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

 
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.
posted by Marney at 10:39 AM

 
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.
posted by Marney at 2:41 PM

 
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.
posted by Marney at 3:13 PM

 
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.
posted by Marney at 2:25 PM