The plea to Houston voters by Andrea Greer in her article "A Yes Vote on Proposition 1 in Houston is Your Patriotic Duty" from the Burnt Orange Report is an attempted use of nationalistic propaganda to promote her agenda. She states innocently in her opening, "... [This issue] is neither right nor left, conservative nor liberal, Republican nor Democrat... The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is about doing what's right and what's fair."
She then goes on to tell the story of prior enlisted Air Force Senior Airman Noel Freeman, who was allegedly discriminated against by a hiring manager in Houston soon after separating from the military because the hiring manager was "against all military force." This story is set against a backdrop of star spangled banners and bolded phrases such as "how patriotic are you?" A vote against Proposition 1 is a vote against American values! Right?
Well, the author (who claims to hold a law degree), as well as Freeman, the victim, fail to acknowledge that veterans are already protected from such discrimination under Section 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. Additionally, the portrayal of the desperation to find employment that Freeman faced as a direct result of such discrimination is skewed. Frankly, if I were Freeman, I would not want to work for some one dull enough to openly say they could not hire me because they are "against all military force." I would make a big stink with the company's Human Resources department and then merrily continue my search. Merrily, you say? Yes, because as a recently separated service member, I know that upon Honorable discharge all service members are eligible to collect unemployment for up to a year after separation.
Another glaring issue within the article is the way that the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is phrased. It says that it "prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual's sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy."
From the information given, we don't even know what sort of discharge Freeman received. Does this Equal Rights Ordinance ensure that Freeman is protected even if he received a Dishonorable discharge? A dishonorable discharge is a failure to perform the duties for one's country which one swore an oath to. (Not exactly the kind of job material employers seek out.)
With all of the logical fallacies in this blog article, I almost believed it to be satire, except for the link to a paid advertisement featuring this Freeman fellow that we're all supposed to feel bad for. Upon further investigation, a discerning reader will sift through the rubbish, use their inference-making abilities based on current events, and realize that this entire article is a weak, propagandized attempt at concealing the actual subgroup the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance was messily thrown together for: gay and transgender people.
Even so, I can understand the attempt to appeal to the extreme right wing with a cover story in order to perpetuate the liberal agenda. I even applaud it. But for a city as diverse as Houston, it would likely be more beneficial to just call it what it is. Nice try, Andrea Greer.
No comments:
Post a Comment