Tuesday -- January 25, 2005
 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? First of all, don't give me that discrimination nonsense. We all discriminate every day, and nobody thinks anything of it. The simple chore of making a decision between Mexican or Chinese food for lunch is an act of discrimination. To say that someone has "discriminating tastes" is a compliment, not a slam. Smoking isn't a race or a gender, nor is it a religious belief. It's a pathetic, sickening, stupid, self-destructive behavior. It's an act of self-hatred. Discriminate away. Just consider health insurance. Unfortunately we have come to the point in this country where it is expected that employers will take care of most of the health care for their employees. This unfortunate situation is the primary reason health care costs are seemingly out of control in this country .. but that's another subject for another sermon from the Church of the Painful Truth. If you, as the employer, are going to be responsible for the cost of your employee's health care then you should be allowed to select employees, and get rid of employees based on any aspects of their lifestyle that would be unhealthy and, therefore, would cost you money. Nobody would suggest that someone who hires people to drive company vehicles should not be able to discriminate against people with bad driving records. An accident could cost you money, so why not keep the accident-prone dangerous drivers off your payroll? Similarly, a smoker is going to drive up the cost of your health insurance, so why not keep that smoker off your payroll? And higher insurance premiums isn't the only cost you'll have to pay for having smokers on your payroll. Generally speaking, smokers simply aren't as productive in the workplace as are non-smokers. They take more frequent breaks (to do drugs,) and they're absent from work more often due to illness. And ... to cap it all off ... smokers just aren't all that bright. In repeated trials smokers have scored lower on intelligence tests than non-smokers. Smoking, then, is an excellent way for you to get an immediate indication of who has common sense, and who doesn't . OK .. I know that there are exceptions, but across the board the rule holds. An employer who has a policy of simply not hiring smokers, and getting rid of employees who do smoke, is going to have a smarter, more capable workforce than will an employer who hires these pathetic drug addicts. 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. 
IT COSTS WHAT IT COSTS
President Bush is set to request an $80 billion appropriation to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect the disgraceful Democrats to step up to the plate and start playing politics with our national security and the safety, security and funding of our troops.
What the left (including the mainstream media, which is already doing this) is going to do is try and make this a deficit issue. They are going to say that in a time when the government's budget is not balanced, we're spending billions on the war on terror. Pay no attention. The left cares not about fiscal responsibility. If this $80 billion was for some social spending program it would be called an "investment." Spend it on fighting Islamofascists who want to kill us by the millions and it's just plain "spending." Trust me, the reason the left doesn't want this money spent fighting Islamic terrorism is because they want to use it to buy votes.
At any rate, there is no alternative to seeing the war on terror to its end, and paying what it costs. What else are we going to do? Pull out of Iraq and let it be taken over by Al-Qaeda? It's interesting that the same Democrats that will whine about the cost of the war also accuse George Bush of not providing the troops what they need.
They want it both ways, and the media will let them get it. By the way, will The Poodle vote for this $80 billion before he votes against it?
AL-QAEDA PURSUING NUCLEAR BOMB
To those of you Michael Moore-worshipers who don't believe there is a terrorist threat, listen up. German police have arrested two suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists, one of which was trying to buy enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb.
Hello! Are you listening? A murdering Islamic terrorist, whose stated goal is the death of as many Americans as possible, and whose organization has already killed 3,000 Americans on our own soil, has been arrested for trying to buy materials to make a nuke. Now that he's been arrested, surely others will try the same thing.
All it will take is one of these vicious Islamic SOB's sneaking one dirty bomb into the United States...aboard a ship, in a shipping container or in their airline luggage. They could also sneak it into Canada or Mexico, then across the border. At that point, it would be no problem for said Islamic terrorist to bring the suitcase nuke into a large downtown metropolitan area, say about lunchtime. Once the bomb went off, it would kill tens of thousands of people.
Still not convinced? Just wait...it's not a question of if, but when. By the way, nice going by the Germans....still not enough to revoke their membership in the Axis of Weasels, but we'll keep watching.
THE ANTI-SEMITIC (NOT TO MENTION USELESS) UNITED NATIONS
Yesterday the U.N. conducted its first ceremony remembering The Holocaust. To no one's surprise, the U.N. hall was half-empty, and all Arab countries were absent, except for Jordan. For his part, UN Secretary-General Kofi "Oil-For-Food" Annan was on hand to give a speech.
Now ask yourself this: how many nations would be on hand to hear a speech by Fidel Castro? Your answer: nearly all of them, and the place would be packed. The rogue states and thug dictators that make up the UN would be more than happy to salute a ruthless communist. But when it comes to memorializing The Holocaust, they won't be bothered. After all, the majority of those countries, and even the UN itself are, have and always will be anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
Why we continue to participate and contribute to a world body that hates freedom and democracy is beyond me. What a waste.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
Those predicting doom and gloom in Iraq are about to be sorely disappointed. A just-released poll from Iraq shows that the elections are going to be much more successful than the Bush-bashing media is reporting.
As William Safire winds down his career as a columnist, he offers a dozen tips on how to read columns, particularly political ones. Most interesting. In another column, Safire also explains why he's retiring from political commentary.
President Bush spoke about spreading liberty and freedom to the rest of the world, but what does that mean in practical terms? George Will compares Bush's inaugural speech to similar speeches from other presidents.
Believe it or not, some people actually have faith in the Iraqis. William Shawcross says the Iraqi people will defy the Baathists and Islamofascists. Oh, and by the way, why aren't more people backing the elections? Read on.
Is Iraq another hopeless Vietnam situation? Victor Davis Hanson says not to forget Afghanistan. People were dismissing that as a lost cause, and it largely turned out fine. As always, good reading.
By the way, did you know that the deficit is down by $1 trillion? That's right...and the media is trying to downplay it and make it into bad news. Why would they do that? Because it's good news for Bush, and that violates the prime directive.
The Bush-bashing media is in overdrive of late. They can't stop comparing Iraq to Vietnam, when there is simply no comparison at all. The Media Research Center reports.
President Bush's inauguration speech does not mean that the United States Military is going to be dispatched to bring freedom and democracy to every country in the world. David Limbaugh says people need to relax, and start comparing Bush's stance to Reagan's.
There are those that still believe there is no such thing as media bias. Thomas Sowell says you need look no further than the biased coverage of Iraq for all the proof of leftist bias in the media you need.
Democrats are stonewalling Social Security reform already, along with several spineless Republicans. Jack Kemp proposes a solution to the problem, and takes a trip back in time to the founding of our republic.
George Bush and the Republican Congress are responsible for the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years: prescription drug coverage for Medicare. But Doug Bandow warns they need to resist the urge for price controls.
In President Bush's second inaugural, he didn't mention anything about freedom or liberty in the world relying on the United Nations. Frank Gaffney points this important omission out. |
Search Boortz.com
