BMW=black man working. Actually, in this case, it should be BMWTW: black man wanting (to) work; not as a rapper or a basketball player, but in one of the most important positions existing: the giver of knowledge and living example to children.
A certain young black man fills all the squares. College educated to the hilt (double-major in liberal arts subjects, dean’s list more than once), he’s brilliant and accomplished. He’s a member of Mensa. He interned with a US senator. He was a Rhodes Scholar candidate. Here’s a man who could have nearly any career desired, likely with many benefits, monetary and otherwise. But what does he want to do? He wants to give something back, give a hand up to young men (and women) who may be inspired by him: he applies to become a teacher in the metro Atlanta counties (large black population).
Surely, the school district officials there would be appreciative of their good fortune at this exceptionally qualified teacher falling into their laps. Not. This young man, Marquis Harris, received this missive through email:
"Though your qualifications are quite impressive, I regret to inform you that we have selected another candidate. It was felt that your demeanor and therefore presence in the classroom would serve as an unrealistic expectation as to what high school students could strive to achieve or become. However, it is highly recommended that you seek employment at the collegiate level; there your intellectual comportment would be greatly appreciated. Good luck." [Bold mine, -Ed.]How about that? Marquis Harris is a freak of nature, or so says the principal that refused him employment. Oh, not in so many words, of course, but the implication is clear: it’s not realistic for young black students to achieve through his/her merits alone; they usually aren’t capable of it. So, to have a living, breathing example of achievement before them day in and day out would only serve to
Can’t have that, now can we?
(Thanks to DC Thornton)
Okay, I'm nosy, so I'll riddle you this:
1. When sick, do you prefer to be pampered or left alone? Left alone. Get off me!
2. If familiar with the various Star Trek series, which Trek captain would you want to be your commander? James T. Kirk; I’d know what was expected of me and I wouldn’t mind if he checked out my legs every now and then.
3. What food(s) will you absolutely refuse to eat? Sweet potatoes look like orange turds to me; bananas: from the “banana incident” during my childhood; chitterlings/chitlins: smell like the outhouse at summer camp; anything with monosodium glutamate: tastes great, extremely allergic.
4. What was your favorite subject in school? Math; I was (am) good at it because the rules are set and there is only one right answer.
5. Outside of the big JC, who’s you favorite biblical personality? King David was the most “human” character; strong and weak, soft-hearted and cruel.
UPDATE: Clarification on the Trek captain thing: I'm asking who would like to serve with, not who do you like to watch. Like many commenters, I prefer to watch Picard.
Intermittent blogging will be the norm, as you may have noticed. While bloviating is fun, having money in my pocket is more fun and devising ways of acquiring even more money—getting that piece of paper—is even more fun. Or something like that.
The cool thing about this medium is the feedback. Nearly all of mine is positive and even the negative is either very polite and constructive or very entertaining (or perhaps I’m just kinda warped).
The worst thing anyone ever said about me (that I saw) was on the Sean Hannity forum. After this good person posted a link to my Bush Lied Revisited missive there, some guy/girl submitted that I might need to take my English 101 and Philosophy 101 courses over again and posted a couple of out-of-context excerpts for demonstration purposes. But said person never came here to help a sista out. Am I that intimidating?
Almost never will I call another out regarding grammar or spelling. Mistakes are made. If I know a commenter, I might just correct any typos in my control panel without comment. My mom, one of the most literate persons I know, has posted here with a typo and I hooked her up. And, no, I’m not telling what her name is.
(One of my favorite silent Schadenfreude moments: posts correcting the grammar of another in which the word 'grammar' is spelled as ‘grammer.’)
This blogging thing is an exercise in informal writing. Step right up and get your healthy dose of occasional misspellings, Ebonics with necessary translation, split infinitives and sentence fragments—the latter three are often used on purpose. I get enough grammar grades in the essays submitted for my IT program, thank you very much. There, you can’t start a sentence with ‘but’ or ‘and.’ You aren’t even allowed to use contractions. (BTW, out of eighteen papers, two-thirds have earned Bs; the rest, As. Chalk it up to my chronic procrastination.)
Here, however, I’ll write in whatever manner that gets my point across. (That 'however' is pretty cool, dontcha think?)
As for the whole WMD/Kay/intelligence thing, I’ll have some red meat in the next few days, sentence fragments and all. Good night.
Now here’s a reason to nominate Howard Dean as the Democrat candidate, maybe even to elect him:
Jan. 27 - North Korean dictator Kim Jung-Il got his first glimpse of Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean on the evening of the Iowa caucuses last week and is now “terrified” by the former Vermont governor, associates of Kim revealed today.
According to those sources, the ruthless North Korean had spent a long, hard day reprocessing nuclear fuel rods and was looking for something relaxing to watch on TV when Dean first appeared on the screen, delivering his bizarre post-Iowa concession speech.
As Dean built to a crescendo, Kim appeared alarmed and agitated, the sources said. “Who is that madman?” the madman reportedly asked.
According to one of Kim’s aides, “There’s only one way to describe the look on Kim’s face when he was watching Dean: pure, unadulterated terror.”
Kim’s every waking moment is now haunted by his fear of Howard Dean, the aide revealed. “At night, Kim gets out of bed and wanders the hallways in his pajamas, muttering Dean’s name,” the aide said. “Dean really gives him the willies.”
Howlin' Howard Dean's weapon of aural destruction to the Far East ASAP!
Okay, this one does sound *a little better* than mine. Just a little. However, mine requires nothing Belgian!
3 Belgian endives (I [Smug Canadian] usually use 4)
1 Fuji apple (any apple will do)
1 cup and a half of pomegranate seeds
Quarter cup of olive oil
1 tsp lemon juice (you can easily use much more)
Half a cup of walnuts
Salt and fresh-ground pepper
The aptly named Smug Canadian has the rest of the directions.
What is a lie? A lie is an “assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue: a deliberate misrepresentation of fact with intent to deceive (Webster’s Third).” Was President Bush lying when he said that he believed that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Let’s put the question another way: did President Bush not really believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed WMDs? For that is what those who accuse the president of lying on this subject are saying.
So let’s play a little game. Just for giggles, let’s assume the president was lying when he said he believed that Hussein had WMDs. Does the president have enemies, honorable adversaries, those who respectfully disagree with his policies, those who hate his guts and the horse he rode in on? Yes. Are there people who have kept the deeds and misdeeds of Hussein’s regime in their sights far longer than the president has? Definitely. Are there individuals, international entities, intelligence services, foreign heads of state, Iraq experts, Iraqis themselves, who have been studying, reporting and spying on Iraq who could have definitively refuted the president’s belief that Iraq had WMDs? Of course there are. But outside of one Scott Ritter, they did not do so.
Could President Bush’s predecessor, having access to the same information, have refuted this belief? Of course he could have. So why did former President Clinton make this speech and why does he keep corroborating President Bush’s statements on the subject (and proving my assertion in the comments of this post that even a person of low character can sometimes tell the truth)?
Or maybe both presidents were/are lying? Maybe the UN, Jacques Chirac, MI5 and the rest are all lying and this whole matter is merely one big conspiracy: the UN and the French sit back and pretend to oppose the actions of the US, the UK and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing, while all the time absolutely none of them ever believed that Hussein possessed WMDs!
Maybe President Clinton knew that George W. Bush would be elected in 2000 and they cooked up this whole scheme together back in 1998. Or maybe the two, along with President G.H.W. Bush cooked it up back in 1989! /crazy tin-foil hat donning sufferer of BDS
Not only do the chains of logic unravel, they melt down to cause the Mother of All Migraines. But that's what happens when facts are reshaped to suit one's beliefs rather than the other way around.
Faced with such disparate sources of information with conflicting agendas--President Clinton, Jacques Chirac, the CIA and the UN, et al.--telling him that Hussein has WMDs, it would have defied all reason for President Bush to not have believed it to be true.
However, the question remains: if they existed, where are they? If they are never uncovered, does that mean that the president lied about believing that they existed? Only in a world in which anything that one’s enemy says is a lie, no matter if a friend says the exact same thing.
People that use such methods to denigrate the words and actions of an opponent will say and, likely, do anything. Laugh at them, sure, but definitely keep both eyes on them.
(Thanks to Instapundit)
Charles Krauthammer grieves for the landslide that might have been.
[About Howard Dean:] When the late-night comics call you ``a hockey dad" (Letterman) and ``the Incredible Hulk" (Conan O'Brien) and ``Mr. Rogers with rabies" (Leno), you've got trouble. The most difficult thing to recover from in politics is ridicule.
I'm not laughing, however. I'm cryin'. The dream is gone.
I don’t use ‘African American’ to refer to a black person, but I don’t begrudge others the use of the term. Oh, I’m not one of those who gets spun into a tizzy about nationality or loyalty to the United States over its usage. I don’t use it because its use is just too darned confusing for some people and can get them into trouble, as the article suggests.
One of the episodes of the Name Follies—a unique aspect of my own life--demonstrates just how confusing the term is for some.
Dude asks the origin of my last name. I tell him: “My father is African.”
“Oh, you mean your father is an African American.”
“No. He never became an American citizen and he lives in Kenya.”
“But he’s black, right? So he’s an African American.”
You see my point. This guy is an African American (born in Nigeria). So is this one (born in South Africa). However, to refer to the latter—correctly—as an African American, brings out all kinds of crazy problems stemming from the continuous re-definition of who’s African and who isn’t, simply because he's a white guy.
Bah! They’re Americans; of whatever descent you might want to name, if you want be specific about where they were born and nurtured, but Americans nonetheless.
However, the confused may be enlightened or may continue to be confused. I just don’t want to have a hand in contributing to the latter.
(Thanks to The Spoons Experience)
NRO’s Jonah Goldberg wants to know exactly where George W. Bush has gutted the “warm fuzzies” of federal government, since many of these areas—education, labor and Medicare, for example--have seen dramatic increases during this president’s first turn. After the rundown of further proposed domestic spending in the president’s State of the Union address, you’d think that all of the president’s opponents, the ones who mock his “compassionate conservatism,” the ones who compare him to Hitler, etc., would be ready to say “sorry; we were wrong about you, Mr. President.”
However, I’m willing to bet that the president will be just as hated as he ever was by much of the Left, the evidence of the president’s compassion--or RINOsity, depending on your perspective--notwithstanding. Perhaps, he will be hated even more.
Why? Why is the sky blue?
(Thanks to John Hawkins)
Sights and sounds of President Bush's re-election kick-off; only a little bias in evidence from me, but what else is new?
Note: All italics are mine.
Quotes and Paraphrases
• Though there have been no attacks on American soil in 28 months, the perception that the danger of terrorism is behind us is false.
• “Inside the US where the war [on Terrorists] began…”
• “Key provisions of the Patriot Act will expire next year [light applause punctuated by Bush poker face]; the terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule [punctuated by louder, more sustained applause].”
• A bit of gloating: Found in a hole, Saddam now sits in a prison cell.
• “Weapons of mass murder”
• “We [the president and the Congress] will give you [the military] the resources you need to fight the War on Terror.”
• Nine months of diplomacy with Libya versus twelve years of diplomacy with Iraq: the lesson is that diplomacy is only effective if the words are credible.
• “It’s not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers; the terrorists declared war on the United States and war is what they got.”
• Counterpoint to the “unilateral” Big Lie: the president names most of the names of our true and many allies.
• “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”
• “Government health care is the ‘wrong prescription.’”
• “We live in a time set apart.”
• “Al Quaeda killers”
• Social Security choices for younger workers
• Businesses and doctors must be protected from frivolous law suits (the Democrats didn’t clap for either of these).
• Immigration reform, but no amnesty.
• Health savings account
• Low Income tax credit to buy health insurance
• School drug testing
• If activist judges keep pressing to overturn President Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act (1996), citizens will be force to press their reps to seek an amendment to the US Constitution (the president's take on it).
• Faith-based charities will not be discriminated against regarding funding.
• Prisoner reentry program
• President looks extremely relaxed; not one vocalized animal-like oscillation. ;-)
• Ted Kennedy shakes his head during the president’s Medicare blurb. At first I thought it was a negation of the president’s assertion on the subject but when the camera went back to him, he was still shaking his head; some sort of tick?
• A cute little girl gets a hug from the president and a civics lesson from her dad. Not her fault that her granddad is Jesse Jackson.
• General Myers (Chairman of the JCS) looks like a man at war.
• Colin Powell looks well for a man who recently had surgery.
• Where’s Condi Rice? Oh, there she is.
• Hillary Clinton looks like she tied one on last night, but smiles when she knows that the camera’s on her.
• Bill Frist’s hair looks glued on.
• Charlie Rangel must have missed his afternoon nap.
Bring your pretty face to my ax!
Lord of the Rings actor John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) gets the fatwa treatment for speaking his mind regarding Islamic culture versus that of the West.
Outraged Islamic leaders in Wales demanded an immediate apology from Lord Of The Rings actor John Rhys-Davies, who claimed an increase in Europe's Muslim population was a "demographic catastrophe" threatening "Western civilisation". [SNIP]
[Rhys-Davies:] "Many do not understand how precarious Western civilisation is and what a joy it is.
"From it, we get real democracy. From it, we get the sort of intellectual tolerance that allows me to propound something that may be completely alien to you. [SNIP]
[Rhys-Davies:] "I don't think that Western society is opposed to Islamic society at all. I think a very important part of Islamic society is opposed to Western society.
"It is time that ordinary Muslims stood up to be counted.
"Most societies can benefit from a good stirring of genes, but most cultures are tolerant of each other. I do not see Buddhists throwing bombs into Christian churches, I do not see Christians blowing up Hindu temples, I do not see those sorts of challenges.
"When we are prepared to overlook certain things because we don't want to rock the boat, this is wrong. The greatest act of racism is to expect that other people will not behave according to your values and standards.
"Yes, I am for dead, (traditional) white male culture. It's pretty damn good, pretty damn marvellous, pretty wonderful. That's not to exclude other cultures, but it's not to diminish mine."Draw your own conclusions.
(Thanks to LGF)
Insomnia is often a plague, but it can sometimes be instructive, if it doesn’t last too long. I had a case of it last night. I read an entire two hundred-page novel—reading usually does the trick, but not this time--then curled up to try to get some sleep. When it was obvious that my eyes simply would not shut, I turned on the TV and switched to FoxNews. Thankfully, there was no Jacko or Iowa Caucus coverage, however there was a re-run of Saturday’s offering of “[Steve] Forbes on Fox.”
Amazing are the things that one’s mind focuses on with lack of sleep. This show--about money, of course—was moderated by David Asman. (I always like to see him, mainly because he has this great aura: as if he’s discovered some wonderful, glad secret of the universe). Naturally Steve Forbes was there, some other nameless men and a woman named Elizabeth McDonald.
When my sleep-deprived mind was paying attention, the subject was President Bush’s proposed Moon/Mars missions and the possible consequences on the US economy. All perspectives were addressed with some passion on both sides. Those against the proposal raised some valid concerns—there are things here on Earth that require more immediate fiscal attention--though, in my opinion, their reasons often lacked vision. But that’s not what this post is about.
In a particularly heated point in the exchange, McDonald managed to silence her male colleagues by invoking that great silencer of American men everywhere (a paraphrase; pen and paper will be on my night table from now on): “You men have to let the woman speak now!”
Really? Why? Was her opinion more important, more valid just because she’s the owner of a vagina, a uterus, a set of ovaries and a set of breasts?
The frightening part is that the guys did shut up and let her speak.
Now, as many know from reading my musings, I spent two decades in the military and, were those that have known me to give a description of my personality, I’d imagine that the phrase “shrinking violet” would never come up. There have been times in which I’ve had to exert some assertiveness and aggressiveness to allow myself to be heard. Such is life for a woman who works among mostly men. However, what got me about McDonald’s tactic was that she felt that she deserved to be heard solely because she’s a woman, not because she had a unique perspective on the subject discussed.
She used her femininity to figuratively emasculate every man on that panel and those men, being well-indoctrinated into the feminist code, let her do it.
I heard nothing that McDonald said after that and I distinctly recall the words “STFU, B” coming out of my mouth.
We American women are very powerful, likely the most powerful women on Earth ever. We can be nearly anything we want, ability and desire existing. There is much of which we are in control, including how we relate to and with men. With that in mind, we have to ask ourselves many questions. The most important one we all need to ask ourselves is this: do we need to exert and/or increase our power at the expense of the power of the men in our lives?
I say no, mainly because the power which we women possess is different from that of men; the two should offset each other, rather than clash against each other.
However, watching McDonald wield her own power to beat men down, reminded me of how often the contemporary American woman does this.
I was embarrassed for the guys and lost at least a few more hours sleep being PO’d.
Today, many black, white and other Americans will be working, often together. Most of their endeavors will be toward personal dreams and/or collective ones; for themselves and/or for the dreams of another person/group. For example, my employer and I will be two of them and the guys and girls stationed in Iraq will be an additional number. I suspect Dr. King would approve.
Here’s to the Dream.
The cat-lovers have run amok at the notoriously cat-hatin’ Big Daddy’s house while he’s sampling the natural wonders of Jamaica. There's also an informative post for the males of our species regarding the well-being of, er, cats; a public service announcement to be sure.
The chicks have come home to roost.
Rush, Laura, Dennis, Michael Medved, et al., watch out! This rhetorical genius is apt to be your worst nightmare:
MSNBC/Newsweek: What do you see as the biggest issue in the coming election? Al Franken: I think the biggest issue will be what this guy didn’t do after 9/11 in terms of being a uniter not a divider. Instead of uniting us, he divided us. This is the most secretive administration and the most radical in terms of being economically right wing and in terms of—well, he just will give anything to his contributors. And I think it will be about that. I think it will be about integrity.Someone please translate this mass of words thrown together toward no logical end. If there are schools for talk show hosts, I hope that Al Franken drops by one on occasion before the advent of his show. Think on your feet, Al.
MSNBC/Newsweek: Why do you think it’s taken so long for liberals to have a real presence on the radio? Limbaugh has been around for ages.No one has ever created a radio network like this. [There's Pacifica Radio, but I guess the operative words are "like this."] But at some point, the radio landscape became so right wing that, by definition, I would be sandwiched between Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That would be like putting hip-hop after country. It just doesn’t work. So we had to put together a network. There will be things that work and things that don’t. I’m hoping to be one of the things that succeeds.I submit that if Mr. Franken’s ideas stand on their merit and logic and his presentation plays to his strong points—humor and satire--his show could very well hold its own between that of O’Reilly—whose radio show sucks anyway—and Limbaugh. However, who would want to start off a new talk venture with Limbaugh caller-bleedover? I know I wouldn’t and I’m certainly no Leftist.
If this new radio network has enough resonance to make it competitive with conservative and libertarian offerings, if it gets the ratings, I say, more power and wattage to it. Got to give the people what they want.
Conversely, if this network’s ratings never get high enough to attract the big-name sponsors, can we get it in writing that Mr. Franken and his business partners will not whine about it?
In all seriousness, I think Al Franken deserves kudos for attempting this risky venture; money and mouth in the same place, indeed.
A little Jesus-patronizing, a little Carter-genuflecting, a nearly uncountable number of gaffs, misstatements and questionable assertions and what do you get? Why, you get two of the prototypical Democratic front-runners for the US presidency in 2004, that’s what.
PLAINS, Ga. -- Former president Jimmy Carter met Democratic White House hopeful Howard Dean over homemade scones and jam on Sunday, sending a subtle signal of support on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. [SNIP]
For the lesson at Sunday school, Carter chose the book of Job. Coincidentally, Dean has said that was one of his favorite books of the Bible, but mistakenly placed it in the New Testament. He later reversed his error, saying he had misspoken and he knew it was part of the Old Testament.
Dean took a break from intense campaigning in Iowa to travel overnight to Georgia for the meeting with Carter. Some political analysts said in view of the closeness of the race that that might prove to be a mistake. He returns to Iowa on Sunday afternoon for rallies in three different cities.
At the Maranatha church, which was packed to capacity, Dean took a seat in the fourth pew. When Carter entered, as is his custom, he asked, "Do we have any visitors?" When Dean's turn came, he said loudly, "Vermont."
As the congregation turned to see who had spoken, Carter told Dean, "Stand up!" [SNIP]
Asked if he had met any other candidates, Carter said retired Gen. Wesley Clark had said he would "like to come and worship."
What’s going on in the world? Today, I have no idea: new job, school starting back, less time for fun, darn it.
While I peruse the “world,” check out the commentary on the O’Neill post. That one may contain some items of interest.
Leaving aside whether going into Iraq was planned earlier than 2002 by the Bush Administration—I’d say probably and so what--O’Neill seems to have a problem with the president’s management skills, i.e. allowing his subordinates to toss out ideas while he sits back and listens. I have one question about this: isn’t this one of the tried and true methods of a good manager; a management skill used when a confident boss has competent, skilled and trusted people in his/her employ?
I suppose that if the president took control of every meeting and micro-managed ever miniscule decision made by his people, O’Neill would be calling the president a tyrant who didn’t trust his cabinet.
Well, President Bush was definitely right not to trust at least one member of his cabinet. What does a CEO do when an employee is untrustworthy? Paul O'Neill found out first hand.
Charles Johnson gleefully chronicles the disintegration of Indymedia. Considering the disgusting—and incredibly stupid--smear against him that one of Indymedia’s sites allowed to stand a few months back, I’d say that Charles might be experiencing the oh-so wickedly delicious feeling of Schadenfreude. Just a WAG.
Prince C. says that, not only am I a “republican liar,” but that my musical taste sucks as well. Thanks, buddy, for giving me a good, non-derisive laugh on a bad day. I’d almost think that you liked me.
On a serious note, business and personal matters have been taking up my time and attention for the past few days. I should be back in posting form either tonight or tomorrow.
Yes, I can occasionally be caught live in the kitchen. Look quick.
When growing up, my dinner task was making the salad. My mom bought the goods and I prepared them to her exacting specifications. As a result, I am very, shall we say, anal about salads (as I am about most things that I care about).
A clean vegetable is a happy eater. Wash as far down as possible, wash as far up as possible, then, wash ‘possible.’ That maxim goes for many things.
Lettuce: anyone who uses iceberg lettuce in a salad should be shot. (Okay, that’s a little harsh; maybe, er, reeducated.) Use red-leaf, romaine or butter leaf lettuce or some combination thereof. Spinach is also yummy.
Croutons and bacon bits are masks for a salad prepared by a lazy salad-maker. If your ingredients are good, fresh and varied, you don’t need that caca.
Buy the right mushrooms. Get the ones that are closed at the junction between the body and the stem. Don’t buy the big ones that look like they’re more for smoking that for eating. Don’t buy them too brown. Cut the stems off but not so far down as to where you can see the inside of the body.
Use red onions and/or scallions, because they look prettier and taste better than yellow or white onions. Cut most of the flower of the scallions off because they are bland. The root is the good part.
When I’m the only one eating the salad or am sure of my audience, I will put a chopped clove of garlic and a chopped Serrano chili pepper in my salad. (You folks who are not from the south-west part of the US or are not of Mexican descent might not know what a Serrano is. It’s a little, tiny green pepper that is HOT. I like HOT.)
Two of the ingredients that my mom didn’t require, but I usually use now are: carrots and cucumbers. Yes, peeling them is a pain—and please peel the cuck—but, boy, do they give great texture and taste to the salad. Split the cuck down the middle, by the way.
Sometimes I will top the salad with canned crab. There are two places here in LA from which I've bought the crab: Food for Less and Trader Joe’s. The FFL version is cheaper and the TJ’s version is prettier, but they both taste about the same. I don’t put anything heavier than that in the salad. Chicken, beef and pork are for the main course.
No yellow, orange or white dressings should be used. Hey, if you want to hide the taste of your salad, just tear up some iceberg, chop up a big, fat tomato and pour Thousand Island all over it. Blech. I like a non-obnoxious Caesar or just some olive oil mixed with balsamic vinegar.
If you must put some seasoning on your salad, a bit of Mrs. Dash will do the trick; oh, and black pepper.
What did I forget? Tomatoes, of course, are required; cherry types cut in half (if you grow them, you’re blessed); bell pepper—green and chopped.
If you think salads are boring, you’re missing out on one of the great pleasures of eating. Time, attention and varied ingredients are all that are required. Don’t forget to make it beautiful as well. Eating is almost as much about the eye as it is about the tongue.
Including me. Dean gives a list of his favorite bloggers, all distaff.
"You're no lady," observed a long-ago boyfriend, after I had said something a bit rude. I said 'thanks.'
Here’s where we’re heading. Where are the lines drawn between the right to work, the right to hire (or not hire) and the right to privacy?
A third problem is that employers, increasingly will not hire people who engage in activities that increase the probability of high health costs. For example, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (parent of Cable News Network) is one of about 6,000 companies that refuses to hire smokers. Multi-Developers won?t hire anyone who engages in high-risk activities such as skydiving, mountain climbing, motorcycling, or piloting a private aircraft. Other companies refuse to hire people who drink or who have high cholesterol levels.Of course, employers have the right to hire (or not hire) an individual. For example: prospective fire fighters must be able to perform certain physical activities. If they can’t, they’re disqualified for hire. But we’re talking about off-work legal activities here (not counting the medical conditions; I’ll get to that in a minute).
These restrictions have me wondering about a few things. What would happen if a company decided not to hire, say, black women for a given position because its superiors feared that a black female presence in that position would, for whatever reason, cost the company too much money? You know what the heck would happen. They’d be sued down to their smelly thongs.
So if smokers, skydivers and private pilots can’t get hired because of their legal recreational extracurricular activities, what’s next? Are people who have unprotected non-monogamous sex going to be banned from employment in some companies next? Boy, the feces would hit the fan in some quarters, wouldn't it?
People can definitely lie about these things, so my next question is this: if a person lies about, say, tossing back that occasional beer or two and, assuming the employer doesn’t find out about it, until, say, twenty years down the road and fires the “perp,” does the ex-employee have a cause of action? Will these employers hire private investigators to follow its employees around to ensure that they aren’t engaging in any of the prohibited legal activity? Will they be dumpster diving in your backyard to find that empty bottle of Jack Daniels?
And the final question: wouldn’t being banned from employment for have high cholesterol –or high blood pressure or diabetes--qualify a person for some sort of assistance? And aren’t alcoholism and smoking cigarettes addictions, and, therefore, illnesses? If a guy with a PhD can’t get hired because he likes his Marlboros and his scotch whiskey, where’s his government aid?
I guess I’m wondering how far this sort of thing will go. One could argue that this sort of thing makes the case for socialized medicine. My experiences with socialized medicine (military) have been good, for the most part, though there are many provable horror stories. Canadian socialized medicine, however, gives us an example of how such an institution might work (or not work) in a more socially heterogeneous culture than the military.
Who knows? The next time you apply for a job, you could be turned down for admitting to the consumption of hamburgers; mad-cow disease and all that.
See you later. I’m going to get a double-double at In-N-Out (mmmm) and ruin my chances for gainful employment.
Looks like both Cobb and Prince C. have problem with my case for being a republican (even though I mostly agree with Cobb’s take on the subject). Sometimes a girl just can’t win. ;-) Cobb at least makes a well-reasoned case for his argument. Prince C. says I lack common sense, but does not explain why, in his opinion, my position is nonsensical.
Here’s your chance, P. Help me see the light; minus the epithets, please.
Cobb, Prince C. and others have given me a lot to think about, regarding my years-ago conversion to the Republican Party. As with any formed opinion, I’m always re-thinking and re-evaluating that decision; taking the old received facts, as well as the new ones, and determining how they fit to the previously-held opinion. Do the new facts contradict the old conclusion? If so, change the conclusion, no matter how hard it is to do so. Did I miss a pertinent part of the old facts in my evaluation? If so, alter/change the conclusion. However, if the evaluation of the old facts and the revelation of the new ones fit the old conclusion, the latter holds.
Rosemary has taken over the bulk of the posting duties for the book-writing Dean, and she delivers a post on a subject near and dear to my heart: men. Specifically, she asks commenters to “name five famous men…that are not classically pretty/handsome but really sexy.” My choices were (with a little editorial comment added):
• Wesley Snipes (it’s the beautiful skin and the gap)
• Edward Norton (it’s that long, lean frame; as long as we don’t talk politics)
• George W. Bush (it’s the love he seems to have for women in general, and one woman in particular)
• Sting (ditto)
• Patrick Stewart (proudly gray and bald)
But only five? I’ve got to submit just five more.
• Ari Fleischer (it’s the smile when he would stick the dagger in; boy, was I not happy when he resigned his post as White House Spokesman)
• Magic Johnson (it’s the joy of life on whatever terms; he turned his personal lemon into lemonade for LA)
• Kelly Wright (FoxNews reporter; it’s that voice and the smoothness)
• The late Jack Palance (All Hail the tough guy)
• The late Fred Rogers (All Hail the sweet guy)
And here are five guys I think are babelicious that are generally thought of as such:
• Mel Gibson (gets older and better looking each year)
• D’Angelo (I’d have bought his last CD just for the front cover alone)
• Derek Jeter (whenever the New York Yankees are televised, he should have a personal body camera)
• Dwayne Johnson aka the Rock (Baby! Is there any explanation required?)
• Viggo Mortensen (codicil: no talking and no shaving off the mustache and beard)
And just because I am unable to leave well enough alone, here are five guys who are generally thought of as handsome and/or sexy, but leave me cold:
• Ben Affleck (girly man; he’s almost as pretty as his woman)
• Orlando Bloom (girly man squared, at least in the Lord of the Rings trilogy)
• Denzel Washington (handsome, indeed, but something about him doesn’t light the fire)
• Bill Clinton (need you ask?)
• Kobe Bryant (even before his self-inflicted troubles, I thought he was a little twit)
MORE: In this post, I mentioned perils of the roommate sweepstakes for military members. One of my cooler roommates, LP, had a standard exclamation for a guy who was really good-looking or butt-ugly: “Oughta be a law!” You knew which one she meant by the tone of voice mostly and the object of her exclamation for the rest.
Here’s the winner of my own personal “oughta-be-a-law” sweepstakes; you make the call for which one I mean.
Riding in the car today, I was listening to LA’s oldest R&B station, the Stevie Wonder-owned KJLH, and reflecting on music. When I tuned in, they were playing D’Angelo’s and Lauryn Hill’s beautiful collaboration, Nothing Matters. It’s one of those songs that makes you want to curl up and love on that special someone or it makes you reflect on that special someone in your past: the one that got away.
Immediately afterward, Outkast’s I Like the Way You Move was played, and, while the funny and beat-driven song/rap has a tendency to make me tap my foot, it’s an anomaly. (The musical part is reminiscent of Earth, Wind and Fire. Does anyone know if it’s them?) This old lady is ready to beat on the radio when most rap “songs” present themselves. There is more than one reason that my car radio, for the most part, is tuned to talk radio stations.
I think my friend likes me.
However, the pics might have something to do with my expressed sentiments regarding obnoxious drivers in this post. Got to find a decal of one of these!
(Calm down, Kim and John!)
Now that’s a party! I have to befriend some Columbians and learn to Merengue by New Year’s Eve 2004.
The lovable drunk, as opposed to the fighting one.
RedSugar Muse is back with a new design and a vengeance.
Jim, you’re welcome; our privilege.
Solomon has had an interesting year. He gives us some history regarding his French ancestry and a short update on the burglar who broke into his home and received a bit of lead for his trouble. (I blogged about it here.)
Hook up the Afghanistan-bound Sgt Hook for the New Year, so he can reach that 50,000-hit mark. And while you’re at it, check out the fantastic pictures on his site.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Heh.
I know many heads are hurting around the blogosphere. Mine isn’t. I only had a little bit (half a bottle) of Cabernet, wimped out and went to bed early. At the great hour, I was awakened briefly by the gun- and fire works-toting revelers in my neighborhood, but soon turned over and fell back into dreamland. Sigh. I’m not the party beast I used to be.
I even got up this morning and worked out; this time power-walking three miles in the neighborhood. It was a very pleasant experience: around fifty degrees and dead quiet.
There are bottles of champagne, cognac and more wine around here, so today might be different. There are also barbeque pork ribs, black-eyed peas, coleslaw, cornbread and rice to be consumed and football to be watched (go Trojans!), so today will be marked by the pleasantries of a full stomach, a slight buzz and, hopefully, the victory of the home team.
I was also very happy to wake up to the absence of a terror attack. Those who wished to party hard for the passing of 2003, did so under the watchful eye of George Orwell’s “rough men [and women].” They stood guard so we wouldn’t have to.
May the New Year bring them (and you) blessings beyond imagination.