Discrimination.

Discrimination. To hear tell, it’s an ugly word. The kind of word that spurs secular humanists, liberals, and special-interest groups to cry foul, and to loudly proclaim in 200 point gothic headlines, "We’re Morally Superior Than You Are."

The truth is far removed from what they would have you believe.

You see, the word "discriminate" is perfectly innocent, and, I might add, essential. To discriminate, at it’s most fundamental level, is to examine a subject and determine the differences and similarities between it and something else, and subsequently express a preference between the two. You discriminate every time you tell the disinterested counter person at your fast food emporium if you want a burger or a salad. You discriminate when you choose between paper and plastic bags at your supermarket. And you discriminate when you deny someone an opportunity based on a personal bias.

Which one of these is morally wrong?

Fundamentally…it depends.

If your "personal bias" is that you’d rather hire someone that is qualified for a position, based on your perception of their intelligence, ability to do the job, or their background and experience, you should have that right. If your personal bias is that you don’t like a particular race, creed, color, or national religion, you’re on thin ice.

Personally, I would have no problem hiring a minority, a woman, or someone who adheres to a different religion. I can say that with a certain degree of authority, because I’ve done so. Repeatedly. My "jones" has always been to hire the most talented person I can find. I like people that are self-motivated, who think that it’s better to "ask forgiveness" than to "wait for permission." I like those with a sharp sense of humor, because that’s a real asset in my business.

I admit to a bias against those that refuse to use their brains. (Note: I have no bias against those who lack above-average intelligence. There are a LOT of smart people out there that refuse to think.) I resent those that try to slide by on the work of others. I won’t hire someone who I perceive to be lazy or unmotivated.

Historically, I’ve hired a bunch of non-white, non-Anglo, non-WASP, Women, Hispanics, Blacks, Handicapped, Jews, Wiccans, and Atheists that all shared something in common. They were all screamingly talented. I’ve never hired any Muslims – to my knowledge – but that’s just because I’ve never had the opportunity to do so.

I’ve fired slackers, druggies, un-motivated, talentless hacks. Every chance I get.

Does that mean I discriminate? You bet. Does that mean I’m a bad person? Nope. Means I’m a capitalist. It means I’m more interested in success than I am in some sort of misplaced, altruistic goal of being "fair" and "equitable" to all. When I’m looking to staff a position, I could care less about how much somebody "needs" a job, how great a person they are, or how well-connected they are. I care about them if they can do the job, without needing a lot of direction, oversight, and hand-holding.

Years ago, I did a fair amount of acting. I auditioned for a slew of "little theatre" productions. At first I believed that what a director wanted for a role was someone that was like a talented piece of clay, that he or she could mold into their vision of a character. Malarkey. What they wanted was someone that could do the part the way THEY saw it, with as little direction as possible. The bottom line is you hire people that make your own job EASIER. Leave the social engineering and charity work to the social engineers and the charities.

Does that make me a bigot? Nope, unless the stupid, the shiftless, the un-motivated, and those that live a life full of excuses band together and form some sort of special-interest lobby for losers. THEN I’m in trouble. But then again, so will be every other capitalist, this country, and the world.

So…do you agree – or disagree. (Hint…to do so requires that you use your powers of discrimination to make a choice.)