Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit wrote:

---

 SHE might be working in electronics! lol. then you get to ask for help and maybe some home instructions on whatever device youve purchased. oh wait those are over in health and beauty arent they?

---

wait....they sell those at target????  how come i didnt know this....??? 


ok, just added another stop on my list today.....

BoxDog wrote:

---

Oh my. I think you just described "lights out" in the most dreadful dykers bar imagineable. I mean, when I think back to the day that bars in general, sexual roles, lights out, and really just how good everyone looked at 3 a.m. Yep, the analogy seems to fit. I'll cruise the Target or Ross over that any day of the week. And for the record, I know exactly where my long lost bottom is. .

Psych Lit wrote:
ya know?  hee hee. i was in target yesterday. i saw only one hot babe. she was shopping for her gf. well thats the story i made up in my head about her cause she was in the fancy bath section and she didnt look like she belonged there.  ya never know tho she mighta been looking for the epson salts.

---

Romantic me (yep, there is one) thinks maybe she was waiting for a "real" fancy bath section babe to come along and save her. Yeah, this I know a little about. I have wayyyyyyyyy more bed-in-a-bags than one woman could ever use. The fiction book and cleaning product sections are winners. Dog and cat food aisles are "go-to" places or deal breakers. Avoid: electronics, UNLESS, she appears . Then be neighborly and help her out like mad crazy. 

Btw, just how many Target "hot babes" were you hoping for? "saw only one" she says.....

I went to Best Buy and Office Depot with absolutely no expectation of running into "hot" or cold babe. I wasn't disappointed at all.

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

...oh hell yeah. and all of those other dogs! why do dogs smell each others butts to get to know one another? evolutinarily speaking i mean.

---

Well, legend has it (and this isn't my story, it's legend, in which I had no part creating) that once upon a time, many many years ago, before you were even a gleam in your Daddy's eye, there was a great big dog party, which all the dogs in the world attended.

When they arrived at the party, they were invited to hang their butts on hooks by the door, (apparently it was the "civil" thing, back then, in the dog community) which they did without comment, or misgiving.
 
The party was going along SPLENDIDLY, when suddenly a raging fire broke out. The dogs all fled, terrified, (except, perhaps, the dalmations, who remained to extinguish the fire, but this is merely speculation on my part) grabbing, as they passed through the door, whichever bottom was hanging closest, and in reach. All dogs escaped, fortunately, unharmed, and about that there remains great jublilation, but what is often forgotten is that the dogs were forever condemned, from that day onward, to wandering the earth, looking for their own long-lost bottoms, that another dog might be wearing.

Kinda breaks your heart, doesn't it?




-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 13:26, 2008-12-06

---

Oh my. I think you just described "lights out" in the most dreadful dykers bar imagineable. I mean, when I think back to the day that bars in general, sexual roles, lights out, and really just how good everyone looked at 3 a.m. Yep, the analogy seems to fit. I'll cruise the Target or Ross over that any day of the week. And for the record, I know exactly where my long lost bottom is. . 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

---

First, it got me out of the house. Because the act of photo taking is so all-consuming for me, when I'm doing it, even the extreme heat didn't phase me -- I was basically unaware of it, when in that mindset. And too, it did get me walking more. Now, with the dog, I've increased that somewhat. The injury to the knee was a real set-back, but just in the last two days, that seems to have taken a turn, and now, I again believe that it will actually heal

yay!

 Then, about two days ago, "poof!" Seemingly overnight, something changed, and it didn't hurt so much that day. Yesterday, I forgot completely that I'd even had a problem with it! I don't have a clue how these things work -- how I could be in agony of about the same intensity for close to two months, and then, walk with a cane for a couple of days, being protective of the knee, and have it just do so quick a mend, but that seems to be what's happened, and I'm beyond grateful for the change.

maybe you had some tendonitis as a result of the fall. thats hard to clear up in the legs because ya gotta get up and use them everyday. sets up a really painful pattern you injure it and then rest them and they start to heal then you walk on them and undo all the healing and on and on. maybe the cane was enough to let up some pressure on the knee and allow it to heal? 


 I really was wondering how I was going to care for Mom and the dog if I couldn't walk... was looking grim. Now, I'm contemplating resuming the walks with the dog, and happily, since he's calmed down so, and I discovered "Gentle Leader" the miraculous harness/collar which allows me to control him, and not be afraid of being yanked off my feet again. BTW: I could do an infomercial for that product. Astounding, truly, and he only took like one day before he "likes" wearing it. Now, I hold the harness part that goes over his nose up, and he gleefully dives right in -- sometimes, before I'm ready for him, even. He's also gotten much better about riding in the car, and hasn't broken the invisible barrier between the "way back," the back seat and the front seat once in literally weeks. That started before he was neutered, but is even better now.

yay buckie!


 
One of the things that went through my mind when I considered neutering him was the sign at the dog park I found, which said all dogs must be spayed or neutered before entry. In other words, he can't go there unless he's "fixed." Now, he's "fixed" and microchipped, and we're just waiting for the tags to arrive in the mail, and he'll be "park legal" and I can take him over there, and let him just run full tilt, which I'm really looking forward to. He runs circles in the back yard, like a barrel-racing dog, but he's so big, you can see he's holding back. I imagine his first trip to the park will be utter bliss. :)

oh hell yeah. and all of those other dogs! why do dogs smell each others butts to get to know one another? evolutinarily speaking i mean. what do they learn from that? i mean step back for a moment and think about that! youre walking in the dog park with buckie and a cute woman and her dog approach. the dogs get right down to biz smelling each other while the humans look away and pretend their dog isnt sniffing another dogs butt!
but while they are busy doing this its a great chance to chat up the owner. lol.

" And he WANTS to be socialized! He's SO PROUD that he's learned to fetch a ball! He now goes bounding after it, grabs it in his mouth, and absolutely preens with pride at his accomplishment to the extent that it's comedic. :)

aww go buckie!

I am, for the first time since he's come into this house, hopeful that I can actually have this dog "work." I mean -- that it can be a successful partnership. I wasn't at all convinced, really, before his neutering. Frankly, that 56 pounds of sheer muscle frightened me, having done battle with it, and come up short and injured. Now, really, all that remains, is breaking him from that gnawing thing he was encouraged to do in a previous life. When he gets happily excited, he still forgets that the default end of the run does NOT involve chomping on to my ankles. That, and the wrists, when he's lying on his back, and I'm petting him. "No!" just doesn't yet seem to phase him insofar as those two things, but perhaps with time ...

<crossing fingers>

 

shes melting:) its all good. lil love bites. lol

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

.

And see, Psych, you mentioned losing 40 lbs. I've ALWAYS envisioned you as thin, and that thought jumped out at me too. How on earth can anyone who eats as well, and exercises as much as you, even FIND 40 lbs to lose??

easy! hey,ive been whining about that 30 extra for 5 years now at least! lol only in the past two years or so its gotten a bit worse.

 

i can even find another 10-15 if i wanna maybe even 20 but i dont wanna go overboard.  in a word perimenopause. and hell no, i am not thin, in the best of times think amazon or peasant stock:)  i started having weight issues when i hit 40. before that i was underweight and then immediately after 40 it was under control for the years i was in grad school because parking in the city was hard so i walked everywhere or took a bus and then walked and all of the walking uphill in the near midwest burns those calories like nuthin else.

but when i finished school and started working 3 sitdown jobs at a time coinciding with perimenopausal crud i started gaining. add to that eating dinner at 11pm, or the 3am hormonally based chocolate or salt runs, 5 hour nights of sleep and the glass or two of wine which metabolizes right to the gut in perimenopausal women.

for the most part, youre right,  i do eat very healthy foods but health requires more than that. it requires knowing how our bodies change as we age and the ways we have to rethink our diet. whats healthy and balanced for a 30 year old isnt necessarily what is good for a 50 year old. same with activity.  i was a jock most of my life yanno? i played softball and basketball all thru high school and college, swam 3 times a week for most of my life but when you work 70-90 hours a week its hard to find the energy to do this during the work week so you   become the weekend warrior person who sits all week and then goes out and blows out the tendons on the weekend:)


in the past few years as i edged closer to 50 it became quite a battle. im very tall so in the past any weight i gained would sort of go all over and id have to gain 20 lbs before anyone would notice the gain but anything i gain now goes right to the mid section rather than all over and that throws my whole center of gravity off not to mention the possible health risks of that pattern.  so even tho i am prolly more active than most people that activity was confined mostly to the weekends. another thing thats been important is having a schedule for meals. as we hit menopause (and this is key here) womens bodies do glucose differently. so it becomes important to keep your blood sugar levels stable so that we dont hit the snack machine at 4 because the blood sugar is low..and to keep the stress levels low. stress hormones are one of the things that contribute to this glucose sensitivity and also to inflammation which is prolly the leading cause of deadly illness in humans.  in the past few years ive done a lot of the eat and run thing. i might have a healthy salad for lunch but a ho ho for breakfast or a candy bar in the afternoon or nothing all day and then a large dinner and two glasses of wine at midnight and lots of dinners and lunches out. but  my achingly slow recovery from my illness this year was the kick in the pants i needed. so ive spent the time since my illness  working with a physical therapist, a personal trainer and a nutritionist and ive managed to get most of the weight off again tho i know that i have to be vigilant or ill quickly gain it right back plus  some.

what i learned from this is that for me to be healthy i have to have a saner more orderly life, eat at regular scheduled times small meals 5 or 6 times a day. ive got to keep stressors at bay and ive got to spend at least 2 hours a day with exercise whether its walking or pilates or swimming or lifting weights and most important thing other than the glucose sensitivity is that i have to sleep at least 8 hours a day. if i have a bad sleep week i gain a lb or so back. ive had to learn which things my bod can no longer tolerate like sugar or wine or processed stuff. so i stick to a modified low carb eating plan. i can eat some complex carbs like whole grains or beans but not the sugary junk food stuff. i also follow as closely as i can an anti inflammatory diet. the other lifestyle changes ive made have been to cut way back on work, i do at least 2 half hours walks a day, i alternate the weight room with the pool and do 20 min of yoga/pilates for flexibility every morning when i get up and every evening when i get ready for bed. and its working. i feel a lot better and really feel like by understanding what my body can and cannot tolerate that im controlling my body for the first time in 2 or 3 years rather than it controlling me. and speaking of sleep im overdue!

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

my most mismatched job ever was prolly the three or so years i spent at a second job as the bartender at a biker bar.

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

                                     

---

Relax, someone pours the beer, someone serves it up and someone starts shooting. No biggie. Just good clean fun.  I have to say though, three years at a mismatched job feels like "dog years".   

---

Well, it's just that ... I'd never imagined, and have trouble envisioning, Psych working in a biker bar. :)  

---

well, getcher motor runnin'.....psychs got a wild side. I just wonder if it was before, after, or because of, that F.A. stint.

---

that....

BoxDog wrote:

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

my most mismatched job ever was prolly the three or so years i spent at a second job as the bartender at a biker bar.

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

                                     

---

Relax, someone pours the beer, someone serves it up and someone starts shooting. No biggie. Just good clean fun.  I have to say though, three years at a mismatched job feels like "dog years".   

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

my most mismatched job ever was prolly the three or so years i spent at a second job as the bartender at a biker bar.

---

Me:

---

For years the American Cancer Society and the Lung Association has made that a rule. If someone is offered and accepts a position with this type of stipulation then how could anyone find it unreasonable to comply?


Psych Lit wrote:
im giggling thinking about the masochism that must be involved in a smoker setting out to work for the american lung association. no pressure there!

---

Giggle all you want. It was around 1986 and I didn't get the job. Or the one at Catholic Charities. Though I was a great candidate for both positions, well, not such a good fit for their corporate visions. So I ended up at a mega HMO where they didn't care about anything but making money. As a matter of fact, we were still allowed back then to SMOKE in the building, as long as we had our own offices. It was beginning to fall apart then, the indoor smoking thing. But, nana na nana. Giggle.   

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Where it gets tricky for me, is when the feds get involved, by way of funding. It then sort of becomes a chicken or the egg conundrum for me.


I don't like the "loyalty oath" I had to sign when I was employed by a school district, and balked for a couple of days before lending my signature to that piece of paper.

"Teachers" aren't supposed to be "political." My Mom, when she was teaching always made a point to not live in the town where she taught. I do worry/wonder about the creeping invasion of private business into our personal lives. Years ago I worked a NIKE show, and the rule was "no smokers." That meant on or off their clock. One woman I was working with went home for lunch -- left the premisis, went to HER home, and had a cigarette. Upon her return, some ciggie-Nark smelled it on her breath, and she was fired on the spot. One wonders if they'd not smelled it (I can see a case being made for the "remnants" of smoking being carried into the workplace, and altering it in a way opposed to policy) but they'd just been told she'd done that, if it would have been a "just" policy. Someone a moot pondering, since of course private business has the "right" to fire you if they don't like the color of your hair or shoes.

And maybe that's the way it should be. I don't like the notion of the federal government getting all up in places it's not "needed." This would apply to things like recreational use of marijuana, as well. Yeah, absolutely make and enforce laws which prohibit driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana, but for pity sake, leave the good citizen who's sitting at home, practicing his sax, and decides to inhale a hit alone.

---

For years the American Cancer Society and the Lung Association has made that a rule. If someone is offered and accepts a position with this type of stipulation then how could anyone find it unreasonable to comply? Especially someone working in a field dedicated to the education, cure and treatment of cancer. To me it's a no-brainer that these types of organizations employ persons with similar health focuses. Twittering around with known carcinogens is not the example that will likely land a grant that may lead to the prevention or cure of disease. It's really not asking too much to expect employees that sign a loyalty agreement actually practice it. There's no question in a "non compete" agreement, why then in this scenario?  Now, Nike is not the ACS or ALA, but doesn't their notion of health fit into this box nicely?

---

So it would apply across the board?

If they said one couldn't, in the privacy of their own home and off the clock,have an adult beverage, that would be nothing to lift an eyebrow over? How about a Big Mac? Bacon, anyone? I'll bet Big Macs and Bacon kill more Americans than cigarettes. Seriously.

Not speaking legalese, but just "fairness" is it OK to weigh in employees every morning, and if they're five pounds overweight, according to their guidelines, give them the boot? (Ask me about my former agent.... no, don't.)

Elective surgery is a big risk to one's health. Are we OK with a business firing someone if they have a nose job?

I guess my sticking point is how much does my place of employ own me when I'm off the clock? Yes, of course, if you don't like the rules, you don't have to work for them. That's simple, and understood. I just ... it just seems to me that at every turn, we're losing more and more of our privacy. OK ... time to quit here, and get ready for my night shift at Hooters.... 


 

---

Unfortunately here's where my black and white becomes transparent. Yes, to me it's across the board. Or, it at least needs to be. But for the reason that we DON'T want the government ruling on Big Macs and end of life issues, do we? So, we establish local rules and laws and stick to them. It's not likely we'll ever see "fairness". That said, we have laws, and we need to abide by them or seek changing them. The "go-around" to the Big Mac dilemma and other bad health behavior is something that most of America doesn't really think about when discussing mandated healthcare. And that's self insurance. Once that comes to fruition a self insured policy is then company driven as to which benefits they will make available to their employees. Sadly, some of the first to go will be related to generally accepted standards of "bad" behaviors. HBP, drug, alcohol and mental health benefits will surely be lumped together and lost forever. Home Health Care, morbid obesity, certain meds and we will most definitely see a change to maternity coverage. I had a friend that had no maternity benefit at the office she managed. . One would think the docs at the practice would at least become the provider,but nope. No coverage. Zip. And really, why should a company, small or large choose pay for a lifestyle "benefit"? The list of benefits the general public will LOSE in gaining universal healthcare will far outweigh the gains to the public and overall well being of its citizens. I think the Feds should stay out of the insurance industry or just start preparing the "bailout" plan now.

Now, about Hooters...

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

"Teachers" aren't supposed to be "political."

not overtly so, i suppose id expect the same kind of behavior that id expect from a journalist. the presentation of ideas without editorializing and allowing the class to discuss those ideas and come up with reasons to support or refuse those ideas seems like a good thing to me.

 , and the rule was "no smokers." That meant on or off their clock. One woman I was working with went home for lunch -- left the premisis, went to HER home, and had a cigarette. Upon her return, some ciggie-Nark smelled it on her breath, and she was fired on the spot. One wonders if they'd not smelled it (I can see a case being made for the "remnants" of smoking being carried into the workplace, and altering it in a way opposed to policy) but they'd just been told she'd done that, if it would have been a "just" policy.

had it been speculated theyd prolly make her submit to a blood test or something. eww. their justification other than they sell products that are designed for health (we wont consider the sweat shop child labor thing as unhealthy tho. lol) would be productivity and insurance costs both of which are higher with smokers.  given the cost of health care these days and the increasing cost of insuring employees while trying to stay competitive with companies who dont provide health care, its a wonder that more companies dont do this. this is another reason for universal health care i suppose. i read recently that some company was weighing their employees and charging them more for health care if they were above the average weight justifying it by saying that this is how car insurance is priced. the riskier the driver the more costly the insurance. the thing is the more people you insure the lower the overall cost is because the risk is spread all around. if we get to a system where people who are healthy and have healthy lifestyles like our hitler feller there can band together and pay less then the rest of the people would
be priced out of health insurance completely and that scenario puts everyone at risk. people who do not have access to doctors when they are sick get the rest of us sick not to mention the canary in the mines scenario where an epidemic or pandemic might take root and it might be weeks before someone realized it if people suffered alone in their homes, or worse showed up for their shift at burger doodle. 

---

For years the American Cancer Society and the Lung Association has made that a rule. If someone is offered and accepts a position with this type of stipulation then how could anyone find it unreasonable to comply?

im giggling thinking about the masochism that must be involved in a smoker setting out to work for the american lung association. no pressure there!

 Especially someone working in a field dedicated to the education, cure and treatment of cancer. To me it's a no-brainer that these types of organizations employ persons with similar health focuses. Twittering around with known carcinogens is not the example that will likely land a grant that may lead to the prevention or cure of disease. It's really not asking too much to expect employees that sign a loyalty agreement actually practice it. There's no question in a "non compete" agreement, why then in this scenario? Now, Nike is not the ACS or ALA, but doesn't their notion of health fit into this box nicely?

it does. i wonder if their policy is limited to smoking or does it cover a wide range of bad health habits?

---

So it would apply across the board?


Not speaking legalese, but just "fairness" is it OK to weigh in employees every morning, and if they're five pounds overweight, according to their guidelines, give them the boot? (Ask me about my former agent.... no, don't.)

Elective surgery is a big risk to one's health. Are we OK with a business firing someone if they have a nose job?

or firing them if they have cancer or become seriously ill for any reason?

I guess my sticking point is how much does my place of employ own me when I'm off the clock? Yes, of course, if you don't like the rules, you don't have to work for them. That's simple, and understood. I just ... it just seems to me that at every turn, we're losing more and more of our privacy. Cameras are snapping our photos seemingly every five seconds, whether we're walking into a store, or driving on the freeway. Wiretaps have, under the sham guise of "Homeland Security" become legal, and our government is employing citizen workers to do their dirty work. GWB even wanted access to library records of what books we checked out, and would have had it, if the American association of librarians hadn't taken them to court over it. So? Yeah, I guess I give into these "givens" a little bit begrudgingly, and dragging my feet. I don't know where it ends, really, but it does seem frightenly close to Orwell's "Big Brother" watching from the camera in the ceiling at times, and GWB running his "Ministry of Truth."

you notice how he and cheney and the boys exempted themselves from this? executive priv?  i think these are things that we have to fight really hard for. once they are gone, they are gone forever.
mass just passed really strict rules regarding companies doing business in the state who have access to personal info. it now has to be encrypted and safeguards have been put on how that info might be given out. this includes phone companies, credit card companies, hospitals to name just a few. people who have had their personal info passed out or accessed illegally can now go to the states AG and they will prosecute the offenders. hooray for that! just as companies have made an industry out of selling your private life new companies are springing up to sell it all back to you.

OK ... time to quit here, and get ready for my night shift at Hooters....

woo hoo you go girl!

 

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Where it gets tricky for me, is when the feds get involved, by way of funding. It then sort of becomes a chicken or the egg conundrum for me.


I don't like the "loyalty oath" I had to sign when I was employed by a school district, and balked for a couple of days before lending my signature to that piece of paper.

"Teachers" aren't supposed to be "political." My Mom, when she was teaching always made a point to not live in the town where she taught. I do worry/wonder about the creeping invasion of private business into our personal lives. Years ago I worked a NIKE show, and the rule was "no smokers." That meant on or off their clock. One woman I was working with went home for lunch -- left the premisis, went to HER home, and had a cigarette. Upon her return, some ciggie-Nark smelled it on her breath, and she was fired on the spot. One wonders if they'd not smelled it (I can see a case being made for the "remnants" of smoking being carried into the workplace, and altering it in a way opposed to policy) but they'd just been told she'd done that, if it would have been a "just" policy. Someone a moot pondering, since of course private business has the "right" to fire you if they don't like the color of your hair or shoes.

And maybe that's the way it should be. I don't like the notion of the federal government getting all up in places it's not "needed." This would apply to things like recreational use of marijuana, as well. Yeah, absolutely make and enforce laws which prohibit driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana, but for pity sake, leave the good citizen who's sitting at home, practicing his sax, and decides to inhale a hit alone.

---

For years the American Cancer Society and the Lung Association has made that a rule. If someone is offered and accepts a position with this type of stipulation then how could anyone find it unreasonable to comply? Especially someone working in a field dedicated to the education, cure and treatment of cancer. To me it's a no-brainer that these types of organizations employ persons with similar health focuses. Twittering around with known carcinogens is not the example that will likely land a grant that may lead to the prevention or cure of disease. It's really not asking too much to expect employees that sign a loyalty agreement actually practice it. There's no question in a "non compete" agreement, why then in this scenario?  Now, Nike is not the ACS or ALA, but doesn't their notion of health fit into this box nicely?

---

I guess my sticking point is how much does my place of employ own me when I'm off the clock? Yes, of course, if you don't like the rules, you don't have to work for them. That's simple, and understood. I just ... it just seems to me that at every turn, we're losing more and more of our privacy. Cameras are snapping our photos seemingly every five seconds, whether we're walking into a store, or driving on the freeway. Wiretaps have, under the sham guise of "Homeland Security" become legal, and our government is employing citizen workers to do their dirty work. GWB even wanted access to library records of what books we checked out, and would have had it, if the American association of librarians hadn't taken them to court over it. So? Yeah, I guess I give into these "givens" a little bit begrudgingly, and dragging my feet. I don't know where it ends, really, but it does seem frightenly close to Orwell's "Big Brother" watching from the camera in the ceiling at times, and GWB running his "Ministry of Truth."  

OK ... time to quit here, and get ready for my night shift at Hooters.... 


 

Psych Lit wrote:

---

There were two interesting ethical questions in todays news and i am wondering what you all think about these things.

The first has to do with one of those agenda items that bush is trying to push through before he exits. Its about reproductive freedom and "conscience" opt outs. On the surface this seems like a no brainer, reproductive rights trumps all else, right? But what if you are a physician and truly believe that abortion is murder. Should you be required to perform an abortion on demand? If you are a pharmacist should you be required to carry plan b on your shelves? This is sort of an end run around the abortion issue. If you cannot find a provider to do the abortion you have effectively stopped abortions from being performed and yet abortions are (a) legal and (b) we do expect to be able to access any legal medical procedure and have it performed safely and without worry that we will be harmed by a physician who thinks what we do is wrong and murderous.
But, when I was thinking about this today, i was asking myself what I would do if i were told that I had to, as a condition of continued employment, perform a professional service that went against my moral beliefs. taking abortion out of it, it doesnt matter what the service is, only that im mandated to do it and its something i am strongly morally opposed to. would I do it? i dont think i would. should we force people to do what their conscience tells them not to do?

One way around this is to make clear when a person seeks employment that these services will be required and give the person the option at that time to seek employment elsewhere if they have moral objections. this is what happens in other types of jobs. someone who graduates from a legit massage school who mistakenly answers an ad by a not so legit massage biz would probably be told what they were getting into and given the option to pass, at least id hope this is how it would go down:) However, since abortions are legal this would then throw the ball back in the employers court and make it impossible for physicans to be employed except in religious type hospitals.

The other moral quandry has to do with an african american university of toledo employee who wrote a column stating why shes opposed to gay marriage and was later fired by the university for her stance. this may even be the article BD posted a couple of weeks earlier. i tried to find the posting but couldnt locate it. (the authors last name is dixon) Anyway, she wrote the column as a private citizen but did not identify her employer and she was fired by the university. This again is one of those first look no brainers. shes a university employee who will have gay students. her employers have a zero tolerance policy regarding protected categories and speech, and her beliefs and her actions should support all of her students and university policies, right?

I dont like her beliefs, I think shes ignorant and wrong and I dont think that she should use those beliefs to color her work life and if she is not able to uphold the universities polices while shes on campus then they are within their rights to fire her. But that doesnt appear to be the case. To me this is a free speech issue. Her comments were made during her personal time, she didnt involve the university or students and because of this I dont think that she should have been fired. id want her monitored to be sure that her beliefs did not interfere with the performance of her job but holding an opinion as a private citizen that differs from the university policy is not reason in itself for dismissal imo. this sets a dangerous precedent closing off free expression. and it can work both ways. I remember back right after 911 when ward churchill, a prof in colorado, was fired for writing an essay that was critical of us policy and blamed that policy as a part of the cause for 911 events. Oreilly put out the call to get him booted and booted he was. right speak scares me. We have to live in a world where people can hold opposing opinions about things and discuss them in a civil way even if we find those beliefs personally repugnant.

---

MyCat8it wrote:

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

There were two interesting ethical questions in todays news and i am wondering what you all think about these things.

The first has to do with one of those agenda items that bush is trying to push through before he exits. Its about reproductive freedom and "conscience" opt outs. On the surface this seems like a no brainer, reproductive rights trumps all else, right? But what if you are a physician and truly believe that abortion is murder. Should you be required to perform an abortion on demand? If you are a pharmacist should you be required to carry plan b on your shelves?

I see these as two different decisions.  Doctors should not be forced to perform an abortion if it is against their moral character anymore than a priest should be forced to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, or a jewish couple.  The pharmacist is a retailer.  Unless the pharmacist owns the store where the retail item is sold, he is required to sell the items on his/her shelf.  Of course, if he is doing the ordering, he can always be "out" of the item in question.  You can't force a retailer to buy a product for resale, but as an employer, you can require your employee to sell the items.

I'd agree a boss can force an employee to see mdse, but I don't think a privately owned business should be required by government to carry any particular mdse. I also agree that no doctor should be required by law to perform any sort of medical procedure, however if it is an procedure approved by a hospital, that hospital has, IMO, the "right" to demand doctors practicing in their venue to do as they wish.

This is sort of an end run around the abortion issue. If you cannot find a provider to do the abortion you have effectively stopped abortions from being performed and yet abortions are (a) legal and (b) we do expect to be able to access any legal medical procedure and have it performed safely and without worry that we will be harmed by a physician who thinks what we do is wrong and murderous.


There will always be doctors to perform abortions, because there are enough people on both sides of this issue. 

But, when I was thinking about this today, i was asking myself what I would do if i were told that I had to, as a condition of continued employment, perform a professional service that went against my moral beliefs. taking abortion out of it, it doesnt matter what the service is, only that im mandated to do it and its something i am strongly morally opposed to. would I do it? i dont think i would. should we force people to do what their conscience tells them not to do?


Never.  I would never ask someone to do something that violates their personal integrity.  The military should sell the true atrocities of war to the kids they recruit. 

:) I'd settle for them just not lying to them.



Instead of only showing them the glorious aspects, the kids should know they may have to kill people some day, and that they may not hate the people they are instructed to kill.  What is the difference between forcing a doctor to perform an abortion and the government sending you out to kill a human?  If it's wrong, it's always wrong.


One way around this is to make clear when a person seeks employment that these services will be required and give the person the option at that time to seek employment elsewhere if they have moral objections. this is what happens in other types of jobs. someone who graduates from a legit massage school who mistakenly answers an ad by a not so legit massage biz would probably be told what they were getting into and given the option to pass, at least id hope this is how it would go down:) However, since abortions are legal this would then throw the ball back in the employers court and make it impossible for physicans to be employed except in religious type hospitals.

The other moral quandry has to do with an african american university of toledo employee who wrote a column stating why shes opposed to gay marriage and was later fired by the university for her stance. this may even be the article BD posted a couple of weeks earlier. i tried to find the posting but couldnt locate it. (the authors last name is dixon) Anyway, she wrote the column as a private citizen but did not identify her employer and she was fired by the university. This again is one of those first look no brainers. shes a university employee who will have gay students. her employers have a zero tolerance policy regarding protected categories and speech, and her beliefs and her actions should support all of her students and university policies, right?

Moral turpitude.  If she signed an employment contract with the school, I guarantee there was a moral turpitude clause.  That clause carries throughout your daily life, not just your employment day.  So, if she was arrested for DUI, or beating her kids or shoplifting a bag of chips, the school can let her go immediately.  She did not break any laws, but as a representative of the institution, she is expected to carry herself in a manner consistent with the school's policies. 

I agree for the most part, but too, I am a believer in the positive power of acts of civil disobedience as instruments of change (which, really, when you get right down to it, is the only reason we're not living still in a racially segregated country -- we sometimes forget that Rosa Parks et al. were, in their martyred acts, breaking the law, when they refused to move to "their section" on the bus.)  


I dont like her beliefs, I think shes ignorant and wrong and I dont think that she should use those beliefs to color her work life and if she is not able to uphold the universities polices while shes on campus then they are within their rights to fire her. But that doesnt appear to be the case. To me this is a free speech issue. Her comments were made during her personal time, she didnt involve the university or students and because of this I dont think that she should have been fired. id want her monitored to be sure that her beliefs did not interfere with the performance of her job but holding an opinion as a private citizen that differs from the university policy is not reason in itself for dismissal imo. this sets a dangerous precedent closing off free expression. and it can work both ways. I remember back right after 911 when ward churchill, a prof in colorado, was fired for writing an essay that was critical of us policy and blamed that policy as a part of the cause for 911 events. Oreilly put out the call to get him booted and booted he was. right speak scares me. We have to live in a world where people can hold opposing opinions about things and discuss them in a civil way even if we find those beliefs personally repugnant.

---

I agree.  We should all be a little more open to opposing positions.  Otherwise, we're a world walking around with blinders attached to our temples.  However, the woman had the option of signing her name as "anonymous" at the bottom of that essay.  Isn't that what we've been doing for decades when we want to speak out but don't want to lose our jobs?

---