Originally posted by sebatwerk
Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
I guess you're right, I really wouldn't want people prying into my buisness. but...
It is a question of public scrutiny. I beleive that these peole have accepted this job, and that I as well as you seb are thier interviewers, as well
as thier boss. They are public servants. We pay them. If a compay has the right to make me take a drug test and inquire about a criminal past, then
why cant I have the ability to question a president's devotion to his country? As well as veify and completely check his background. After all this
isn't a grocery store, this is America, take your gvernment seriously. It was created by the people for the people, and you seem to demonstrate that
we should think otherwise.
People hide thier greatest, and deepest secrets far away from the public eye, in private, personal settings, with trusted people only.
A drug test and a criminal background check are acceptable because they WOULD affect the way a person does their job. But if you're telling me that
someone has to answer too you about what they do ON THEIR OWN TIME INN A PRIVATE CLUB, you're nuts. You don't want your employer intruding in YOUR
private life, do you? Your employer can claim everything you just did, but it's illegal for a reason. Just like sexual preference and religion can't
be discriminated against. So don't be a hypocrite.
Well, sorry to join this thread so late...but I just had to add my $0.02!
Again, I think Sabatwerk's opinion is a bit off. Some jobs (especially the important ones) require close scrutiny- even going beyond the obligatory
'pee test' & criminal background check. That may all that is needed to qualify for a job a "Home Depot" or "Wal-Mart" etc... But usually most
jobs that require a more substantial background check to obtain employment accompanying the appropriate security clearance, quite a bit beyond that
cursory check is done.
Rest assured, a more expansive background check gathers nearly every aspect of an individuals life and is scrutenized in minute detail. The more
critiacl the job & required clearance, the greater scrutiny. Friends, family & aquaintances are checked. Past school teachers, college professors are
consulted. Interviews are done. Your lifestyle, habits, income & assets are explored. Known weaknesses within your family in regard to mental
illnesses & physical health are noted. Also included under scrutiny- are your influances, associations & fraternities.
In short, a detailed dossier is created & filed. Nothing in your life is too
private to be investigated before a clearance is granted.
Hell...most of us already have a dossier on file anyway in some form...just so that in case a clearance may be needed for a possible job that you may
qualify for (or for some reason you become suspicious of something
& information about you gets scrutenized by some agency) - the investigation
goes quickly before it is granted.
Depending on the job that you do, you may also have to be 'bonded' & a similar background check done- just maybe not as detailed.
I'm with you, Eyeofhourus-
Having been retired from military service as a decorated vet myself...I can tell you that my job required me to have at least
clearance at a minimum
just to be able to keep my MOS valid (if my clearance somehow lapsed, I could no longer perform my job & would be forced
to 'reclass' to a secondary MOS). More than a few occasions, some of my duties required me to have a much higher clearance beyond the standard
'secret' I held.
Anyway...jobs that often serve the public in some capacity have requirements to be sure that the canidate is both qualified & a person of suitable
character. I believe this process of scuriny by 'the public' that elects its officials shouldn't be much different than an official inquiry for
their character- no detail in thier life should be off limits...even if they are 'bonesman', or Masons. Being a member of a private club should be
included as information concerning a canidates character & agenda, and who & what they represent. A canidates associations should
be judged- I
want to know what 'interests' & influances they might represent. I want
to know about thier character.
...And to me- being a 'Bonesman', Mason, Trilateral member, CFR member, "Grover", "Bilderburger"...etc.. does not nessesarilly represent the
interests of the people they are supposed to represent- thier interests are elsewhere. A public servant should represent the citizens first & if they
don't represent the citizens and our constitution... that, my friends is a serious
Unfortunetly, most of our choices for canidates follow interests other than the citizens they are supposed to represent- right down to the local
The obscuring of facts of our public officials & thier agencies dubious interests & agendas to make it more 'palateable to the masses' is the heart
of what would constitute conspiracy.
In my opinion, the path that our country (or the world for that matter) is headed is not positive for the futures of all concerned. Which both scares
me & pisses me off.
How we go about changing this trend is another matter...