It looked like I might have to put on hold my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honestr, competent AP reporter, now that Yahoo "News" has "partnered" with ABC "News". As I told you a day or two ago, I worried about how I was going to explain it to Him. As an agnostic, I don't have too much goodwill built up. Luckily, however, it appears that AP articles will still be used, AND attributed to the AP. I am talking but on my AT&T/Yahoo internet default page (boycott AT&T and Yahoo), which I have been using to keep u with the propaganda of the despicable AP. Loook at these two headlines, and stories, featured on AT&T/Yahoo this Sunday (today, as I am writing this in El Paso):
"Unemployed seek protection against job bias"
"Immigrants fearing deportation make plans for kids"
Pure propaganda, without any redeeming social value. No wonder I have advised you to stay away from AP facilities, lest you be involved in a Biblical event in modern times. You would not want to turn out like Lot's wife, would you, and become a pillar of salt?
Oh, the headline is a little bit of a reach--although not much of a reach. This is all POLITICXAL AGENDA all of the time, and there is no doubt that Obama and the Democrats are trying to build a "coalition" of "victimms"--even if Obama and the Democrats may have CREATED most of the victims.
Notice the DELIBERATE confuson betwenn "imigrants" and Illegal immigrants". Nope. NO "immigrants" are facing deportation if they are legally in this country, unless they have done something REALLY BAD. Indeed, the Obama Administration has stated that it now has a policy nto to enforce the immigration laws except as to CRIMINALS. Of course, the despicable AP lies, and it lies in this headline. "Immigrants" are NOT "facing deportation", and it is a LIE to say they are. How does the AP (not to mention Yahoo and AT&T) get away with these outright lies? Well, they don't, excpet for their intended audience: leftists and people who do not THK because lthey are too busy being brainwashed by Orwellian, "1984" type, Big Lies. Why "immigrants" should WANT to be lumped with illegal immigrants is beyond me. They should be PICKETING the despicable AP (and other mainstream media organizations that pull this same trick:, such as Yahoo "News" and ABC "News").
Now about "making plans" for those kids. Those kids should not be American citizens inthe firstg place. Why are they American citizens? Because of an archaic glitch in our law, different from almost every other country in the world. More importantly, for this poiht, is aANYTHING preventing the children from going with the parents, and living together in the country where they should ALWAYS have been living (until the childrfen become aduls, and can come to live here by their own choice, as American citizens)? Of coure there is no reason for the children to not go with the parents, except the parents want them to stay here. That is the parents' CHOICE, and I have never understood this idea that there is something morally wrong with telling ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS who should have had their children in anoterh country to either take the children back to where they should always have been raised or "make plans" for those children for them to stay here. A side benefit of this is that peole receiving WELFARE PAYMENTS to take care of the children will at least be LEGALLY HER (you assume, if the new caretakers are not also illegal).
It is nothing but propaganda, pure and simple, where truth and reality never intrude. That is the fantasy world of the left, including the dsepicable propagandists of the AP.
What can you say about an article that suggests the "unemplyed" should receive PROTECTION against job "bias" (meaning in APLICATIONS for emplyment)? "Propaganda" is too weak a word for this absurdity. Yep. There are lots of people who "desreve" "protectoin" MORE, and do not get it, for the most part (because they SHOULD ot get it): fat people, ugly peole, deformed people, stupid peopl?, slobs, bad dressers, non-conformers, etc. Take a class on interviewing sometime, and see how MANY facotrs can keep you from being considered for a job, including on your resume'. Exactly what is WRONG with "bias" againt the long-term unemplyed (which is what the headline meant)? If the experience of an emplyer is that long-term unemplymeed people are not desirable emplyeees, swhy should the GOVERNMENT tell the they are wrong? What business is it of the government? Or are we in another Chris Wallace situaton (see previous article), where "bias" against the unemployed" is the same as "bias" against black people, and really the same as slavery? As a society, we have gone NUTS (or at least would, if the AP and the rest of the left had their way).
Oh. You want to know WHO the unemployed are "seeking protection" from? You won't find out from the desicable AP propaganda--unless you have the patience and eyesight to get more than l7 paragraphs down. That is all I could get, with my eyesight meaning ti tok me about 7 minutes per paragraph, before I gave it up as a massive waste of time. What, then, was the article about? Waht happened to "who, what, where, how, when" being in the first paragraph? Forget it. These (Ap "reporters") arfe NOT "journalists". They are propagandists.
Thearticle was about propaganda, as you can tell from the fact that is was a SOB STORY about this poor unemplyed person who was told that she (or he, as the name was strange) might as well not apply for a job that he "fit" because she had been unemplyed "too long" (two years or so) .Forget the details of what "protetion" this person wanted. You can assume it is GOVERNMENT protection, unless Al Capone has been reincarnated and starting a protection racket for the unemplyed (which the lef, by the way, would CHEER). The AP is not interested int he FACTS of what is going on. Why should you be. Still, why should employuers be FORCED to hire certain people? Yep. We do it for race, sex ethnic origin and religion, but we do it at a PRICE. Thre is no way the government can guarantee "fairness" to everybody, without DESTROYING the economy (which we are well on our way to doing).
I see nothing wrong with a general policy not to hire the really long-term unemplyed, although I would regard it as short-sighted for an employer not to make exceptions. However, the dirtly little secret is that a general policy is SAFTER than a more rational "ick and choose" policy . Why is that? Because of those laws on RACE, SEX, ETHNIC ORIGIN, and RELILGIOIN. you might throw in "disability" and "age". Now we are even getting laws on not "discriminating because of homosexual CONDUCT. You should see the problem Employers almsot have to put general policies in place, or may feel that way, because otherwise theymay have to explain why they made an exception for a WHITE person and not for a BLACK person. What would I ahve done? I actually would have stopped with African-Americans, because of slavery, for non-governmental emplyuers, for fear of undermining the whole privatge labor market (which is occurring).
What is the big problem here? No, it is NOT whether it is "fair" to not hire, or continue to hire, peole who are long-term unemplyed, momosexual, fat, or whatever. I am sure that we would agree that some things are unfair. What aoubt the UGLY? Big tits--too big? Small tits-too small? The list just goes on and on. And that is the trouble. You and I would AGREE (believe it or not) that many emplyers are STUPID in the criteria they use for hiring bepole, and that many of the criteria used ARE "unfair". So what? It is not only that employers should nto always have to agree with us. The problem is LITIGATION. and expense.
What happens if there is simply a law that REQUIRES employers to be "fair" when they hire or fire? REasonable, yes? Nope. It is insane. That is because EVERYONE then has a CLAIM. How do you know wht is "fair" until a government agency, or a jury, tells you so? And the more categories you put in these laws against "discrimination", the more peole who can CLAIM they were "discriminated against". Sometimes they are. Other times they are not. In my other life, I was a tril lawyer primarily on the plaintiff's side. I know what I am taling aoubt her. You can ALWAYS make a claim. If you are a black person, and you are fired, the real "burden" is on the employer to show that you were fired for legitimate reasons. I have no problem with that for black peole, because of slavery and the long history of very strong discrimination in this country. I do have a problem wtih "affirmative action" discriminating against peole because of the color of their skin. But htat is another article (which I ahve done). My problem is with forever expanding this idea of "fairness" until employers face nothing but ENDLESS LITIGATION . MaNy emplyers--especially small employers wo cannot afford it--think they face that now. And make no mistake. Defending yourself before a government board, like the EEOC or OSHA, is LITIGATION. It is COSTLY. This idea that you can place infinite burn=dnes on employers in the name of "fairness' is INSANE.
Whether you agree with me on this totally or not, you should see that the AP "story" was nothing more than "unfair" propaganda. Does the experience of ONE PERSON have much of anything to do with whether wwe should give "protection" ataginst "bias" to the long-term unemployeed by some kind of government COERCION? Of course not. And I don't even think the AP cares. They just want to put out pro-Obama lpropaganda, and they think that is what this is. They know that we "hard=hearted" conservatives, and even regular Republicans, are not going to buyinto this junk. But they think this "coaliton" of "victims' will buy into it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).