Job Ad WTF - "Progressive Politics Manager"



  • I came across this ad on CrunchBoard:

    Company: Working Assets

    Website: http://www.workingassets.com/

    Contact: employment@wafs.com

    How to Apply: visit www.workingassets.com

    Live in San Francisco. Fight for Social Justice across the siloed issue
    areas typical among progressive nonprofits. Work for a mobile phone company
    with a mission of making the world a better place. Get a competitive salary and awesome benefits.

    Working Assets, a company that has raised over $56 million for progressive
    causes, is looking for a new member for our political team as we launch a
    new mobile phone brand. We are a low overhead, high impact political
    operation that leverages the resources of our mobile phone business to run
    political campaigns that matter. Because we raise our money running
    businesses, we don't have to launch campaigns aimed at bringing in bucks.
    Our bottom line is social change.

    The ideal candidate will be a creative online campaigner with DIY tech and writing skills for
    reaching progressive audiences via email, the web, facebook, myspace, txt
    messaging and other emerging social media. What your experience is holds
    more importance to us than how much experience you have. We're looking for
    someone who can hang with the NOI crowd, keep up with the Save the Internet
    campaign, impress Matt Stoller with her online bar-fighting skills,
    out-innovate the Step It Up crowd on global warming organizing, and cut
    through the hype around mobile phone political applications. One year's
    experience with widgets will help us more than 10 years spent developing
    Internet portals. It would also be great if you can write amazing subject
    lines for our emails.

    If you dream of a job on Capitol Hill, this is not the position for you. But
    if you want to organize across issues - protecting the 2008 election,
    stopping global warming, ending the war, and restoring habeas corpus just
    to name a few - this might be the place to make a real difference. It's the ideal job for the activist at heart who wants full time work with salary and benefits.

    I don't suppose they are willing to hire Republicans, conservatives, moderates...or even men ("..impress Matt Stoller with her online bar-fighting skills..").

    I can just imagine what a smug bunch of phony dweebs that company is full of.  And when did this country suspend habeas corpus? 



  • ...



  • On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[5][6] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[7]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.



  • @Pap said:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#War_on_Terror

    On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[5][6] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[7]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.

    Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 



  • Maybe Cpound should apply, i think he's still unemployed



  • @TunnelRat said:

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 

    Actually, probably not.  IANAL, but Federal EOE laws prohibit discrimination due to age, sex, religion, disability, national origin, race, color, and probably a couple more I've forgotten to list.  Political affiliation, however, is not among them.  A cursory look through the California Office of Civil Rights doesn't show any evidence that the state bans discrimination based upon political beliefs (federal employees, though, are so prohibited).

    Further, even if California does protect against such discrimination, I suspect a decent attorney could argue that a specific set of political beliefs are central to the company's mission, and therefore qualify as a bona fide occupational qualification (which, for example, is how Hooters is allowed to hire only female wait staff, and ones with certain -- ahem -- assets, so to speak).



  • technically we made a law that didn't do anything.  American's still have habeas corpus.  Alien's never had it... and this just put it into writing.  Now weather that was the right move to make or not I wont comment on, that's for you to decide.

     

     



  • @TunnelRat said:

      And when did this country suspend habeas corpus? 

     See [url]http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm[/url] - The 'Great Emancipator' suspended it twice - in 1861 and 1862.

     

    Yes, I understand your question was 'when did this country suspend habeas corpus recently', but it bears repeating that this sort of thing has been done before.

     Luckily the country was able to keep from tuning into a <font size="-1">totalatarianship </font>last time, I'm hoping it will again.
     



  • <yawn>



  • What your experience is holds
    more importance to us than how much experience you have.

    Isn't that a very weird statement? I mean, how much determines precisely what it is (e.g. 0 years in X implies you don't have experience in X; 1 year of experience in X implies you have it, but less than 2). Probably written by someone who thought it sounded paradoxically interesting, so it must be good.

     

    My advice: ignore the PC crowd as much as you can...



  • @TunnelRat said:

    Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 

    I think maybe you are thinking with your ass again.

    There are many resident aliens here in the USA legally, with full credentials, supporting our country while they work and live here within our borders under full compliance of the law.

    Habeas Corpus literally means "body of evidence", what the suspension here actually means is that the government can say you support hostilities and because you are not a citizens of the USA they don't have to show evidence of it, they do not have to prove it.  If they want to just incarcerate a lot more people because they think their military detention facilities need more residents they can do so without any need for proof. 

    I know this is taking the idea to the extreme, but our government does do this.  To be a free country we need to treat all those that abide by our laws with the same respect and freedom we ourselves enjoy.  That includes the requirement of proof when accusing them of a crime.  If you don't think our government can abuse such "rights" just think back to Roosevelt and the commie scare.



  • @TunnelRat said:

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

     OK, here is one more point to make.  This might have been just a slight mistep on your part.

    If you engage in hostilities or support them and you are detained, then you are detained legally.  If you do as you say and do not support or engage in hostilities and are detained then you are unlawfully detained.

    So in order to not be unlawfully detained you should support or engage in hostilities, because then you are lawfully detained; but you are still detained.

    The thinking here leads to a reduction of security.  If these people are going to be detained anyway, then by god they might as well do something to be detained for.  Our country cares not for them so why should they care for our country.
     



  • @KattMan said:

    @TunnelRat said:

    Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 

     

    Habeas Corpus literally means "body of evidence", what the suspension here actually means is that the government can say you support hostilities and because you are not a citizens of the USA they don't have to show evidence of it, they do not have to prove it.  If they want to just incarcerate a lot more people because they think their military detention facilities need more residents they can do so without any need for proof. 



     

    That's not exactly what it means  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

     

    In a nut shell,  it means to produce the prisoner in court so a judge may determine if the evidence warrants it. 

     

    Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, so that the court can determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or some other person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

     

    Without Habeas Corpus,   the prisoner is not even required to acknowledged as in custody.



  • ...



  • What's the WTF? They're a politically angled company, they're hiring for a position with activist responsibilities, and they want to make sure that they're hiring somebody who matches their company philosophy. They chose to use the pronoun "her", but I wager that if they'd said "his", nobody would have even noticed that they were allegedly excluding women.



  • @Maciej said:

    They chose to use the pronoun "her", but I wager that if they'd said "his", nobody would have even noticed that they were allegedly excluding women.

     

    That's because she would not have been excluding women; it's just grammatically correct to use "him/his/he". When you walk into a room full of guys, you can say "What's up, guys." When you walk into a room full of guys and girls you can say "What's up, guys."  You don't say "What's up, girls" if a guy is among them.  Just like in spanish how you would refer to your brothers and sisters collectively as "hermanos" (masculine form). Hence, the only proper reason to write the sentence as it was written is if you're specifically excluding men.

     

     



  • Sure, except that's when referring to a collection of people, not an individual.  When referring to an unknown person, you may use either His or Her.  "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate (since "their" has been used as a singular gender-neutral term since before America was a country).

    It sounds like they're quite liberal.  Any male who reads the use of the word "her" and is offended is probably not wanted as an employee anyway (your boss might be a woman!)  Being engaged to a feminist, I've learned that using "her" in place of "their" or "his" is much more inviting to liberal-minded women: while you may be going over the top with your political correctness, that sounds like they are open to feminist ideals.  If that's what they're looking for, then this isn't a WTF at all.
     



  • @TunnelRat said:

    Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

    Many historians and researchers believe that we have gone to the moon... (not all). Do you believe in the moon landing, TunnelRat? Or do you believe that it's just as unlikely that we got to the moon, as it is unlikely that anyone will be tempted to if not actually abuse powers given to it?

    @TunnelRat said:

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 

    That's right. While we're at it, lets demand that abortion clinics advertise for pro-lifers.



  • Any casual Google of "habeas corpus" drops you into the unhinged world of the The Nation, the ACLU, and the rest of the alternative universe where America is a facist state, Jews are Nazis, and the U.S. was behind 9-11.  It's a pet issue for the American left, little more.

    As for your last point, I just find it odd that now "progressives" feel free to pick and choose the ideology of those they work with.  What if someone is sceptical about Global Warming, pro-choice, and against the war, but supports drilling in ANWR?  Is there some kind of checklist progressives inventory to test the pureness of a job candidate?

     



  • @ebs2002 said:

    Sure, except that's when referring to a collection of people, not an individual.  When referring to an unknown person, you may use either His or Her.  "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate.

     

    Sorry, you are wrong.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.