The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, recently signed into law SB 1070, an extremely controversial piece of legislation.  It requires people to carry "proof of legal immigration status" and requires the police to ask for proof if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the U.S. illegally. 

A reporter- and I give full respect to this reporter; I wish there were more like her- asked the governor during the bill signing what constitutes "reasonable suspicion." 

Now I think anyone can can come to the conclusion that the state and local police will HAVE to engage in racial profiling in order to comply with this law.  Governor Jan Brewer could NOT answer the reporters question and has appealed to the FEDERAL government to help her define this.  However, the governor is instituting special training that will supposedly avoid racial profiling while still complying with the new law. 

President Obama has spoken out against the new law, among many, many others.  Other states, California leading the pack, have vowed to boycott visits to Arizona and Arizona businesses.  Lawmakers have predicted that the Supreme Court will strike down the law as a violation of civil rights. 

Question for my readers:
Do you think the new law requires racial profiling?  Why or why not? 

Do you think that a comprehensive FEDERAL law on immigration would prevent the issues that Arizona is trying to address with this law? 


As always, please, please, please, contact me if you find an error in my facts.  I detest ignorance, most especially in myself.  I will correct the error and credit you and/or your website with pointing out the error. 
Sources:
CNN: "Latino Businesses Feel Pinch of New Immigration Law." Link to article
Fox News: "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Tough Immigration Law."  Link to article

Had to steal their song title, since it so sums up today's post.  An eclectic mix of cynical thoughts.

For those of you who didn't know, least week Dairy Queen was celebrating their Blizzard's anniversary with buy one blizzard, get one for 25 cents.   In the small town of Emmetsburg, Iowa, from which I hail (unfortunately), the population is approximately 4,000.  Last week the Dairy Queen in that town sold over 2,000 blizzards.  I know because a family member works there.  And we wonder why America has an obesity problem? 


On another note (I said I was a bit manic today), I'm starting to get bored with farmville.  Nothing holds my attention long right now.  But I came up with an interesting variation.....
instead of growing crops, you should be required to feed the animals.  And when you don't they die.  Plus you could kill them in other interesting ways- drown them, electrocute them, etc.  Why grow crops when you could torture animals?   Maybe use the dead animals for fertilizer to grow really crazy crops- like killer tomatoes, poison corn, flesh-eating vines? 
Or maybe not.  Just an idea.  Though I know that PETA would throw a fit even about killing PRETEND animals.
 

Why do people mock other people's solutions when they don't have a better solution themselves?  If you don't have a new idea, shut up. 
I complain health care, but I have a better idea. 
I bitch about Obama, because well, arrogance is annoying in any form.  And deluded arrogance is dangerous.  I think we might actually have someone who is clinically insane in the White House.  And most of Congress for that matter.  When someone:
1) Ignores the facts in favor of their own preconceived notions,
2) Believes that though elected in a democracy, they know better than the electorate,
3) Refuses to listen to any other point of view that violates their own internal structure,
-and-
4) does not have a firm grasp on reality......
well, that sounds like insanity to me. 


And lastly, to the COMPLETE IDIOT WHO RUNS ANOTHER WEBSITE,
while I am not a fan of Sarah Palin by any means (I find her ill-informed on a wide variety of issues, though she is getting better...a little).
Meat that has not been given antibiotics or force-fed with non-organic, pesticide, etc. is organic.  So if you kill a wild deer in Alaska- with its abundance of clean water and un-genetically modified wild grass, the meat is organic.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO MOCK SOMEONE, SPEND A WHOLE 10 SECONDS TO LOOK UP THE DAMN FACTS!

There are many things about being married to the "military" that are interesting. After much thought, debate, and laughing, I came up with the....drumroll, please....

"The Top Ten Most Annoying Things About Being A Military Wife"

So, number ten is: Military time is different than civilian time

I'm not talking about the whole 1:00 p.m. being 13 hundred. I'm saying that the clocks on any military base seem to run in a complete different universe than the one the rest of us live in.

Part 1: The basic rule with time is that whatever time they are supposed to be home or out of work-
it will certainly not be the stated time (under no circumstances, never, ever). It will be anywhere from fifteen minutes to six hours AFTER the time given. Or, once every three weeks or so, it will be three hours BEFORE the time given.

So, forget about clocks. If he/she says they'll be home at 5:00, you can feel free to go to the gym, go out with friends, go shopping, etc....they won't miss you, because they won't be there.

Part 2: If someone is awake on the boat they assume everyone else in the universe is also awake.  For example, phone rings at 3:00 in the morning.  Wife stumbles out of bed (husband sleeps like the dead), goes to answer phone.  She's well-trained by this point and doesn't say "who the hell is calling at 3:00 in the morning" -or- "someone better be dead."
Instead she says, "He's sleeping...give me a minute, I'll get him up."

Then comes the dangerous part...waking up someone who has to get up at 4:30 in the morning to get to work. (Never mind that they aren't due until 7:00...something with the clocks requires them to be there an hour or more early). You wake him up. He takes the phone...
and answers the VITAL question, the one that necessitated calling at 3:00 in the morning.

From the phone: "Where is that plastic jug?" (No, I'm not kidding, this has happened).
Husband: "It's in the lab." (the lab is ten feet by five feet, you CANNOT possibly, even the military's odd universe, lose something in this small of a space).
From the phone: "Oh, I thought this one was it. I just wanted to make sure."
.......
Think about this a moment. Imagine calling your mom or a friend at 3:00 in the morning to say "hey, you keep your mower in the garage, right?" They answer 'yes.' You say "Oh, just checking." and hang up.

We've gotten calls trying to find a piece of paper (which was in the folder it was supposed to be in), announcing that field day (cleaning...see future blog) will be moved to the morning instead of afternoon, etc. We have NEVER recieved a call that couldn't have waited four hours, something like "oh, we're under attack, can you come to the boat." Nope, never.

Just remember, as a loving wife, married to the Navy, time doesn't exist...at least not in any form a civilian understands

I got this video in an e-mail, and found it mildly amusing.  My mom also called with a joke she'd seen on Facebook.  Taking this as a sign (joking), I decided to post them together. 


Joke from Facebook:
"God, you took my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze to heaven this year.  You took my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, and my favorite singer, Michael Jackson.  Just wanted to let you know: my favorite president is Barack Obama."

I just saw an advertisement for another reality show.  Like many of the others, this is a contest until we get to the last man standing. 

The new show:  Paris Hilton's British Best Friend.  Girls compete to see who can be Paris' new best friend (or BFF as they probably say).  That's the disgusted part.

The worried part- they are seriously running out of reality show concepts.  I think we're going to end up back in the Pantheon throwing contestants to the lions. 
Not kidding.  In five years when you see a show where the loser gets killed and/or the contestants get killed throughout the season and winner is the one who emerges alive, don't say I didn't warn you. 

I love these WTF cats....they all look so creepy. 

Well, as you may have noticed, I've been VERY BUSY.  Husband is in Norfolk now.  The sub has been there exactly one week...
and WTF... they're behind already!  I love the government. 

WTF is up with the tax-day protests.  Haven't we all been paying taxes for years?  Why protest now? 

WTF is up with dogs that bark for 22 hours a day.  They take a break for about ten minutes an hour.  How do their owners sleep?  More important, how in the hell am I going to get some sleep?!?   I really, really went to feed those two dogs chocolate...you know, just to show I love them. 

WTF...is it me and my ads, or are some people lying.  They make it sound like a 1% click rate on ads is something everyone should automatically have.  If I had a 1% click rate on ads, I'd be rich.  Well, not rich, but making for than .02 a day for Adsense!!!!!!!

I'm a night person.  So it was no surprise that I went out for groceries at 1:00 in the morning.  And, of course, if you want groceries at one in the morning, you have to go to Wal-Mart.  Not a problem.  I like it better at night- there is always people stocking shelves, but they're easier to navigate around than the the crowds during the day!

Anyway, as I got out of my car, I noticed an old man with a cane who was having serious trouble walking.  He was pushing two carts towards the store, so I assumed he needed some help.  I went over to offer help and I saw the Wal-Mart name tag hanging on his shirt.  I was outraged, I must admit.  I took in three carts for him and when I came out I saw someone else helping him.  This man couldn't take two steps without leaning heavily on a cane and was having to take carts two by two from all over the parking lot to the store. 

Couldn't Wal-Mart find an easier job for him to do?  He could stock shelves- there were plenty of twenty something's stocking shelves.  (I used to work in a grocery store...as long as someone loaded the cart for him, he could stock shelves.).  Couldn't he change price signs?  Sweep? 

Then I realized that he took the job.  Why?  Does he need the money for food?  I'm assuming yes, since he was clearly in pain and still out there pushing around carts.  Is it fair of Wal-Mart to have to cater to employee demands? 
I also realized that Wal-Mart was being amazingly stupid.  It was going to take him all night and he still wouldn't be done.  Someone else could have done the job in a quarter of the time.  Using employees on tasks their not fit for is just a waste of wages. 

The morals, the laws about not discriminating, the man's need for the money, the ethics of a business....my brain was trying to take all these things into account and by the time I got done, I came to the  conclusion that I had a right to be outraged.

Morally- making a hurt person do a pointless job for hours on end is wrong.  (at least to me).  The utilitarian moral model would also say that having someone do a job less efficiently than another person is a waste of resources for society.  Take your ethical view of choice and apply it. 
 
Laws about discrimination- the laws are there to protect disabled/hurt/race/gender from being discriminated against for JOBS THEY CAN DO. 

Ethics of business- Wal-mart is wasting their money with having this man do this job.  He would be more efficient doing something he was capable of, and Wal-Mart would get more productivity out of him.  Productivity= money (generally). 

What do you think?  Should an old man who had trouble walking have been pushing around carts? 

Husband is off to Norfolk for the next five months....well, five months according to the Navy "schedule", in reality it will probably be more like six.  The last few days were spent with packing, text messaging from the guys who already made it to Norfolk and discovered that the rooms they got for the guys didn't have dishes or towels, making lists, and more packing.  Husband is glad he was one of the later ones to leave...at least he has dishes and towels (ha-ha). 

The pay for this wonderful venture is as organized as the Navy can make it.  Husband had to take multiple lessons and answer a quiz before he got his travel card.  Gas (on trips to and from Norfolk, but not IN Norfolk) and groceries are to be charged to the card.  They go through the purchases, pay them off, and give us the extra money in our bank account.

Now, I know, I know.  The more logical among you are saying, "Why doesn't the government just give the guys the money and not bother with having to pay off multiple hundreds of credit cards each month?"  (and that multiple hundred is just for THIS boat...never mind the rest of the Navy). 
You may also be saying, "Why not just ignore the card and take the full amount into your bank account at the end of the month?"  (This would be my choice). 
Because the Navy is requiring them to use the cards.  Don't ask me.  I'm a fan of logic and simplicity.   The Navy (and our government) is not. 

I know it's kind of confusing, but to comment on a post, you click on the "comment" button by the title.....not the comment button on the post below it.   Or you can comment on the post below...I'll figure it out. 

I'm so confused.  I told a story about St. Luke's Hospital & asked if it was a valid argument or a slippery slope argument?  I didn't even say I was a smoker.  Maybe I'm a fat person afraid that they're going to screen for trans fat? 

First of all, I'm sorry about your parents.  And I'm sorry you and your sisters have breathing problems.  But I'm not sure quite what that has to do with anything I originally posted about?  Perhaps I'm dense? 
Here's the response I got from one reader:

Comment: Here is my take,if you want to commit slow susicide,that\'s fine with me!Just do not think that for one minuite that I will stand for you taking me with you.Both my parents smoked when we were growing up both my sisters and I have breathing issues due to their smoking.My Dad died in 1984 He was 58.he smoked all his adult life.My Mom died in 2003 shw smoked most of her life.she died of lung cancer

Uh, what does your parents smoking have to do with the hiring policies of a company?  Did they take you to work with them and smoke there? 
Uh, since smoking is illegal is most buildings, and as far as I know, all hospitals in the U.S.....how is hiring a smoker "taking me with you"?

For future reference,
The correct spelling of "susicide" is "suicide".
The correct spelling of "minuite" is "minute."
The proper punctuation for "My Dad died in 1984 He was 58.he smoked..."   is "My Dad died in 1984.  He was 58.  He smoked..."
      Note: you end a sentence with a period (or other punctuation mark).  You put a space (or two, depending on your writing preferences...professional writers only use one space in their manuscripts) before the beginning of a new sentence.  Oh, yeah, I almost forgot.  We generally capitalize the first word of a sentence. 

(Note: the above cartoon is very much "tongue in cheek.")

St Luke's Hospital and Health Network has announced that they will start screening employees for nicotine use.  New employees must test negative on nicotine test to be eligible for employment.  Current workers will not be affected by the ban (for now).   Pennsylvania is one of 20(!) states that allow no-nicotine hiring policies.   St. Luke's claims that the policy is intended so that the health care providers (them being a hospital, after all) are providing a good example to patients.  It is also intended to lower health care costs. 

Of course, this has caused a whole ripple affect throughout the news networks and the web.  Some people ask: What is next?  Salt?  All alcohol use, even when off-duty?  Obesity?  Trans fats? 

But is this a slippery slope argument or is this a valid argument? 

I personally believe it is a valid argument.  Nicotine is a legal substance.  It is illegal to discriminate based on religion, color, or sex.  (Supposedly, though we all know that it doesn't always work out like that...and that reverse-discrimination is becoming a larger problem over time).  Why should smokers be discriminated against? 

Should people who are obese be discriminated against?  St. Luke's could make a similar argument about obesity.  Again, refusing to higher people who are obese would provide a better example to their patients, and again, would lower health care costs. 

What do you think?  Valid argument?  Slippery slope?  Is it all right to refuse to hire nicotine users?  Obese people?  Those who eat trans fat in unhealthy quantities?  Salt-users?  Alcohol drinkers? 

Articles used as reference:
"Pennsylvania Hospital to Stop Hiring Smokers"
Pennsylvania Hospital Group Won't Hire Nicotine Users