Teal

10 hours ago
‹ chat status

Profile

Name:
Teal
Location:
Cape Coral, FL
Birthday:
09/26/1931
Status:
Married
Job / Career:
Publishing

Stats

Posts:
73
Post Reads:
1,560
Photos:
2
Last Online:
10 hours ago
Technorati:
blog reactions

Users Chatting

View All »

My Friends

online now
1 hour ago
3 hours ago
5 hours ago
7 hours ago
8 hours ago
16 hours ago
1 day ago

Subscribe

Politics & Legal > Bush, God's Chosen One

  Bush, God's Chosen One


From the L.A. Times (June 25)
Promising lawyers and law students were rejected (from positions in the Justice Department) because of their political and ideological views, internal investigators say.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 25, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Scores of highly credentialed young lawyers and law students were denied interviews for coveted positions at the Justice Department because of an illegal screening process that took political and ideological views and affiliations into account rather than merit, Justice Department investigators concluded in a report released Tuesday.

End excerpt

This above is the lead in a longish article about hiring at the Justice Department concerning the bias against moderate and liberal views and the refusal to grant interviews to highly qualified applicants who did not, however, answer certain questions "correctly."

Those receiving favorable review were born again, had attended an ultra-conservative religious law school and were pro-life.

Bush has amply demonstrated that he is not fit for public office in any capacity unless it is counting paper clips. What I find amazing is that criminal action is not being taken against him.

That any man can cloak himself in the mantle of Christianity and conduct himself as immorally and illegally as Bush has is a scandal far scarier than a sexual indiscretion. The senior Bush, whom I also thought not all that competent, is light years ahead of his son and is probably cringing under the bed.

xx, Teal


posted on June 25, 2008 6:18 PM ()

Comments:

Third reply below.
comment by think141 on June 30, 2008 10:46 AM ()
You may call it a news story if you wish. I was misled into thinking it was an opinion piece by the bias that filled it. I totally forgot what passes for news in the "Times". The "reproter" states unreservedly that the screening process was illegal and floats a perspective that you have bought into completely:
The justice dept. (for God only knows what insane reason) is rejecting candidates because they are not Christian enough?
This is reality?
If you know me you know I am no Christian but I do know religious bigotry and bias in reporting when I see it.
comment by think141 on June 29, 2008 8:33 AM ()
If you read into my replies that I doubted that there was not an ongoing investigation you are missing my point. The fact that there is an investigation going on doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that your reporter uses it to damn religion.
I'm sure you've been on one side or another of a hiring evaluation. The questions asked are always indirect and designed to rate certain qualifications in an applicant. Since the employer in this case is the Justice Dept. do you get no reassurance from the fact that they seek moral (as opposed to religious)individuals?
reply by think141 on June 30, 2008 10:45 AM ()
There is no way you can distort the fact that an investigation is going on.
There is no way you can refute that the Justice Department is under scrutiny. This is happening. I am sorry if it distresses you to be made aware of it. I should think you would wand to know and also that any bias you read into the story shouldn't distract you from the facts in it. If someone walked up to you and said your fly is open, and that was true, and even if you hated the person, wouldn't you zip it up?
reply by tealstar on June 30, 2008 4:15 AM ()
Since your source is an opinion columnist at the L.A. Times don't you think a bit more scrutiny ought to be applied?
1. Where does this opinionater draw the line between liberal and conservative? And what's moderate by his reckoning?
2. Do you (as most progressives do) jerk reflexively to the word "discriminate"? You understand, don't you, that discrimination is essential to decision making? Hiring is hardly an exception to that rule even though Leftists wish it wasn't and have raised hell in the economy trying to eliminate their definition of descrimination from hiring practices. You wouldn't stop me from hiring a college grad over a H.S. dropout would you? But that is what discrimination means.
3. Just possibly (and I'm sure you would disagree) the criteria in this case was intended to select people grounded in reality rather than in flighty ideology. I'm just sayin'...
comment by think141 on June 27, 2008 8:49 AM ()
I'm all for the right kind of discrimination. This was not an opinion column, it was a news sstory reporting that the Justice Departent's hiring practices are being investigated by the courts. Anyway, I am for separation of church and state and any government office hiring based on whether you are born again is not baed in reality, a concept yuu claim to admire.
reply by tealstar on June 29, 2008 7:32 AM ()
The criminality of this administration is a disgrace.
comment by marta on June 25, 2008 10:50 PM ()
Cringing under the bed.Laurie
comment by dogsalot on June 25, 2008 6:23 PM ()

Comment on this article   


73 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ Next Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]