Plain (now Richland), Mississippi – Thanksgiving, 1967.
I thought I’d end the year with a pic by someone other than me. This is actually a cropped image, from a photo taken by my mom at a relative’s house on the unfashionable end of Old Hwy. 49; so, unlike the photos of this vintage that I occasionally post that were taken by the late Dee McKellar, I acually am in the main image – but, as was the case when I used it as an image over at TransAdvocate some time back, I thought that the abstraction worked better.
Wharton, Texas – December, 1992.
A non-discrimination statement (albeit a few years old now, but relevant nevertheless) from a very large employer, headquartered in the midwest:
All employment-related decisions are based on an individual’s job-related qualifications and job performance, without regard to race, age, color, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status or disability, and in certain states, marital status and sexual orientation.
My question: If all of the words up to and including “performance” actually constitute a wholly truthful description of the company’s future intentions and past actions re: the employment process, then (1) why are any words needed after “performance” and (2) how can any of it be honestly qualified by the “in certain states” proviso?
I’m now going to hop inside my fish and drive it to a job interview.
From Shannyn Moore:
My Guns Are Less Regulated Than My Uterus
Just think about that – and the fact that it is an unchallengeable fact.