A double standard at work here?

You would have to be dead to have not seen, heard or read stories about teachers having sex, and in some cases babies, with their students. What surprises me is that there is not more talk about the alleged double standard that seems to be at work in these cases. As you can read from the story at the link below, a female teacher at a Tennessee school had sex with a 13 year old boy and was sentenced to nine months in jail, several years probation, being listed as a sex offender and losing her teaching license. Does anyone think that if roles were reversed and you had a male teacher having sex with a 13 year old girl that the sentence would even be close to this? It would probably be much more severe. I wonder why that is?

Granted, as I recall from being around that age, you at least once or twice wondered what it would be like with a cute teacher. No, relax purtians, I didn't say I approved of that, but most guys fantasized about getting it on with at least one of their teachers (or at least a teacher at their school) whether they admit it or not. Trust me, they did have such a crush at one time. So why the double standard in sentencing for such a crime? And a couple of the female teachers that have done this were not exactly ugly either. Obviously they did have a problem if they would do this, I am not suggesting that, but why should they get a slap on the wrist while a male teacher in that situation would likely get 10 years or more for the exact same crime?

Here is the article if you want to check it out, its from AP via Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/ap_on_re_us/teacher_sex_charge;_ylt=AqazCNedFeYpTGVyzAFtI4tvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Is Walmart getting a bum rap?

These days everyone seems to be picking on Walmart. Not to say they may not deserve some of it for past actions, but some of the things going on today do seem like Walmart is being held to a different standard than some of its competitors. For example, Walmart has been crucified in the media for not offering affordable health insurance to its workers, many of whom then end up on public assistance. Numerous states have introduced, or threatened to introduce, legislation requiring them to provide better health care coverage. What is wrong with that you ask? Well, in some cases the law is so narrowly written, it would apply to walmart but exempt most other companies in a similiar situation. One state set the threshold high enough (regarding the total number of employees in that state employed by a given company) so that only one company would be affected. Which company is that? You guessed it, Walmart.

Don't get me wrong, I do think people working full time should be able to afford health care for themselves and their families, and especially with retailers, hourly employees wages are not that high (part of why prices are low). But I think its wrong for only one company to have to pay by the rules. Does anyone really believe that similiar workers at Target, Kmart or Sears would be that much better off? In a word, NO! Having worked for Walmart some years ago, I would be the first to say they don't always treat people the best, but that was a decade ago and since I only worked in one store I can't exactly say that is scientific evidence. Having also worked for Target, I can stay that they treat people better in some ways (but certainly not in this area) but not in others. Someone working at Target close to full time hours but not a supervisor is going to also have limited benefits, just like someone working at Walmart. The truth with most retailers (Costco being an exception in some ways) is that supervisors and above are considered full time, and the rest of the employees (even those averaging 40 hours a week or close to it) are considered part time and get little or no health benefits.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if these groups attacking walmart are really concerned about workers, they should be concerned about those at every company, not just Walmart. Considering that many of these efforts are union sponsored and organinzed, I would take what they say with not a grain of salt, but with a salt shaker of salt. Name one major retailer today with a union work force that is growing, that would be hard to find. I also don't feel that its fair for the government to legislate mimimum benefits for one industry or company but not others. You either do it to everyone or you don't do it, at least make it far.

Companies such as Walmart could pay more in benefits, but if they do, guess how picks up the tab for that? You guessed it, the consumer. I personally think benefits should be higher, but that does impact prices as well, and the health care system is part of them problem. But to try and force just Walmart to a higher standard does not really seem far to me, it should be a level playing field, should it not?

Maybe its time the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers Union) realizes it might have more success if it told the truth in trying to recruit Walmart workers to join its union. There have been a number of recent campaigns by the UFCW and others that, to put it mildly, were not exactly truthful, like the recent one showing that over 90% of Walmart's merchandise was imported, even though the ad showed a supercenter (they have food there, much of which is not imported, thereby making the 90% claim seem dubious). As if their competitors are going to not be in the same boat (every major retail chain imports tons of merchandise each year- literally) so if the UFCW going to boycott them all? Maybe the UFCW should instead talk about how the union staffed retailers have fared lately instead?

I guess the saying holds true, if you are king of the mountain, everyone will try and knock you off. In Walmart's case they certainly deserve at least some of what they are getting but they are trying to change their approach to seem more friendly and they also are fighting lawsuits harder to make sure they are not seen as an easy target.

Here is the article, from the Tenessean.com, if you want to read it:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/BUSINESS01/508030444/1003

I get the creeps just thinking about this

Picture this, you go in to the hospital for surgery, they fix you up and you go home. A few weeks later you are told that the instruments used by the medical staff during your surgery were sterilized in hydraulic fluid instead of soap. Apparently it happened when workers working on elevators at least two North Carolina hospitals drained old hydraulic fluid into empty soap containers, then the containers were somehow sent back to the soap distributor, who then sent them back to the hospital as new soap. That is just mind boggling that this even happened, you would think someone along the way would have noticed something was wrong. Some workers apparently complained of slippery instruments, but I am sure they would never have guessed that it was hydraulic fluid instead of soap that made them slippery.

Apparently something like this has never happened before, so no one truly knows if the affected patients will suffer any long term effects from this or not. I would bet that many of them will suffer mentally just from the uncertainty over whether they will recover or not. I am sure many lawsuits will be forthcoming over this, there were probably lawyers on their way there as soon as the story broke.

Hopefully the patients will all be okay, but I would be worried too if I was one of those people.

Here is the story if you want to read it, from AP via Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/ap_on_he_me/dirty_surgical_instruments;_ylt=AvX8PbJleOG5zDX1xQXRts2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Denver bans pit bulls, does that make sense?

Denver has joined a growing list of cities to ban pit bulls and other breeds considered dangerous to humans. Some people think all pit bulls are dangerous and other content that the dogs are not the problem, but that the people that train them to fight are to blame. With pit bulls, since they have extremely powerful jaws and when they do attack people (or even other animals) they can maim or even kill very quickly. These attacks often make the news, perhaps convincing people that the dogs are more dangerous than they really are. Any dog abused and raised to fight is a risk to the rest of society, so such a ban seems like it will not really solve the problem.

I think what would make far more sense is to make much higher civil and criminal penalties for raising such dogs to fight and also for fighting them. Otherwise, such bans will not really do that much good, since the people that are the problem are not going to care if they break such a ban and raise dogs to fight. If a few people are caught doing that and as a result spend 10 years in prison, then others may decide not to try it.

Here is the story from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pitbulls2aug02,0,7050662.story?coll=la-home-nation

Another major flaw exposed in the justice system

Here is another example of our sometimes screwed up judicial system being off its rocker. A guy by the name of Mitchell Johnson, has been released from jail after serving seven years for murdering five people and injuring another fifteen in a shooting rampage at a school in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Johnson and another person planned the shooting, pulling a fire alarm at the school and then gunning students and teachers down as they exited the building. Unfortunately, Arkansas law at that time only allowed someone his age (13 at the time) to be tried as a juvenile and would only allow them to be incarcerated until they turned 21. Well good ol Mitch turned 21 and he is out. They really good part? Legally he can even buy a gun (thank you NRA, he certainly deserves that right!) now. The law has since been changed, but that won't help put Mitch back behind bars.

On top of that, a criminal justice "expert" thinks he has served long enough to rehabilitate himself. What the hell? Five dead and fifteen wounded, and seven years is enough? I could give a crap if ol Mitch gets rehabilitated, his criminal ass should rot in prison or better yet give him the needle. If our "experts" on the justice system think that, maybe we need new experts.

You can read the story from msnbc.com at the link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8917466/

Say what?

I found this kind of puzzling, an article in the LA Times describing how the insurance commissioner for the state of California criticizes health care savings plans and some insurance plans. He even apparently called such savings accounts as part of the problem with rising health care costs. I, for one, am puzzled on exactly how health care spending accounts would make health care more expensive. For those of you not familiar with such plans (I have been a participant of one for the past year and a half), in a typical health care savings account it works like this: A certain amount or percentage of each paycheck is witheld by your employer to be put in a health care savings account, the money is often deducted pre-tax (reducing your taxes a tiny bit) and then you submit a receipt for health care costs incurred and you are reimbursed from that account up to what you contributed for that year. Even things like OTC medicine are covered in such an account. Such an account may make it possible to pick an insurance plan with a higher deductible (with lower premiums) since you can set your annual contributions to your health care plan equal to or close to your deductible. Many plans include a co-pay for office visits, so the higher deductible does not always apply anyway, in those cases the deductible may only apply for more expensive treatments.

As far as I can tell, the only drawback of a health care spending account is that if you have no eligible health care expenses to be reimbursed for, you lose the money at the end of the plan year. But most people are going to go to the dentist at least twice a year, and to the doctor at least a couple of times a year, as well as buying things like Tylenol, Advil or cold medicine. All of those are eligible for reimbursement from a health care savings account.

You can read the article at the link below, but its kind of scary that the insurance commissioner of a state with rapidly rising health care costs takes such a view of a plan that can reduce health care costs.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure3aug03,0,4020693.story?coll=la-home-business