT to be treated "fairly". Not ture. But that does not keep the media from LYHING to people, with the aid of INCOMOPETENT "partisans" in tlhe legal profession who will say ANYTHING to advance their own agenda (or money making ability, including being put on TV BECAUSE they will say outrageous things).
Did you knnow that the Constitution does NOT prohibit a private emplyer frmo firing you because you are black, brown, female, or Catholic? Yep. Again, this is not a matter of opinion. You have NO "Constitutional right" not to be discriminated against because you are black, provided we are talking about a PRIVATE employer. The 14th Amendment ONLY applies to "state action". There are always gray areas as to when the sate is involved, but the black letter rule is that the 14th Amendment prohibition against discrimination only applies to sate action, and not to private action. Why, then, can employers not fire you because you are black? That has nothing to do with the Constitution--at least not directly, as there is an issue as to the authority of Congress to do what Congress did. Congress passed the "civil rights laws". Ths, although you have NO "Constitutional right" not to be discriminated against by a private emplyer, Congress has passed LAWS (held to be Constitutional) that prohibit htat kind of discrimination. If someone says that you, as an African-American employee, have a fundamental "right" not to be fired because of your race, that is simply not true. What you have is a Federal STATUTORY RIGHT not to be fired for that reason (although--ijn Texas, a sane state--you can be fired for ANY reason not prohibited by Congress, including the fact that your boss does not like you red hair, as he was bullied by a red haired guy in school).
This brings me to the unfair and unbalanced (that is, insane) network, and the story that network picked pu from the mainstream media today (for the sake of ratings). Some health care organization in Michigan decided to FIRE health care workers who refuse to take flue shots. Now I hate flu shoets. That is because my mother was a health department registered nurse in Mt. Ida back when flus shots came out. You guessed it. We, her children, got some of the first flu shots that came out (way back in the 1950s). The shot HURT more than any shot I have ever had. It HURT for DAYS. My arm swelled up to twice its normal size. Ratinally, I know that flu shots are not the same anymore. I still won't get them. And this blog correctly RIDICULED the "pandemic" scare of the H1N1 virus (swine flu--a "new" flu strain characterized by being LEESS dangerous than most "new" flu strains). Now many of the same people who would ridicule Micele Bachmann for saying that even STATE mandtory health insurance laws are unconstitutional took the positon today that people have a Constitutinal RIGHT not to be "forced" to have a flu shot, on pain of losing their jobs. Note that the WISDOM of this policy is not the point. The point is that it is NOT a "Constitutional right", and that this is a FACT (not opinion). When the media tells lpeople otherwise, it is LYING to peopple. Yet, I heard that untenable positioin being asserted on TWO cable TV networkds today, incldung the supposedly "conservative" unfari and unbalance network) as to which you should still BOYCOTT as part of the mainstream media lproblem, rather than part of the solution).
I actually listened in disbelief to the "report" of the unfair and unbalanced network. What that network did was put on a lawyer HACK to simply create "contgroversy" in the interest of RATINGS,. That hack, without challenge from the bone delep stupid hostess, said that there is a "Constitutional right to privacy" which prohibits you from being required to take a flu shot. Excuse me while I cry. You may remember that SCHOOLS still require, in many places, vaccines for childhood diseases to get into school. Now the recent autism KOOKISM (part of my "you are a kook if:" series) was a scare against caccines. However, it is absurd to suggfst that a sate cannot require a vaccine against, say, mumps and measles to get into school. And this is STATE ACTION. Now I am not sure whether the Michigan example involves lthe sate, because the INCOMPETENTS of the unfair and unblanced network were not interested int he facts. They were interested in stoking CONGROVERSy for the sake of ratings. But this employer, whether government or private, was taking the position that health care workers need to be vaccinated against the flu to protect lthe HEALTH of their patients. Theree is NO "right of privacy" that has anything to do with this. Evern for the sate, the ONLY question is whether it is something that a reasonable sate could believe helps the public health. There is ot even a question that a reasonable peson COULD believe that--whether other reasonable people could disagree or not.
Right of privacy. Sorry, I have been crying again. Myu only quesiton is whether yoiu can BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network TWICE. I think you can. Boycott the New lYork Pst, the Wall Street Journal and the Fox entertainnment network. They DESERVE it (not just for this). Where have you heard "right of privacy" before? Right. This was the "principle" MADE UP as a "new right" found somewhre in the "penumbra" of the Constitution--a right made up specifically to impse the PERONAL views ofSupreme Court jusdes as the POLICY of this country--a usurpation of legislative poer in the nature of DIOCTATORIAL FIAT. Now there is an actual "right of privacy" in the Constitutiion, but that is the lprotection against unreasonable searches and seizures. This "right of privacy" FOR ABORTION only, of course, applies to state actio. It does NOT apply to privatge doctors. And the whole idea has prettymjuuch been discredited in legal circles, as abortion as a "right of privacy" never made any sense. Proponents of judge mandated legal abortion have sort of lpivoted to OTHER reasons for upholding Roe v. Wade. The whole concept has been limited to areas like birth control and abortion. There is NO general "right of privacy" in this country. Anyone who says other wise will say ANYTHING--is a totally dishonest lperson (or bone deep stupid, like the people of the unfair and unbalanced network).
You see who this works. If the unfair and unbalanced female idiot were interviewed by me, she would say that she "presented both sides". Hogwash. There is ONLY one "side" here. It is like presenting one person to say the Earth is flat and anoterh person to say the Earth is round. The whole idea of this kind of story is to present an "argument" that caters to the MISCONCEPTIONS of peoiple. Then the unfair and unbalanced network (that pompous ass, O'Geillly) will turn around andsay that we have beomce an "entitlement" society. Why is that? It is mainly because TV people, and other "journalists", are willing to FALSELY assert that there is some sort of "entitlement" to both keep your job and violate the policy of your employer,. That is a LIE, and many of these people know it. They simply do not caRe. As I have repeatedly said, these people are NOT interested in"informatioin". Tht is not the functin of pretending you are doing "journalism" when you bring in people to express an opinion totally based on AGENDA, and totally, objectively false. Again, yuo have no Constitutional "right" to refuse to have a vaccination your employer insists upon. It is absolutely absurd to sayy otehrwise, or to LET anyone say otherwise without ridiculue. Yep. The CORRECT way to do this is NOT the "unfair and unbalanced" way. It is to get in a NEUTRAL Constitutional law elxpert to give a NEUTRAL (good luck on fiding that kind of person anymore--I volunteer) opinioin on the subject. I hate to break it to modern "journalists", but "journalism" is NOT supposed to be an "adversary proceeding", tith a plaintiff's attorney and defendant's attorney deliberately taking an adovcacy position. "Journalism" is supposed to be about FACTS. That is why I have nothing but total CONTEMPT for vritualkly all modern "journalists". See, again, Michael Crichton's "Airframe".
Now is there a possible issue as to whether employees SHOULD be REQUIRED to have a flu shot? Sure. But then you would get into dul lfacts-"into the weeks", as tlhe unfair and unbalanced network likes to refer to real, factual "journalism". I don't have any big problem with health care workers being required to hav vaccinatinos. But I can see the other side. Hoewver, to turn this into an argumnent over "rights" is an EViL thing. Did I jsut call the unfair and unbalanced network "eviL"? Of course I did. I have done it before, and I will do it again. This is NOT an issue of "rights". It is an issue of POLICY (as is true of public employee unions, and so many otehr things that are misrepresented as if fundamental "rights" are involved).
yes, I have criticized Rick Perry for an EXECUTIVE ORDEr requiring 11 and 12 year old girls to be caccinated against a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE beofre entering school. But that was not because I believe parents have a "right" not to get a truly needed vaccine. I have no prolbem with parents vaccinating their girls for the HPV virus. It is the DICTATOR mentality of Rick Perry--the NON-CONSERVATIVE mentality--that made me furious. And iI am still furious. I will NEVER believe llthat Rick Perry is an principled "conservative". People on AOL told me he was not at the time, and my years in Texas (all of the years Perry has been an elected official) have convinced me that those people on AOL were right. Perry is an oportunist. Now I would be willing to vote for him anyway, EXCEPT that I expect the the Repubican Party is going to leave me (as lthe Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan so long ago) . We will see how the Republican Party responds to this ridiculous "jobs" speech by Obama, and to the "gang of 12" fraud on the "long-term" deficit. In the long term, we are all dead. If the Republican Party does one more betrayal, it will not have to wait for the long term. It iwilkl be a dead party walking. In that caSse, I will NOT vote for Rick Perry, as he will then be associated with a party I will abhor--without the kind of personal credit with me that someone like Meichel Bachmann haS. I do not think, by the way, that Bachmann can succeed in attacking Perry from the right. Kay Bailey Hutchinson--adittedly without Bachmann's conservative credentials--tried and failed miserably. That does not change my own distrust of Perry--a distrust I could overcome only if I WANTED the Republican Party to stay in existence. As I have said, I figure the chaNces of that at only 10%, after the Repubicans have dengaged in FRAUDULENT "dal" after FRAUDULENT "deal". The next one willbe their last, as far as I am concerned, and I am confident there will be a next one. Yes, this entire paragraph is a digression, but any regular reader of this blog might woner about how consistent my position on vaccines is. It is consistent, as I have not ever talked about "rights", but only about POLICY. Blaming autims on vaccines was always the fantasy of KOOKS and DUPES. I can say the same about people who talk about Constituinal "rights" in connection with empoyer required vaccines. That does not change that you can argue about the WISDOM of intruding so far on people's lives llthat they are required to unndergo vaccination. After all, I startred this article with the TRUTH hat you have NO RIGHT for you boss to have to be FAIR to you . I did not say it was RIGHT for your boss to be unfair to you. It is just not a "Constitutinal right", or even a Federal statutory right (in the general case not covered by a special Federal statute).
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).