Good idea, bad idea

A lady came into the store I work at today wanting to put up a flyer in our window. As we're located downtown, this is a common occurrence. What wasn't common was the flyer she wanted to place.

She went on to explain to me an idea she had. She proposed tattooing the hands of people who abuse alcohol. The tattoo would be placed in a conspicuous location on the top of the hand between the thumb and forefinger. She explained to me how many people died due to drunk driving, how they amounted to more people per year than have died in the war in Iraq. Not to mention, she went on, the children and wives who are abused and the tax-money spent on jailing alcohol-related convicts. And yes, she just said "wives," as if she didn't realize women could be alcoholics as well as men (although there do tend to be more male alcoholics, I've found that some of this is due to a social double-standard, and that abusing alcohol is somehow more socially acceptable for men).

Now, I understand this theory. The tattoos would be given to repeat abusers, who would in turn be treated as though they were underage. There just seems to be, at lease to myself, several holes in this plan. Doesn't it seem a little too "prison-camp?" People wouldn't accept it on that basis alone. Not to mention the fact that some people simply can't be tattooed due to blood-clot issues, etc. This would be the modern equivalent of the Scarlett Letter. And one that can easily covered up with gloves or makeup. It could even be construed as cruel and unusual. I mean, a lot of people are multiple offenders when it comes to murder, rape, armed robbery and the like, but no one's proposing we brand them. Bottom line, there are much better ways to control repeat offenders of alcohol-related abuse. Laws in this regard are already being created and amended, including things like more stringent probationary periods of blood and urine testing, and things like breathalyzers being installed in cars that require clean breath before allowing the car to start.

My theory is that this lady has probably lost a loved one to a drunk driver, or something similar. And while I can sympathize, being a recovering alcoholic myself and knowing what we're capable of, I just don't think this can work. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that laws protecting people against repeat abusers need to be very strict, but some things can go overboard. I'd like to know what other people think, so please post a comment if you have an opinion.

Quote of the Day

I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
-T.S. Eliot

Perhaps the fear of death is part of the reason for this countries outlook on smokers. We recognize our own mortallity in the fatality of others. What do you think?

Taxation, Taxation

I'm getting tired of all this new tobacco legislation. Now, maybe I'm biased because I'm a smoker myself, but I feel like we're becoming second-class citizens. Yes, the smoking ban fad has finally crept it's way into good old Appleton, Wisconsin. Can't smoke in bars or restaurants. The only public places you can smoke are tobacco outlets. I happen to be employed in one, but we are mainly a bookstore and company policy doesn't allow smoking in-store. At any rate, the ban is hurting downtown businesses. Bar-hoppers are going out-of-town to frequent smoker-friendly establishments.

Here's one bit of hope: Governer Jim Doyle is proposing a statewide smoking ban. While I still think this is overzealous and an infringement on our rights to use a legal product, it will standardize things and keep people from leaving town to hit the bars.

Now, allow me to rant a bit. Now, I understand that tobacco use is one of the leading "causes of preventable death" in the US. While this study may be flawed (compare to Overall causes of death) seen as how cancer (all forms of cancer) is second from the top, and respiratory illness (again, all forms, tobacco related or not) is a fractional 4th place. How the total number of "tobacco" deaths was figured in 2000 remains a mystery. At any rate, tobacco is a LEGAL product, and no matter which way you slice it, it remains a personal choice whether or not to smoke. If you know the dangers, (and how could you not) and still choose to smoke, that is your right. Or rather, was your right, now that many of us can't smoke in places where smoking was formerly part of the territory.

Most smokers, at least of the ones I know, are considerate and polite. We don't go around blowing smoke into people's faces. In fact, if I'm smoking on the street (which is the only option in Appleton) and someone walks by, I stand away and don't even hit my cigarette around them. If someone is bothered by smoke and I'm inside somewhere where I can smoke, I go outside anyway. I can totally understand smoking prevention campaigns and the like, but this legislation banning smoking is a victimization of a large number of the population, which is around 23%. What comes next? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America, but we wouldn't try and stop people from eating fast food in public, would we? The concept is ridiculous.

Okay, enough raving for today. Late.

Gotta Love It

Ok, so it's been awhile since my last post... Sorry 'bout that.

GO DEMOCRATS!!! I prayed this day would come, the demos finally getting some vestige of control. Wow.

Anyway... Still a little PO'ed because my local smoking ban was in referendum to allow exemptions for standalone bars and some hotels, and it got shut down. People, people, people. This is America. You go on and on about equality and freedom. There's a new kind of ism these days. It's called anti-smokerism. Sad. Oh yeah, and the gay-marriage ban passed as well, not to give that the slight. So now marriage in Wisconsin is defined as a union between one man and one woman, and no similar status can be created allowing a union between a same sex couple.

What happened to progress in this country? It's like people looked around, saw that stuff was changing, and totally freaked. They didn't even bother to stop and notice the good changes. They just wanted it to stop. So now, here we are, stuck in reverse. It's pitiful, truly.

I'll be making my next post soon, I hope, about a book I've been reading. It's called Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush and it outlines 3 charges against good old George, and why he should be impeached. Brilliant. It's so sad to live in what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world, with a leader that is a total joke. It's true. We've been unable to keep the "George Bush: Out of Office Countdown" calendar in stock at the bookstore where I work.

Ok, ok... Enough rambling for one day.

George, George, George

George was quoted on the cover of the New York Times today (Wednesday, September 20, 2006 issue,) saying, "The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons."

No, this wasn't a confession, folks. Actually, he was talking to the Iranian people at the United Nations yesterday. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad later accused George, and the US, of hypocrisy. He was also quoted as saying, "Excellencies, the question needs to be asked, if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the U.N. can take them to account?".

Who will hold this country accountable if, say, we were to go against the Geneva Convention? If we decided it's OK to hold prisoners, indefinetely, without trial? And by the way, how is it possible that the President of this country, the Land Of The Free, think that it's in any way alright to do this? A nation founded in the name of freedom, holding prisoners without trial, without bail, without hope of release. Sounds ridiculous, right?

Reading this passage at work today, I was reminded of a passage from the Declaration of Independence.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

For the full article concerning George and President Ahmadinejad at the UN, click the title header of this post.

Upcoming Posts

Here's a few posts that I plan to put up sometime soon. If there's a specific topic anyone's interested in, I'd be glad to let y'all know my thoughts...

1. Why Wal-Mart is Evil
2. Why George is a Liar
3. Why George Knows He's a Liar
4. Roadside Attraction Distraction: The House On The Rock
5. The Ann Coulter Phenomenon AND What Is Wrong With This Woman?!?
6. How Both Bushes Screwed Iraq Over
7. Why Saddam And al-Qaeda Don't Mix And Never Did
8. Why I Love America
9. But Also Think Some Things Should Change

So, there's a tentative list of some stuff that's been brewing. I'd love to hear from some people, so please comment or email.

Conflicts of Interest

Ok, so if you're, say, a divorce lawyer, you can't represent the husband if you already have a relationship with the wife. It's a conflict of interest. If you're a Psychologist you can't date a patient. Same deal. For the most part, you wouldn't be breaking any laws, but it's just unfair business practice and ethics.

So, if you're, oh I don't know... The vice president, and you need to allocate work contracts to, say, help rebuild a post-war Iraq, you shouldn't give those contracts to a company you formerly chaired. Or should you?

So why did Haliburton recieve hundreds of millions of dollars in a no-bid contract to "help" rebuild Iraq? Ask Dick.

Losing The Human Touch

I recently read in "The World is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman, about an experimental practice at a few McDonald's franchises in Missouri. A few stores have begun outsourcing their orders to Colorado Springs, over 900 miles away.

Imagine, you drive up, place an order at the intercom, and pull forward, expecting to see the person who was taking your order via the intercom. Instead, your order was taken in another state altogether, and sent to the store through high-speed data lines.

Does anyone in this country still care about people??? Or is it all about money? Places like McDonald's obviously employ people in the lower income brackets, and now we have stores that are firing workers in favor of the cheaper approach. The scary thing is, if McDonald's were to adopt this practice, it would only be so long before the other fast food companies followed suit. Great. Another big chunk of jobs lost in a country where our president has yet to create one single net job. Scary.