|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Who’s Your Nanny?Posted on Feb 19, 2011
This week a front page story in The New York Times reported about the trend of employers rejecting job applicants who smoke. Corporations are pursuing more intrusive engagement with the personal lives of employees. The first employer decision—to hire or not—may depend on the personal habits and lifestyle of an applicant that have no demonstrated relationship to job performance. The Times article reports:
At the same time, over the past few months tea party leaders such as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have criticized Michelle Obama, her husband and his alleged nanny-state administration for telling parents what their kids should eat, how much they should exercise and whether they should sit for hours each day watching TV. Advertisement To avoid complete philosophical incoherence in tea party libertarian orthodoxy, something has to give: either the reverence accorded individual freedom for American citizens or the freedom for corporations to insist upon employment rules designed solely to pad the bottom line of corporate balance sheets. On the one hand, the tea party position is that the Founding Fathers intended to establish a country where people are free to engage in any harmful, self-destructive behavior they damn well please. Such freedom is quintessentially libertarian: Jane Q. Citizen has her liberty and freedom from being told by the nanny state what to do, even if doing or not doing it makes one ill, disabled or likelier to die at an earlier age. Economic freedom to contract with any employer and the employer’s economic freedom to dictate the terms of the contract it is willing to enter into with the employee are bedrock principles endorsed by the libertarian-leaning tea party members. Their narrative is that big government has enacted too many laws and business regulations over the past 70 years that strangle free enterprise. Corporate innovation and small business competitiveness are stymied, they argue, by workplace regulations that mandate paying a minimum wage, prescribe the length of the workday and require safety regulations to prevent employee injuries. That kind of government intervention in the economy hurts the free market drive for profits that, they say, will improve the lives of consumers and workers alike. Then it must logically follow that libertarian/tea party members and their fellow travelers within the Republican Party should see nothing wrong with a corporation’s economic decision to not hire smokers, obese persons (as subjectively defined by the hiring employer) or applicants with “pre-existing” genetic proclivities (easily determined through medical history and DNA testing) that make them likely targets for cancers, diabetes or heart disease. * * * After the hiring decision is made, those who endorse the importance of a free hand for employers see nothing wrong with continued oversight of the work force. That can be done through urine tests and subjective behavioral observation of employees by managers. A recent California appellate decision, Holmes v. Petrovich, held that there is nothing wrong with an employer monitoring an employee’s personal communications with doctors, attorneys or religious counselors that occur using phones and computers provided to workers in the workplace as long as the employee is given “notice” that personal communications using employer-provided phones and computers are subject to monitoring and recording. The defendant employer, plaintiff Holmes’ boss, insisted on knowing in advance of any plans she was making for a maternity leave of absence. Because she sent an e-mail to her attorney using her office computer, the Court of Appeal held, she waived any privacy right in that consultation with the attorney and her communications with the attorney about maternity leave were fair game for monitoring by her boss. Surely every employee recalls the first day of work and receiving the employee handbook that gave notice of a policy in the paragraph at the bottom of Page 9. Sadly, Holmes had the Court of Appeal remind her a little too late of that provision in the handbook. For everyone else, find that handbook in the drawer and be forewarned: Employees in California workplaces should take care to bring a personal phone to the work site and speak in hushed tones that cannot be overheard, or use a personal (not company-issued) smart phone or computer to send e-mail. Unless, of course, you don’t mind sharing the contents of your personal communications with the boss. Is there a business purpose for such an intrusion on employees’ lives? Employers will quickly respond: The ability to monitor employee communications from the workplace can help control health care costs and assure that the business’ personnel assets are continuously available without inconvenient, unplanned absences from illness, pregnancies and the concomitant treatment regimens that an employee—such as Holmes in the case bearing her name—may have to undergo. * * * Courts have addressed the conflict between employer freedom and employee freedom in the public sector, for jobs that involve carrying firearms, driving or piloting large vehicles on highways or in the air, and for responding to fires and public emergencies. The power of public-sector employers to test for drugs and enforce physical fitness conditions for discrete segments of the public employee work force has been recognized as more important than the public sector employees’ personal freedom to ingest drugs or alcohol outside the workplace. Perhaps this is a defensible approach to the tension between employer rights and the rights of certain public employees whose relationship to public safety is crucial. But no public employer (as private employers are poised to do) has asserted the power to use employment sanctions to punish employees for engaging in personally harmful behavior, such as smoking or overeating—at least not beyond a point where the employee’s condition becomes incompatible with the physical fitness needs of the job of a firefighter or police officer. Unlike public employers, private employers when hiring need not develop (and be capable of defending in a lawsuit) evidence of a nexus between physical characteristics and job performance, the way public employers must. Moreover, private employers may be more speculative and futuristic when asserting a nexus between current physical characteristics of an employee and future negative impacts on the business’ bottom line. Current good health and personal conduct outside the workplace (e.g., smoking or drinking at home hours before beginning work) are unrelated to current work performance. But the mere possibility of some deleterious effects in the future (statistically measured across the class of all who smoke, eat or drink) that might raise the cost to the employer for a specific worker (who may or may not experience the class identified disease) is deemed sufficient reason to deny employment now, and to justify close, intrusive scrutiny of workplace and private behavior while employed.
1
2
NEXT PAGE >>>
 TAGS:
|
The Lotto Symbolizes the False Promises of Barracuda Capitalism
 . '/' . substr('9780745330402',-6,3) . '/' . '9780745330402' . '.jpg'; ?>)
 . '/' . substr('9781455501458',-6,3) . '/' . '9781455501458' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By SarcastiCanuck, February 22, 2011 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Right on corporate America…If women don’t have huge boobs,even fake ones,then NO JOB.This could work for me.Going for a smoke now….
Report thisBy MarthaA, February 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
The Conservative Democratic Party talks a good story, but are very much into keeping the DLC Nannie State with the DLC Corporate Middle Class ‘New Class’ to Rule over the Nannie State—the Nannie State being the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States by making and keeping them as individuals representative of themselves and convincing them that they as individuals are the middle class and the poor, and deleting the whole power of the majority population’s class and culture into a nanny state; BOTH Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are leaders in the DLC Conservative Movement and the forming of the NEW CLASS of New Democratic Rulers, the NEW Ruling Middle Class that helps the Old Ruling Class rule the 70% Majority Common Population in the United States through sophistry and propaganda.
The NEW Middle CLASS has already been formed and will not change, therefore, there is no other way to have representation for the 70% Majority Common Population other than with a NEW and EQUAL political party to represent the 70% Majority Common Population as a Class and Culture, the American Populace Class and Culture which will bring CHANGE we can really believe in and it MUST be made to happen, EQUAL representation of the working class, the American Common Populace, as the class and culture they are, will not happen accidentally.
Wisconsin’s Common Populace are making an outstanding effort toward real change, hopefully they will hang out for political representation of their class and culture as a class and culture and not settle for being represented as individuals against two classes and cultures.
Report thisBy rico, suave, February 22, 2011 at 9:16 am Link to this comment
Bird48:
Sorry for the vitriol. You must be new to truthdig. It’s the modus operandus of most posters.
“...we all must look out for (and pay for) each other…”
As I said before, when you run out of siblings, cousins, extended tribe, local community, county, and state help; when all those resources have been depleted by you, then I’ll help you, happily. After all, I might one day need the same favor. But, help should be available in concentric circles, beginning with family. I’m all for helping people truly in need, but I will NOT feed you before you ask your brother for food.
Your society is the complete opposite of that- it’s a lot easier to go, namelessly, and shamelessly, to an anonymous government bureaucrat for foodstamps than it is to go hat in hand to a neighbor for a meal which you both know you will never repay. But it’s wrong.
Your argument about military and roads, etc is trivial and beside the point: Absolutely NOBODY (but a handful of raving anarchists) argues that there should be NO government services. But road building and plowing snow is not on the same level as free education, food, housing and health care.
I’ll be damned if I’ll willingly subsidize the cigarette habit of some anonymous bum who lives two thousand miles away. That’s not “help”, that’s not “human kindness”, that’s tyranny.
Report thisBy RayLan, February 22, 2011 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
The argument being made by this article drawing an analogy between government practice and corporate practice is clever and sound. Why should corporations which are not persons by the constitutional definition have dictatorial control over the personal lives of its employees?
Even on the public sector side, the rabid Right are fine with government intrusion into the bedroom denying gay rights and women’s right to choose.
The Right might consider the industrial child-slavery depicted by Charles Dickens’ novels to be justifiable on the basis of libertarian ‘free choice’.
Human rights have progressed substantially through democratic resistance and consequent government regulation on industry. At the moment companies exercise the right to perform drug tests for illegal drugs. Until tobacco becomes illegal that right does not exist without the accusation of discrmination which at this point is illegal on the basis of age, religion and race and in some cases sexual orientation.
So corporations have been given a margin of choice to exercise legal discrmination, but limiting that discrimination through government regulation is not out of line ON PRINCIPLE.
What the GOP need to face in their hypocrisy is that the capitalism being promoted by the corporatocracy is now supported by the public sector! It’s called Nanny Capitalism. When the biggies fail, Daddy government bails them out. This is not by accident but by oligarchic design.
Report thisBy Bird48, February 22, 2011 at 12:04 am Link to this comment
rico: Such vitriol is truly amazing. Not everyone who pays taxes is as angry and mean as yourself. As I know not a lot about you, you know absolutely nothing about me. I will not continue this discussion because you obviously have no idea what you are so angry about so you choose to attack.
Your taxes are paying for wars. Your taxes are also paying for interstate highways, and police, and snow removal and any other service you do not personally either hire out or build with your own two sweaty hands. It’s called a society we live in and until you realize we all must look out for (and pay for) each other you will be a creature unto yourself. Have fun with that and save all your angry energy for repaving that street you drive on to get to work.
Report thisBy MarthaA, February 21, 2011 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment
The Corporate Middle Class ‘New Class’ of the Democratic Party are the Nannies for the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States that have no representation in legislation of law and order, and will continue to be children as long as the MAJORITY Population want to believe they are the Middle Class, but when the 70% Majority Common Population, the American Populace, realize they are the MAJORITY POPULATION and need a new and equal political party to represent them as the Class and Culture of the 70% Majority Common Population equally with the 20% Minority Corporate Middle Class and Culture and the 10% Minority Corporate Elite Capitalist Class and Culture, and be about getting EQUAL representation for their 70% Majority Common Population as an EQUAL Class and Culture, there will be change we can believe in, but not until.
Report thisBy rico, suave, February 21, 2011 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment
Bird48:
Of course you wouldn’t mind using (my) tax dollars to pay for health care. It’s obvious you don’t pay taxes or else you’d be a little more circumspect about where your tax dollars go.
And who said anything about paying for wars? I’d like to see us out of Afghanistan tomorrow, and Iraq the next day- we could use the money to pay down the debt. Which says absolutely nothing about health care! And how do you know what MY priorities are? Can you show me in any post I’ve written?
I’m not selfish. I can pay for my own health care, thank you! You’re the selfish one, ya bastard, demanding that I pay for yours because you were too lazy or stupid to plan for a rainy day! I’m not demanding a fucking thing from you, other than you stay out of my wallet and generally leave me alone. You bitch about paying for bullets, well I bitch about paying for lazy asses like you. Before you come to me, ask your brother to pay, or your neighbor, or your cousin. If you’re truly alone in the world, I’ll be happy to help, but not before then.
Report thisBy Bird48, February 21, 2011 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment
rico: Do you mind paying for endless wars that kill uncounted numbers of innocent civilians? Personally I would not mind using those billions of tax dollars to pay for health care for everyone in this country—fat, thin, rich, poor and even selfish creatures such as you.
I guess it’s just a matter of different priorities and it is obvious yours are much more aligned with the ruling elite than are mine.
Report thisBy rico, suave, February 21, 2011 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment
Virginia:
If you weren’t covered by insurance, you might walk away about $1500 poorer, and hopefully, relieved by the results of the test.
I had a colonoscopy done a few years ago- I waited three days. Actually, the doctor waited three days for me to clear MY schedule, otherwise it would have been first thing in the morning. It cost me $100. What’s your point?
MY point is that I had insurance which “I” paid for. It cost you nothing for my colonoscopy. With Obamacare, I get to help pay for YOUR colonoscopy. Forgive me for being less than pleased by that fact.
Let’s say there are 10 million Italians over 55- the age at which colonoscopies are recommended. What would be the REAL cost of 10 million $50 colonoscopies? (Hint: It ain’t $50 per.) $12 billion dollars? Hell, that’s probably half the Italian defense budget! Where does that money come from- thin air? No. It comes from the Italian treasury.
And where does the treasury get ITS money? Lately its been from the EU. So I guess you could say that some poor (PRODUCTIVE!) schmuck in Germany is subsidizing your colonoscopy. How nice for you. Be sure to send him a thank you note.
And, are you suggesting that free health care will cure obesity? Can you provide any studies to back that up? Europeans generally are more svelt because of their CHOSEN diets, which, at last check, has NOT been dictated to them by their respect prime ministers’ wives! Americans are fat slobs because of TV and video games.
If Americans can’t afford health care, how do they pay for all those unnecessary medications you claim they are roped into buying?
Have you suggested to your mom that she step away from the cannolis? Maybe she could wean herself from the coumadin. After all, coumadin, in high enough concentrations is better known as rat poison, commercially known as Warfarin. Nice allusion-“Warfarin”.
Report thisBy Virginia, February 21, 2011 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This morning I had a colonoscopy at a major hospital
Report thishere in Rome (Italy) where I live. Yes, I had to wait
for 5 months for the appointment, which was only a
check-up, not an emergency, but with my doctor’s
order receipt I only paid euro 40 for the test (about
$50)!!! It would have a been a bit more if I had
needed a biopsy.
AMERICA WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!
What would the same test have cost me if I were not
covered by health care insurance in the United
States???? Several thousand $$$$$$$$???!!!! And the
biopsy test???!!! I probably could not afford a
colonoscopy in the United States of America!!!!!! Too
expensive!!!!
In Italy we have socialized medicine!!!
And the first thing that HITS me whenever I first get
off a plane in the United States after being away for
awhile is HOW FAT AND GROSSLY OBESE THE AMERICAN
POPULATION IS!!! YOUNG, OLD, BLACK, WHITE, HISPANIC,
MALE, FEMALE…..EVERYONE IS REALLY OVERWEIGHT!!!
And Americans are so easily put on medications!!!!
Doctors would rather put even children and young
people on drugs than tell them to exercise and lose
weight!!!!
I accompany my elderly mother to her coumadin checks
when I am back visiting in the States….what a
racket!!!! Literally a FLOOD of overweight Americans
going in to have their coumadin levels checked when
they should instead be on a diet and exercise program
to help their hearts!!!!
TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AMERICA!!!!!
By Bird48, February 21, 2011 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment
It seems to me that many of these “healthy” arguments really have little to do with health but rather a fear of the monetary cost of future health care. If this uncivilized country actually had socialized medicine for all the discussion could be an honest one about the actual “health” of the people rather than the health of the bottom line of corporations and insurance companies. Stop calling it health and start calling it what it really is—corporate profits.
Report thisBy rico, suave, February 21, 2011 at 10:03 am Link to this comment
It boils down to freedom to choose. If a person thinks smoking is more important than working for Company X, then he freely chooses not to work for Company X and goes to work for a company which doesn’t care if he smokes. If a person would rather not be forced to join the UAW, he is free not to take a job with Ford or GM but goes to work instead for a non-union company. On the other hand, if Obama says stop eating fat, or we will fine you, there is no cost free freedom to choose there.
Report thisBy DarthMiffy, February 21, 2011 at 3:30 am Link to this comment
I’m sorry that this article did not really address the problem of smoking. I’m
afraid I am on the side of the company hiring policies on this one.
Smokers…what other group gets to indulge their addiction at work and in the
office by having to duck outside every hour or so inhale the cancer cloud…and
then bring it back into the workplace on their clothes, hair, and stinking skin? A
smoker’s attention is divided, too, between work and the next cigarette. I’m
obviously not a smoker, but
I rather resent the unquestioned rights they have to not work as much as
nonsmokers. And, those health consequences are not fiction. Smokers are
sicker more often and then die of horrible expensive diseases that all health
insurance payers must kick in for. Boehener and his “choice” argument are
idiotic.
Other habits outside of work are not the business of the company but this
Report thissmoking thing is everyone’s business as it can’t be contained within the
smoker’s body and it continues throughout the work cycle. OK, that is my take
on it.
By Alan, February 20, 2011 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Of course Rupert-rhetoric advances the lie that
Report thisObama’s administration is a “nanny state”.
Ha! B.S.! Obama’s administration is not a nanny
state, it is a ninny state! O. genuflects daily
before his corporate massas.
It’s time for progressives to DO something.
Where the f. is our candidate for the Dem nomination
in 2012? Bernie, we asked you and you already said
“no”. Ralph is too old now, well I dunno who’s
older Ralph or Bernie…. let’s see…
type-typo-type-click-wikipedia…:
And the answer is: Bernie is only 69, Ralph is 76.
Bernie, are you sure you won’t run?
By Epiphany, February 20, 2011 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The irony in Mrs. Obama’s advocacy for good health (nutritious food and exercise) and championing of military families, while her husband, the President of the United States, is freezing federal employees’ wages, proposing a 50% cut in community block grants, has not extended unemployment benefits for the 99ers, is psychologically and economically stressing military families by sending fathers and mothers, sons and daughters off to fight this farce of a war in Afghanistan, done little to assist Americans facing foreclosure (due in large part to Wall Street avarice), but instead has extended tax cuts for the rich, and has continued to foster a D.C. revolving door environment between the White House, Wall Street, and Ivy League universities.
Yet, there is not a mention of any of this in your piece. Instead, you are defending her actions against the silly and misguided Tea Party as if the First Lady is some kind of victim and doesn’t have a team of employees to do her and the president’s bidding.
No offense Mr. Coleman, but give me a break! I’m too sick and tired of nonsense to be reading this “us against them”, “liberals vs. conservatives” b.s. The Tea Party is often misguided, but they are not the real enemy. The corporate elites who have financed the Tea Party and Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s residence in the White House are the real enemies here. It’s time to get real brother, and stop wasting people’s time with this gibberish.
Report thisBy question, February 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bravo, bravo, bravo to you & Buddha bless you & your family for generations! How can refusing employment to a qualified applicant who uses a legal product NOT be a violation of Civil Rights? Will they refuse drinkers, or folks who eat too many egg yolks? They already refuse people with “unacceptable” credit ratings & that is a completely subjective rating. More personality tests? All in the worship of “health care” companies who know what’s best for all & raise rates every other day. However the pharmaceuticals they shove down your throat have side-effects that won’t show up for years…how close are we exactly to the day when a caste system is A FACT in this country, defined by insurance companies? Some will be acceptable & employable & the rest of us will have to beg on street corners & sleep next to dumpsters?
Report thisBy voiceofreason, February 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment
There is no philosophical contradiction for the tea partiers. As George Orwell so
Report thissuccintly described: All animals are created equal but some animals are more
equal than other”. Read “people” and we all know that according to the Supreme
Court—corporations are people.
By samosamo, February 20, 2011 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment
****************
Case in point of how ignoring history will cause history to repeat
itself. Seems there was a little corporeal in germany who wanted
a master race, aryans. They were the ones whom, according to
Coleman, are in these days are to be winnowed out from riffraff
by being the best they can be for their masters in what orwell
called the ‘inner party and outer party’.
Adhering to all requirements, regulations and orders, these
newbies are given positions whom if are deemed as loyal, have
chances to move up, however slightly, to maintain a degree of
assured loyalty to the aristocracy. Thus the ‘u.s. of plutocracy’
will forever have a pool of lackeys to pull from for whatever
function is required or to replace one fallen from grace.
Individualism certainly isn’t a good attribute.
What else could such an activity of strict compliance to having
Report thisany and all personal habits, health, thoughts or just everything
an individual delves in be used for other than a ‘grade’ as to
‘who is in or who it out’.
By vote, February 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment
The people who follow Beck and Limbaugh do it as a sort of revenge against the big mean bullies. They are extremely jealous of people who are smart. They feel like they have been kicked around their whole life by everyone intellectually. They don’t even believe the things they cheer and root for. It’s not about that. It’s about “nyah-nyah I told you so”. It’s about “that’s what you are, but what am I”. If you don’t think so, try talking with them. They can’t lose a debate for the same reason a four year old can’t. They also can’t be swayed or won over with facts or reason. They can be manipulated very easily though, so the side with the low morals gets them. The side with the people who are willing to manipulate them regardless of their best interest. Anybody using science or intelligent debate loses them.
Report thisThat’s why they say “where’s Al Gore” every time it snows and seem to not see the climate changing. That’s why they are against Grassley’s health insurance bill and call it Obamacare. And that’s why they throw a fit every time Michelle Obama says anything about living reasonably but don’t notice their own boss is spying on them.
By vote, February 20, 2011 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
Who listens to Bachmann or Palin? The fringe right listens to white males only. Why is any space or time wasted by anybody over them? Their 15 minutes might end as soon as the left stops paying attention to them. I’ve seen Bachmann speaking on the floor via c-span a couple times and even the pro B.S.ers cringe when she speaks.
Report thisThe people who follow Beck and Limbaugh and the others do it as a sort of revenge against the big mean bullies. They are extremely jealous of people who are smart. They feel like they have been kicked around their whole life by everyone intellectually. They don’t even believe the things they cheer and root for. It’s not about that. It’s about “nyah-nyah I told you so”. It’s about “that’s what you are, but what am I”. If you don’t think so, try talking with them. They can’t lose a debate for the same reason a four year old can’t. They also can’t be swayed or won over with facts or reason. They can be manipulated very easily though, so the side with the low morals gets them. The side with the people who are willing to manipulate them regardless of their best interest. Anybody using science or intelligent debate loses them.
That’s why they say “where’s Al Gore every time it snows but don’t
By Inherit The Wind, February 20, 2011 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
Since the whole goal of the GOP is to create a modern feudal state, and since the era of the “Company Town” and “Company Store” collapsed they have tried to re-create it. Back then, they didn’t pay employees with money but with company scrip, and anyone trying to leave withoud be presented with a “bill” showing they owed more to the company than they earned. In fact it is EXACTLY the same technique used by pimps importing foreign women with promises of jobs who are then forced to work as prostitutes, with no hope of escape.
Long ago, Eugene O’Neil had a character that was trying to create a perfect circle so all the workers in his company would be locked into perpetual slavery.
And that’s the model for the GOP, all tied to the sacredness of contracts, without regard to the laws that are supposed to ensure that contracts are fair.
I swear, if someone wrote a Shylock contract that if you defaulted on your loan, your lender could cut cut out a pound of your fair flesh from any part of your body, the GOP would defend it (unless, of course, it was contract to perform an abortion)
Report thisBy Salome, February 20, 2011 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
How about this:
After the election of Barack Obama, our mostly minority staff was ecstatic, and eager to discuss politics.
Then from corporate headquarters came dire warnings about our “personal conversations”. Why?
Maybe because our mostly white, wealthy clientele doesn’t like overhearing positive talk about Barack Obama.
Report thisBy Anatole France, February 20, 2011 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The Right trumpets “We are a Republic, not a democracy”. They point out that
we are still a government of the people even though we don’t vote as
individuals on the issues but send other folks to represent us in Congress.
That idea was around when our Country was founded. Our government does
run as a representative democracy, not a town hall meeting. It’s a reasonable,
still controversial, discussion point.
That said, how in h*ll can the same Right push such manifestly ignorant
candidates (we all know who they are) to represent us? One would hope that
those representatives would be smart, well educated and capable of making
sound judgement-calls.
The dreaded “tyranny of the majority” is a real and present danger. Our
strength as a nation lies in our diversity.
The chosen few cannot be allowed to dictate to the rest of us. Our
representatives in Washington are constitutionally obligated to stand up for all
of us, not just the huge corporations and their own political base who
contribute to their re-election war-chests.
We voters have got to wake up and smell the coffee. If we don’t we’ll all be
Report thistaking a long dirt-nap after tossing a paper cupful of their lethal Kool Aid.
By Morpheus, February 19, 2011 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
This is silly talk. We can’t afford to be distracted.
“WAKE UP AMERICA!” - JOIN THE REVOLUTION
Report thisRead “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://www.revolution2.osixs.org )
We don’t have to live like this anymore. “Spread the News”
By prisnersdilema, February 19, 2011 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment
When two idiots fight each other, the endgame is a forgone conclusion.
It’s just a political show.
Why try to get families to eat healthier, when you allow the plutocracy to poison everything they eat with GMO’s, HFCS, GMO sugar beets, and now GMO alfalfa. Ojama appointee USDA head Tom Vilsack, has pushed GMO’s onto an unsuspecting public, but refuses to allow GMO food to be labled. Because no will eat it then.
Tom Vilsack is Monsanto’s best friend.
GMO’s and HFCS have been linked linked to skyrocketing rates of obesity.
What do you expect the corporations to do? Government has already been outsourced to them.
Since the ass kissing Dem’s won’t suport worker rights, what did you think would happen?
Report thisBy gerard, February 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment
International Political Idiocy Department Edicts on
Report thisC I V I L L I B E R T I E S
1. You can participate in your government but you must not try to control it by advocacy or demonstration.
2. You can drink all the government “kool aid” you want, but you must not drink too much alcohol.
3. You can smoke dope if you have enough money to buy club quality and you are white, but not if you rely on street quality, especially if you are black.
4. You cannot use marijuana but you can take any kind of poisonous pills and potions if they are made by Big Pharma and advertised on TV.
5. You have freedom of speech unless you speak against war or advocate nonviolence, esp. when talking to groups our the “terrorist” list.
6. You can eat bad fast food whenever you want but you can’t criticize Monsanto or Big Ag for using poisonous chemicals on crops.
7. You can’t inhale tobacco smoke but you can breath pulluted air from corporate smoke stacks.
8 You can believe all the lies told to you by the government and corporate advertisers on Fox and MSN, but you mustn’t believe in what your common sense tells you.
9. You can believe in any crazy Christian Fundamentalism you want, but you must understand that Muslim Fundametalism of “of the Devil” and so it’s okay to kill its adherents.
10. It is okay for corporate and Wall Street elites to steal billions of dollars but if you stick up a supermarket you will go to jail for years.
By berniem, February 19, 2011 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment
Only three groups insist on portraying Obama and his regime as socialist or advocating a “Nanny State”: 1) Plutocrats,oligarchs, and their political minions who will say anything necessary to keep or regain power. 2) Reactionary ideologues so far to the right as to be unmoved by any reality. 3) About 30-40% of the American population that is so ill-informed, undereducated, bigoted, gullible, and paranoid that they will fall for whatever crap spews from #s 1 & 2 above thru their favorite conduit of Faux News!
Report this