Wednesday, January 26, 2005

I see good old Neal Boortz was on his anti-smoking crusade again yesterday.

FIRE SOMEONE FOR SMOKING?

"This morning on CNN, Jack Cafferty was a bit exercised over reports that more and more companies are not only refusing to hire smokers, they're firing them. They're getting fired not for smoking on the job .. but for just being smokers. Bad? No ... Good!

In Michigan, Weyco, Inc. has a new policy. They won't hire smokers. They're also requiring all current employees undergo testing to see if they are currently smokers. Presumably this will be a step toward firing all smokers. Employment lawyers say this reeks of discrimination. Well, duh! Of course it's discrimination! It's discrimination against people with unhealthy lifestyles who are going to send your health insurance costs even higher. It's discrimination against people who have been shown to have poor work habits and higher absences from the job. Oh .. and it's discrimination against the stupid and ignorant ... and people who stink. Now don't you think that these are all perfectly good reasons to discriminate?"
(snip)

"So there. If you're a smoker, don't direct your anger at me. I'm not your problem. YOU are your problem. You need to figure out why you hate yourself and why you're so bent on self-destruction. I don't know the answer to that question. You do. Start figuring it out.

Next ... lard asses."
(snip)


Sounds like a real can of worms. Since blacks commit murder 7 times more often than whites and are 6 times more likely to be murdered, should it be lawful to discriminate against them? Male homosexuals are extremely promiscuous as a group and participate in the riskiest practices. Put them on the list? How about promiscuity in general? Fire everyone with fever blisters? Speeding tickets? Women during their child-bearing years? Folk in the National Guard or Reserves? Skydivers, motorcycle riders, maybe even old swamp-hikers? All are voluntary practices, well, except for the getting killed part! The stats are shaky on obesity being as great or greater cause of death than smoking but to be fair, it does belong on the list.

* * * * * *

This is an awesome article. Read it. Weep.

No Teacher Left Behind
Unions don't have children's best interests at heart.

BY TERRY M. MOE
Saturday, January 22, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

* * * * * *

Last night I watched "Frontline : Al Qaeda's New Front" on PBS. The hour was not time for more than a reasonably decent introduction but they have a lot more information available at Al Qaeda's New Front. Haven't had the time to more than scan the site but it looks promising (and disheartening). Basically what I got out of it was damned if we do and damned if we don't. Appeasement or hammer the bastards, won't matter, they are in it for a new caliphate and nothing less than submission to allah and sharia will do. Since the 3 main forms of islam, sunni, shi'a, and sufi, don't get along very well (he says mildly), and the wahhabists seem to wanna chop off all infidel heads, the future bodes poorly for a new caliphate. It was bad enough back in the bad old days when they just ran around on camels and horses poking holes in everybody with spears, swords, and arrows, nut-cases with nukes or bioweapons promises to make it mighty miserable to be a conservative Christian.

* * * * * *

Speaking of Frontline, here's a pre-9/11 video clip worth watching again.

"The Survival of Saddam"







Comments:
Interesting ramblings on "No Teacher Left Behind" Uncle Rev. Do ya think that if people would pay teachers their equivalent salary in the business world this problem would still exist? Name another professional field where you can expect to start at $30 with a Master's degree. Um,right. There's an enormous shortage of teachers all over the country and indeed the globe. Problem being that the salary is not very good for the hours that they put in, all the extras that are written into their contracts. In fact the money sucks!

Truly, with a PhD at a Community College I can expect to start at $62,200. Wonder what I'd make in business with that kind of qualification. Why do articles always insist that it's the teachers unions campaigning for their own selfish issues, like normal hours and a decent salary. Never mention that their salaries *should* be higher *as a given*, not as something that needs to be fought for!

I think if they make the salaries higher, competition for teaching positions will ensue and you'll be left with happy, well qualified candidates who you shouldn't need to evaluate.

You wanna try to explain that higher property taxes are a good thing? :)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?