Give this one a try: the next time you go in for a job
interview, proudly and loudly proclaim that you have never called Mexicans murderers
and rapists. Explain to them that you have never bragged about grabbing women by
the pussy, inform them you have never called a third-world nation a shithole,
and then demand they hire you.
They will ask you questions, assuredly, so it is best to
prepare yourself. If asked if you have the best interests of those who you will
be working for at heart, tell them the other candidate is a buffoon and a Nazi.
If they ask you if you are able to avoid going to war with other companies and
killing millions of people, make some comment about the orangeness of the other
job candidate. If they ask you if you ever sent all the work of a company you
worked for to other companies, tell them that while there were some losers, on the whole everyone was better off for it. And if they ask you if you will
help to prevent someone from turning up the thermostat in the office so high
the heat kills everyone…well, don’t worry, they won’t ask that question.
The important thing is that you dress nice and use all the
right words. The worst resume can be doctored by the right team to—if not make
your work history seem impressive—at least obfuscate the many crimes you committed
while in previous positions.
And when they don’t hire you, do not for any reason ask
yourself why they did not, but instead shriek at the top of your lungs about
how irrational they were for not hiring you. Tell them they were sexist for not
doing so. And then, if you are lucky enough to have connections in the company
that was advertising for the open position, have people well-positioned in the
corporation start saying that the chosen candidate was picked because of a rival
business.
This is the case now put forth by the Democratic party. The
entire thrust of their argument is that they are not the golden-coiffed monkey.
They have long been making similar arguments, beginning with loudly crying that
they were not the party with a legacy president who felt himself entitled to
the office based on having the same last name as a former president. The
argument did have appeal, it must be admitted. The candidate they were running
against in 2,000 was so bad it was hard to justify throwing one’s vote away
when the realistic choice was between a bad leader and a really bad leader. Who
would, if given the choice between a bad apple and a really bad apple, not
choose the merely bad apple? Unless, of course, one was uppity enough to
believe that a fresh and nourishing apple was actually an option. If you’re kept
in a constant state of starvation, you take what is available and won’t
contemplate a future of nothing but increasingly more rotten apples.
So instead of soul-searching or tweaking the resume, the
Democrats opted for upping the volume. The shrieking did not begin immediately.
The illusion of choice was given at first, but the end result was
predetermined. It was only as the situation became tense, when the crazy old
socialist became a concern, that the hysteria gradually increased, until the
talking heads in the media shifted from presumed objectivity to the role of shepherds
for which they are given their seven figures. At this point, those who are paid
to report between commercials for insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and
weapons manufacturers, now become our wise councilors, instructing us on the
difference between good intentions and madness. Third parties, and by extension
the freedom to vote for who you will, become lunacy and treason. The choices
have been drawn—bad or worse—and stepping outside the box they would contain
you in calls for a Joe McCarthy type response. Those unwilling to eat of the
fruit inside the bushel of bad and worse are marginalized, subject to the same low-level
threats and implications of treason they were once subjected to when daring to
question the Weapons Of Mass Destruction narrative.
Is this our destiny, for the rest of our lives be made to
choose between applicants with dismal resumes and an utter lack of respect for
their employers? Are there no good and trustworthy candidates for the job? Must
we resign ourselves not only to horrible candidates but increasingly horrible candidates?
Perhaps it’s time we fold up our business and go into selling shoes.
The problem, perhaps, is we’ve relied on the same hiring agency
for too long. They’ve been sending us nothing but gum-snapping, smartphone-pawing
candidates who think they’re doing us a favor in consenting to work for us. In
their minds they rightfully should be earning billions in the private market
but, hey, you gotta start somewhere. The agency insists they have the cream of
the crop and that you’ll be wasting your time trying to hire a qualified
candidate off the street. They tell us it’s just the way things are and you can’t
expect anything more. And all the while they grow richer and more complacent.
They send you job candidates that don’t help you at all but somehow seem to
make others rich off your dollar. Rather than them working for you, you can’t
help get the feeling you’re working for them and paying for the privilege.
How much longer do we listen to their pitch?
No comments:
Post a Comment