Level 3 Member
Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 8:54 PM
As if being unemployed for months and months and months weren't bad enough, the unemployed face another major hurdle in their quest of finding another job--being unemployed.
According to Liz Goodwin of Yahoo’s The Lookout:
“Hundreds of job opening listings posted on Monster.com and other jobs sites explicitly state that people who are unemployed would be less attractive applicants, with some telling the long-term unemployed to not even bother with applying.”
The article goes on—in a shocked tone—to discuss how employers are consistently shunning unemployed workers in favor of their employed counterparts. This article treated the whole subject of unemployment discrimination as news, as something new.
But employer discrimination of unemployed job applicants is hardly new. It has long been a truism that you will always have a better chance being hired for a new job if you are already employed.
The real story here is that employers are actually crass enough to actually tell the
unemployed not to bother to apply at their companies. Why are they so blunt in
this particular preference? Well, for one, it’s not illegal to discriminate against the unemployed. For another, they probably get buried in resumes from the unemployed every time that they post any ad—well, duh—and so they figure that they will just tell the unemployed not to apply.
Bad move…at least as concerns me. This employed woman plans to boycott any company who blatantly discriminates against the unemployed. And I plan to write a letter telling them so. Will you join me in this effort?
Image by Piotr Ciuchta
Sunday, July 24, 2011, 9:21 PM
A new survey conducted by Public Policy Polling asked 928 American voters some intriguing questions about God (nestled between questions about politicians and public policy issues, of course). The good news is that the majority of those polled gave God a huge thumbs up for all categories in which God was involved.
According to Public Policy Polling:
“Though not the most popular figure PPP has polled, if God exists, voters are prepared to give it good marks. Voters approve of God’s performance by 52-9 margin, making God about as popular as Murdock is unpopular. When asked to evaluate God on some of the issues it is responsible for, voters give God its best rating on creating the universe, 71-5. They also approve of its handling of the animal kingdom 56-11, and even its handling of natural disasters 50-13.”
So, the big question is…
Do YOU approve of God?
Saturday, July 16, 2011, 4:12 PM
A new bill called “Caylee’s Law” has been introduced by California Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell. If passed, “Caylee’s Law” will impose harsh prison sentences on parents or guardians who fail to quickly report a child dead or missing. But the introduction of this bill comes much too late to punish Casey Anthony, who will be walking the streets a free woman—though undoubtedly in disguise—this weekend.
It’s preposterous that there wasn’t already a law on the books at the time of Caylee Anthony’s disappearance. (But then, who but the guilty would fail to report their child’s death or disappearance immediately in the first place?)
Anyway, according to the Los Angeles Times, if such a law had existed in Florida at the time of Caylee’s disappearance, Casey Anthony would “probably now be facing a jail sentence of about 15 years.”
Why does it take such a tragedy for the legal system to find its cracks and to fill them in?
Saturday, July 16, 2011, 3:34 PM
For far too long, medicine and spirituality has been separated by an unspoken taboo—when in doubt, get the hell out of any type of type of religious or spiritual discussion with patients. But a new study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, suggests that such discussions are what hospitalized patients crave. Moreover, such discussions can actually help patients to feel better. But their needs are going unmet by a spiritually skittish medical establishment.
The data collected on the 3,141 patients enrolled in the University of Chicago Hospitalist study between January 2006 and June 2009 could not answer the question of why doctor, nurses, and other medical personnel avoid discussing these topics with their patients. But…
“They found that 41 per cent of patients wanted to discuss religious or spiritual concerns with someone while in the hospital, and 32 per cent of all patients said some
discussion did occur. Among those who had taken part in discussions, 61 percent spoke with a chaplain, 12 per cent with a member of their own religious community, 8 per cent with a physician, and 12 per cent with someone else.” (Source: The Times of India)
But here’s the really interesting part…the lucky patients who received some type of spiritual or religious counseling reported more satisfaction with their overall care. (Whether this means that the patients recovered more quickly or were just satisfied with their treatment by hospital staff is unclear).
But given this data, do you believe that hospitals and medical personnel should make more of an effort to meet their patients’ spiritual needs?
Image of medical doctor courtesy of Kurhan.
Thursday, July 7, 2011, 1:44 PM
The final, FINAL verdict is in—today, the judge sentenced Casey Anthony to four years for lying to police. Then, to add insult to injury for all of us who believe that Casey intentionally murdered her little girl, authoritiesannounced that she will be released on July 13. (Since Casey has been a model little prisoner during her 3-year stint in jail, the judge ruled that she should be release early.)
The question on almost everyone’s mind is “why wasn’t Casey Anthony convicted of murdering 2-year-old Caylee?” How did the jury get it so wrong?
What were they THINKING?
Juries can be unpredictable. They may have heard things that the public never heard. They may have had trouble believing that a mother could intentionally kill her own
child. They may have simply liked Casey and could not bring themselves to sentence such a young woman to a long prison sentence or to death.
They may have even misunderstood the meaning of finding Casey Anthony guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Or, perhaps, it is the public who has misunderstood this meaning. In either case, each side (Casey’s jurors and the public) can be forgiven, because this legal requirement for a criminal conviction is open to interpretation.
Reasonable Doubt vs ALL Doubt
Many jury members feel that they cannot vote to convict unless there is no doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Unfortunately, short of the defendant’s confession (and even that can be challenged), there are few criminal cases that leave no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. Most juries, therefore, have to weigh the evidence presented by the prosecution against the evidence presented by the defense. Since the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Casey Anthony’s jury obviously felt that the prosecution did not meet that burden.
But did they?
Proof of Casey Anthony’s Guilt
In my opinion, the strongest evidence of Casey Anthony’s
*Her failure to report her daughter missing for an entire month while she enjoyed an apparently carefree and joyous partying life at nightclubs and bars.
*Her ever-changing stories about what happened to little Caylee, i.e. a non-existent nanny kidnapped her to she left Caylee with friends, to (finally) Caylee drowned in the swimming pool and Casey’s former police officer father helped her to cover up this “accidental” drowning.
*The stench of human decay in the trunk of Casey’s abandoned car.
*The excessive Google search for various ways to render a person unconscious (chloroform) and for how to break a person's neck.
I believe that all of these items prove that Casey Anthony intentionally, with premeditation, murdered Caylee. But the jury obviously disagreed.
To be sure, the prosecution did not do its job very well. For instance, they could not prove the manner of Caylee Anthony’s death. But instead of just admitting that they did not know how she died, they claimed with absolute authority that she was suffocated with the duct tape found on her skeletal remains.
What?!!! There was absolutely no forensic evidence for Caylee’s suffocation via duct tape. And how did this theory of her death fit in with all those Google searches about how to break a person’s neck? It didn’t. This was a glaring inconsistency that the prosecution never tried to explain. Unfortunately, I think that the prosecution’s failure to explain this inconsistency helped the jury to acquit Casey Anthony of killing her child.
Do you think that the jury made the right decision?
Monday, July 4, 2011, 9:24 PM
Today is the 4th of July, an annual holiday when most Americans gorge themselves on hot dogs at one of their Aunt Hilda’s, or Uncle Harry’s, legendary cookouts. It is a day for family gatherings and watching awe-inspiring fireworks’ displays at a local park. It is a day to celebrate our freedoms—or so they tell us.
Who are “they?” Our government, of course (or rather, the makers of the laws and the enforcers of the now almost nonexistent Bill of Rights contained in the United States Constitution.) By virtue of the Patriot Act, our government officials have ruled that we must give up the most precious of our rights in order to keep us safe from terrorists.
We have lived with severely diminished rights ever since the passage of the Patriot Acts shortly after the tragedy of 9/11. But most of us have been too distracted and confused to notice. First we dealt with the terrible shock of 9/11, then the anger and the urge to get even with the terrorists, then the government-induced hysteria over the threat of terrorism—after all, look what they did to the World Trade Center and to the Pentagon—then to the pursuit and capture of Saddam Hussein even though we were supposed to be looking for Bin Ladin, then to the discovery that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to what our leaders had led us to believe, then to the almost total economic collapse of the United States caused by rich bankers who have never been punished for their crimes, then to…
Well, the list goes on and on. The point is that, while we were saddened, distracted, and confused, our rights were taken away from us.
Question: Do you even know where your rights are?
Answer: Not in the Bill of Rights.
The Patriot Act took most of those rights away. Worse, our leaders saw nothing wrong with taking these rights away from us then. And they see nothing wrong with it now.
As Huffington Post reporter Sarah Berlin, an Intern with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, writes:
"On May 26, 2011, Congress voted to reauthorize three provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT that were set to expire. The most contentious of these provisions is Section 215, which allows the government to more easily gain access to various personal records without clear evidence that the individual in question poses a threat to national security. This provision also places a gag order on anyone whose records have been seized so they can't talk about what happened."
As bad as these despicable actions by Congress are, I take more offense at the fact that few Americans are protesting the disintegration of our Bill of Rights. It’s time to
wake up and SHAKE UP Congress, people! Let your voices be heard.
If you really want to celebrate Independence Day, write to your representatives in Congress. Write to President Obama. Write letters of protest to the editorial section of
your local newspaper. Tell them that we had a Bill of Rights that was written to protect us from such tyranny as that contained in the Patriot Act. Tell them that you are taking back your rights.
Use the one freedom you still have left—your freedom of speech.
It used to be the American way.