As a very confirmed non-smoker, not quite militant, but close, I want to be one of the vocal supporters of the new New York state law banning smoking from all places of employment. In March, New York City started this war with smokers, but as of tomorrow, there won't be a public haven for smokers in the ENTIRE STATE!!! OF course, this is causing a bit of uproar from the upstates that are only just now feeling the pinch.

If you ask me, it is also just one more battle in the war between upstate and downstate New York. There is an ongoing war betwen the liberal City and the conservative Upstate. Us and them. That's the way it is on school funding, politics (this is an interesting map if you notice the total number of counties Hillary Clinton won to get her seat in the senate), and unemployment, just to name a few hot topics.

I think that the rest of this state truly does not understand just how much New York City means in the grand scheme of things. After all, with over 8,000,000 of the 19,000,000 living in the 5 boroughs (309 square miles, out of 54,475 square miles of the entire state - population density map) as well as such strong differences between the areas, maybe the idea of New York City secession is not so far fetched.
posted by Marney at 11:35 AM

 
In this day and age when obese children are becoming a major concern, fatty diets are proved to be linked to Diabetes, and there are more and more reasons to not get up off of your chair to exercise, McDonald's has stepped up to the plate to keep their customers eating crap. Oh, but it's not just that this company wants to make customers fat and unhealthy, they also want to eliminate jobs and reading.

Oh, yes. It is true. McDonald's is testing new Self-Ordering Kiosks. They will provide touch screens with pictures on them so you can just point to the picture of the crap you want and it magically appears. No more wasteful talking to people (although the surly attitude can sometimes be charming), or having the elementary school scholars transpose the number of your entree with another very confusing number. It's a good thing those tricky words will be left off of the screen. No need to clutter up the screen with them. So now, instead of just getting fun SEGA Mini Video Games in your happy meal, your whole dining adventure could become a video gaming experience.

These new kiosks will also help this struggling company to keep it's costs down, as well. Computer screens don't get benefits or need to be paid for overtime. That will leave many more nearly unemployable people completely unemployable. And we thought an unemployment rate of 6.4% was impressive. Imagine what it could be with a flood of workers that may only have the job qualifications for Welfare. But most importantly, especially if you ask our fearless leader, this family business will be able to keep it's head above water with it's mere $900 MM yearly net income.
posted by Marney at 2:32 PM

 
All of this talk about the Supreme Court ruling on Sodomy laws makes me really wonder just what goes through the minds of some people. I know this is a big step for Gay Rights. I know this is something that could be the first step in getting away from all af the antiquated and prejudiced morality that holds this country by the throat. But really what does it mean, for most of us?

It means that there is one fewer double standard out there. In a nutshell, this ruling says that a law governs an act instead of distinguishing participants of said act. That's right, it's what you do, not who you do that's important. Actually, it goes one step further than that, but it says that if you are a consenting adult, the law doesn't care who or what you do. How novel is that?

Now, since we can all do whatever we like behind closed doors (provided we are concenting adults), where do we stand? Well, if the question of gay marriage is next, what does that have in store for us? The options are already being put out there for us to decide. We can listen to US Senator Bill Frist tell us that marriage needs to come out of the hands of the state for governance and put an amendment in the Constitution regulating what a marriage must consist of. Or we can go another way and Abolish Marriage as a legal union and make it privatized. If you ask me these extremes really don't solve the problems that we are facing.

You may ask, what problems are those. Well, it seems that the heterosexual conservatives are afraid of the extinction of "family values" and the protection of children. This is something that I can't quite understand as a rationale, but I'll pretend for the sake of argument. On the other hand, homosexuals are looking to have equal rights in their unions; to have families, employment benefits for partners, legal rights for partners and respect for their way of life. This is where my head gets a little fuzzy. I really don't see how they are different in their ideal forms.

Family values would entail providing a safe and nurturing environment for children to grow and learn with a strong understanding of the values and the truths of the world around them, right? That is what I think of as family values. Give every child the chance to live in a loving home with parent(s) that will teach them to be an upstanding person.

Now the fuzziness comes in when that is equated only to hetreosexual parents. Strangely enough, these upstanding traits do not come with the mere ability of procreation. Just because you can have children, does not mean you will be good at it. In fact, if you have to fight the courts for your right to adopt a child, or to get fertility clinics to give you the time of day, there is a greater desire to have a family than just getting knocked up by someone that happens to be a nearby sperm donor.

As I write this, I have come to the conclusion that the conservatives are really saying that if you can have a family (through natural means) you should and must, but if you can't, then you are wrong and should be prevented from trying to acheive that goal. Which then leads me to wonder about my place in this schema. Being that I am a heterosexual female of nearly 30 years without a husband, and most importantly children, am I considered wrong in the eyes of these conservatives because I choose (with every ounce of my being) not to participate in the institution of family?
posted by Marney at 2:41 PM