It's my life, but I'll share it

2003-07-23T11:35:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-07-09T14:32:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-07-02T14:41:00.000-04:00

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?

2003-05-27T10:39:00.000-04:00

I like to think of myself as an opinionated, yet open-minded type of person. Granted, there are many things in this world that I don't exactly agree with (I'll post that list later) but I lien myself as a pretty understanding person. That being said, I am about to get my knicker in a knot about something that is rather controversial in this time, let alone my family situation.

Disclaimer time. Although I do not particularly subscribe to the Christian religion, I was raised with the ideals of the Christian church and have modified these ideals to most appropriately fit my life. I don't go to church, nor do I intend on going, with the exception of weddings, funerals or other rites in which others invite me to participate. I look at it just as I do every other organized religion out there. There are many good things that are a part of the church, but there are many things that I don't agree with nor wish to be a part of. I don't discount others for participating in these beliefs, unless they cross the line with their opinions and infringe on others' rights or beliefs, within reason.

There is so much talk about the Evils of Islam these days. I admit, this is not one of my areas of expertise. I don't know a whole lot about Islam or what it stands for. To be honest, I don't really have a whole lot of desire to delve too deep into a way of life that considers me to be a lesser human being merely because I can bear children. Nevertheless, there are many hundreds of thousands of people that have used this religion and its beliefs for much good in the world. That should not be discounted.

Where I get angry is when Christians go on a crusade to seek converts amid the rubble of a descimated country. The bible bangers find every opportunity to force their beliefs down the throats of others. My question is, how is this different from the contempt of the infadel that we hear about coming from the Muslims. Are these Christians not contemptuous of the unknown religion, or the religion that they were spoon fed in selected doses by those with the biggest desire for conversion? Not only that, but why shouldn't Muslims be angry at the Christians who are just perched on a branch like vultures waiting for a major country to be destroyed so they can swoop in and force people to see the light while the victims have nothing left from the destruction we imposed? How is this a righteous and peace loving religion? This is one of the main reasons why I have such a growing anger toward the hard-core Christians. There is no understanding unless it is through Jesus' words.

This leads me to the topic of terrorism. As Americans, we all agree that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and suicide bombings around the world are horrrifying. But what about the other acts of terrorism within our own country that gets overlooked because they are committed by one of us? What about Abortion Clinic bombings and Hate Crimes. For that matter, was the Oklahoma City Bombing treated like a terrorist attack? Not in the way we have treated terrorism from abroad and from other religions. We didn't institute the Homeland Security Advisory System after Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed children. Even the IRA attacks in Northern Ireland were not worthy of causing a fear in the hearts of Americans as a whole.

I also don't have a whole lot of patience for the constant milking of religious and racial inequality and bias claims because something bad happens and coincidentally or circumspectly affects a minority. But, to me, this sounds a lot like Americans treat terrorism by "Christians" on a much lighter level than the terrorism by other groups.

2003-05-12T14:41:00.000-04:00

I have truly begun to question the state of mental health care in this country when the state run facilities are looking for a Klingon interpreter to create documents for their patients that, of course, only speak Klingon. Aren't these doctors supposed to be discouraging their patients from living in a fictional world? I would think that to produce official documentation in a ficticious language would bring a bit of disrepute to the facility. I can appreciate the idea of supplying information in a variety of different languages, but please, let them only be the ones that are native to earthlings.

2003-05-08T15:13:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I was actually surprised by something that I saw as I was walking through the streets of Midtown Manhattan. Amid establishments like Brooks Brothers and Asia de Cuba, there is a McDonald's that is trying to step up to the culture plate. At first, I thought that the door that nearly smacked me in the head was in the hands of a homeless person begging for change. Alas, no. That's right, there is a doorman, uniform and all, opening the door for patrons.

On one hand, I can't really come to terms with this dichotomy. How can a fast food chain that prides itself on their "Dollar Menu" even think that they are of the caliber of having "servants." I think I may have to go back there to see if there are other ammenities that have been added; perhaps a bathroom attendant, table linens, and maitre 'd. Maybe this particular establishment has printed menus with more than just pictures of the numbered meal specials and flowery words to describe the cuts of beef(???) and delectable sides. Would one be required to wear a jacket while squirting ketchup packets onto a cardboard container of fries?

On the other hand, this is a job. There is one less person on unemployment or welfare because of this. Granted, he probably is not be able to afford to dine at this posh restaurant on the salary that he is making by working there, but it's a job. Right now, I think there is something to be said for having any kind of job. Well, on a resume, it could at least look somewhat better than a burger slinger. He may have a future holding doors for patrons of an Olive Garden and then move up to holding the doors for the customers carrying oversized packages from Bed Bath & Beyond and maybe some day even be the one who opens the limo doors at The Plaza whil wiping the horse dung off of his feet from the carriages that pass by.

Good luck to you, Mr. McDonald's Doorman.

2003-04-25T14:25:00.000-04:00

Being at the heigt of controversial topics, I I thought I would talk about the recent issue brought forth by Sen. Rick Santorum (R - PA). He stated in an interview, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery." Without going as far as removing Santorum from office, I think there is something to be said about this topic.

I have been trying to wrap my mind around this topic. Being an supporter of homosexual partners (many of my close friends are gay or lesbian), my gut reaction is to call this man crazy. Of course, my logical side kicks in and sees where there is some validity to his statement. Ok, bigamy, polygamy and adultery are on one side of the table but incest is on another. Bigamy, polygamy and adultery play into the idea of monogomy which is a separate issue. But, if my gay friends can be a couple, why can't I marry my cousin, aside from the fact that most all of my cousins are still well under the legal age of concent. (Grandma, don't worry, this is merely hypothetical.)

Genetically speaking, there are studies that prove that having a shallow gene pool does not lead to as many birth defects as once suspected. Most of that can actually be detected through blood tests. If we look back through history, royal families insisted on consanguineous marriages for generations. Well, we know that the hemophilia thing rears its ugly head every now and again, but for the most part, there have not been a whole lot of major problems.

If we liken incest to gay partnering, we would definitely have to discuss the whole offspring situation. Or maybe that is the entire issue. If there is no possibility of children, there are different rules of morality. Every other deviation that Sen. Santorum montioned has the potential of ending up with offspring. Usually, this arguement is used in the other direction for those conservatives that are trying to ban homosexuality. Maybe, this is a matter of if a sexual act between concenting adults cannot lead to children, it can remain private. Of course, then the sterile adulterers will have a field day. Polygamists will be running out to get vasectomies and hysterectomies. Or worse yet, forcing partners to have procedures done. I guess that theory is out the window.

I am at a bit of a loss. Does anyone else out there have any other thoughts? I know that William Saletan discussed this topic with the same outcome on MSN Slate Magazine.

Just as an FYI, Santorum issued a statement deferring the importance of his controversial interview with AP.

2003-04-22T09:43:00.000-04:00

I clearly do not understand this capitalistic world that we all live in. I don't know how I have lived this long as a fully functional and relatively intelligent member of society and I still just don't get it.

Let me 'splain.

Right now the national unemployment rate is 5.8%. In the New York City area, there is an unemployment rate of 8.4%. In the past year, there have been 7 rounds of lay-offs, hiring freezes, bonus cuts and no cost of living or any other type of raise in my company alone. I know more unemployed people right now than I have known in the rest of my life. New York City is scrambling to find billions of dollars to balance the budget. All in all, it comes down to the idea that money's tight for everyone. This stuff I understand. I don't like it, but I understand.

My confusion arises when I hear about golden parachutes and CEO Pensions lining the pockets of the ultra wealthy. Isn't it enough that the CEOs of large corporations make more money in a day before lunch than I will this entire year? Do they need to receive a $16 millon severence checks after they have been asked to leave? I wouldn't get anything like that if I was asked to go. Come to think of it, if Joe Peon is fired, all he gets is shown the door. Do these supreme rulers of the corporate world have special qualities that are intrinsic in their nature and warrant being paid large sums of money to leave a job?

Can someone lease explain this concept to me??? I clearly need to get out of the coporate finance world. It is making my head explode.

2003-04-15T10:12:00.000-04:00

I love how the media and other people twist the blame of crimes onto anything but the person that commits those crimes.

That's right, the first death in connection to the NYC Smoking ban has happened. A bouncer, Dana Blake, was killed trying to enforce the smoking ban at a local night club. As it was portrayed in the sound bite I heard on the news and the article to which I linked above, "Blake's older brother said he blames the death on the smoking ban."

I don't really understand how enforcing a law that is very well known can be the cause of death for anyone. Could there be some sort of blood on the hands of the person that actually stuck a knife in this man's stomach? For that matter, a bouncer is not the safest occupation in the world. Didn't this man's family understand that there could be health issues that may be a part of the career choice he made? Just because it is a controversial law, the media is trying to make it look like the reall killer is trying to stop people from smoking, and it turn killing themselves and others.

To mangle a cliche, Smoking laws do not kill people, idiots that are jonsing for their next fix kill people.

2003-04-11T12:10:00.000-04:00

This post is specifically for Nolan, who didn't believe me when I told him about this.

Local currency is not only legal but it is flourishing in some communities. Ithaca, NY has been using their own currency for the past 12 years (the Hour - 1 Hour is equivelant to $10). That's right, they have money that can be spent in and around the Ithaca area in businesses, between individuals, and anywhere that US currency can be used. The idea behind it is rather noble. By using this money, local businesses, farmers, crafters, artisans, and laborers are held in much higher regard than the mass produced, corporate world that is strangling Mom and Pop. It raises the minimum wage by supporting the idea that 1 hour of labor is equal to 1 Hour or $10. There have even been zero interest loans made in Hours. Because, of course, how can you ask for interest on labor?

I know it sounds a bit far fetched and even a little utopian. But, hey, if you can work within the system to make a change, use the free market system to your advantage and make abetter life for the people in your community, I say go for it.

By the way, it is exchangable and taxable. You just can't pay your federal taxes in Hours. Uncle Sam is so picky.

2003-04-11T11:41:00.000-04:00

If there will be Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, I think at least one of them may be riding in on Hooters Airline. I saw an ad for this new airline yesterday morning and it has taken me a full day to try to make sense of it. So a restaurant that focuses on the physical attributes of the wait staff much more than their cuisine decides to enter the market of air travel since many of the current airlines are cutting back flights and hedging on bankruptcy. At what point should a potential passenger begin to get worried?

So the flights consist of Atlanta to Myrtle Beach (four flights a week in each direction), Newark to Myrtle Beach (three flights a week in each direction) and Baltimore to Myrtle Beach (not yet available). I'm wondering if the company is actually targeting low Hooters Restaurant populations (i.e. the New York metro area) to be converted to the glory of Hooterdom. Or maybe this is for Hooters regulars that decide to take a field trip to Myrtle Beach after Happy Hour.

Ok, I have actually run out of any kind of rational idea as to why this is in existance. Any other thoughts out there?

2003-04-07T15:57:00.000-04:00

Since I am feeling it today, I figure I will go on my diatribe about Daylight Saving Time.

As you may or may not know, DSL came about to conserve artificial light in the evening hours. By making it get dark later, we don't have to use things like lights. Can I just throw this out there. We live in a world where there are lights on 24/7 whether the sun is out or not. Has anyone taken a good look at Times Square during the day

or night

There is no conserving energy on any of these streets whether the sun is out or not. If we really want to do something to save energy, we should limit the amout of neon, flashing lights and lit up billboards on any given street. So needless to say, I don't really buy into the conservationist mumbo jumbo about having a kitchen light on for an additional hour at night.

Wait a minute, did anyone stop to think that we naturally use less artificial light in the summer because there are more hours of daylight as a whole despite what time they are? In the winter, we go to work when it's dark and leave for home after the sun has set. To top it all, the weather tends to be a bit grayer which gives us less light.

There is another school of thought out there. There are people that want to End Daylight Saving Time altogether. Well, this is a bit extreme, with the changing of the time zones (which makes more sense to me, living in a global society that has to count how many hours apart we all are to get business accomplished). I don't know if this is a better answer. I just know that I want to be able to get my sleep.

2003-04-04T14:37:00.000-05:00

I don't want to be calloused. I don't want to detract from the horrible feelings of the families of the people on this list or this list. I know what it is like to be in the middle of an emotional, painful disaster that does not let any relief in. I ache terribly for each person that is missing, captured, wounded or dead and their family members that will never be the same. That being said, I have to ask some very harsh questions.

Isn't this war about "freeing Iraq" and the oppressed people living under Hussein's regime? Isn't this about the people that live on the other side of the world? Aren't we killing people for their freedom? Then, why is it that we are focusing on our troops? Why is the rescue of Jessica Lynch the biggest story this week? What about the Iraqi civilians that have died, or are fleeing for their lives, or have no home, or are grieving for their country? Are we, as Americans so self-centered in our view of the world, that we can't even have compassion for the people in country we are destroying?

We are the agressors. We picked this fight. Maybe we were provoked, but we didn't wait until we saw the whites of their eyes. We shot first and are still waiting to ask questions. (Enough mangled cliches.) We don't have the right to have self pity. We don't have the right to ignore the very people that we set out to help because we feel bad for our own. We brought this upon ourselves.

I would like to see those embedded reorters tell us about the people there. The non-Coalition people. I want to know if the people we are "helping" are actually in a better place, or think they could be. I want to hear the words of the people that didn't have a choice but to have American and British bombs in their sky and American and British soldiers moving through their land.

2003-04-02T10:36:00.000-05:00

I am forever perplexed by the whole stockmarket thing. I mean, the volitilty of the market is so closely tied to current events in such a bizarre way. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, the progress of our troops approaching Baghdad makes Dell a good company?!?! I can understand why people would be hesitant to invest money during a time when there is very little surity in what will be going on in the world next but the changes in the market this week alone make me crazy.

On Monday, the Dow plunged below 8,000 with talk of there being bad choices made in sending such a small number of troops overseas. Tuesday, the market rose as troops neared Baghdad. Even today, there is an hourly rally as speculation of finally having a shortened war within our grasp and found POWs.

At what point does any of this make any sense? I know that past wars were always good for the economy. Usually it was the way to get out from under a rough economic slump. But those were the days when we needed to have more people in factories to make guns and boats and planes and so forth. There was a greater demand which caused the country to create a supply and therefore jobs and money. Today, we don't have that same kind of manufatcturing structure to our workforce. Now we have to rely on the whimsy of the fickle invester that has been burned one too many times by scandelous Corporate America.

I liked it so much better when I didn't pay attention to anything relating to the "Market."

2003-04-01T09:25:00.000-05:00

Last night I went into a bar for the first time after the smoking ban here in the City. At first, I didn't even notice anything different. Then a man came in and lit up, ironically, next to a "no smoking" sign. Within the first puff, he was talked to by the staff and went outside to finish. I only have to say, Thank you Michael Bloomburg!

2003-03-31T15:41:00.000-05:00

I have really decided that the White House needs better PR. Or more over, needs someone to stop certain people from saying and doing things that make them and in turn the country they represent look like smug, conceited, over-bearing bigots. I hate to be the one to point fingers but could someone please put a leash on Rumsfeld. It's bad enough that he says things like "Calibrate Me" to senior American Military personnel. That in and of itself seems a bit too smug and superior to be verbally flinging at the Joint Chiefs chairman, General Richard Myers. On top of that, we are getting a bit of a split opinion from Washington about some bum advice that he and other in the cabinet have been giving to the president.

Now, perception within the country is one thing. But when we have Chretien, our leading neighbor to the north, refuse to make a trek to the White House on account of war, we may have gone too far. Canada may been seen as the quiet, even-tempered brother of the US in many ways. They have put up with a lot of our crap over the years. It can't be easy to be our neighbor. Nonetheless, they have pretty much stood behind us in a non-aggressive way. To have their Prime Minister refuse to come down to DC to receive accolades is a big, old slap in the face. This should be a sign to somebody. Canada isn't going to just be silently agreeable about this war.

Well, of course, not having Canada on our side is not the end of the world. It's not like they are going to retaliate. Oh, right, there are those other people that we will have to pay attention to, because we are distroying their part of the world. That's right, the Arab nations are not looking at this war as Iraq's problem. In fact, a few of their leading representatives have been so bold as to let us know on more than one occassion that we may be looking at a potential jihad. Has anyone mentioned to the powers that be that calling it "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" doesn't really coincide with bombing the bejeezus out of the country. Nor does continually aligning the events of 9/11 with Iraq. This just makes us look like we are putting all Arab nations, friend or foe, in the same pot and calling them evil. Do I need to get into the whole axis of evil thing?

2003-03-27T11:33:00.000-05:00

I actually heard a news caster say, "For the first time in this war..." this morning on the news. Am I totally crazy or is this war only a week old? Isn't most of everything that is going on for the first time in this war? Maybe I am being petty. Ok, so I am being petty.

Well, on a lighter subject, there are only 2 days left before there is no longer any smoking allowed in New York City places of business. The ban on smoking at the workplace laws go into effect on Sunday. That means that all bars and restaurants will have to be smoke free (with very few exceptions). To make matters even better, the state passed a law yesterday superceding the City law by taking away those exceptions in July. There will be no smoking in any workplace in the state. Sorry smokers, I am a fan of keeping my lungs in tact.

2003-03-26T11:06:00.000-05:00

I heard on the news that the credentials of Al Jazeera have been revoked from the New York Stock Exchange. I have to admit, I really agree with the news network that they have been singled out. I understand the need for security right now. That is a given. I don't see how anyone could possibly see this move as anything but panic and backlash toward the Arab news network. It sounds to me as though we are picking bigger fights and alienating more people than we first thought. Clearly, the "2-front" war is really broken down into the Iraqi front and the home front.

As a reminder, this is a war about breaking international laws and protecting "the world" from weapons of mass distruction in the hands of people that can't be trusted. What does this have to do with new credentials at the New York Stock Exchange? Does anyone have an answer to that one?

2003-03-25T11:08:00.000-05:00

So I have decided to keep my political and social commentary to a dedicated blog. that way I can get all worked up over here and then relax with much more soothing topics elsewhere.

Where do I begin? I have made a few tirades and rants about the conflict in the Middle East on my other blog. I won't be redundant by reiterating those points. Be warned, I plan on being vocal about my opinions on stuff. I welcome comments of all types. Nothing like a good argument to stir up the blood.