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. | 
Neal Boortz's Latest Tweets
.
Portions of Content Provided by Rovi
Corporation. © 2012 Rovi Corporation