betsy

Okay, now let's talk about this from the view point of a woman. What woman would wish to share a mate with other women? Someone desperate for a mate? Someone with low self-esteem? What? I don't understand why a woman would willingly go for that....unless the man is uber-rich that it's all about money and the comfort it may bring.

A resourceful KENNEL will go all out producing their batches of litter. Guess who'd be the first ones to go into this kennel business? Most likely those who'd been content to be on welfare for the rest of their lives, who's got kids also raised into this kind of mentality!

They can easily tweak that around. If you can change the traditional definitions of words....the definition of "adult" can easily change as well. Really, who would've thought that the traditional word "marriage" can easily accomodate same-sex, and now may be open to also include beasts! All it takes is a well-orchestrated, well-funded lobby group and the right kind of government. Of course society gets "indoctrinated" to accept all things "progressive." Anything is acceptable these days, as far as sexuality goes, by the looks of it.

Next will come the pedophiles' rights!

Thank you. I have no wish to get in an abortion discussion either. It's out of topic.

Perhaps if we did not advance we would not have become so materialistic in our way of life...that there wouldn't be any need to plunder the Earth's resources. Perhaps if we follow the teachings of one particular religion I know, live like spartans and embrace poverty and live quite simply....then plunder of earth's resources need not happen. It is not God's fault. It is us. Not because we were created in the image of God either.

Whew! Sounds like a propaganda from the socialists/liberal-leaning thinkers who are environmentalist radicals! Whew! Sounds like a propaganda from the socialists/liberal-leaning thinkers who are very much anti-war! Whew! Sounds like a propaganda from the socialists/liberal-leaning thinkers who are anti-religion. Usually these ones see religion as an obstacle in their own quest to see innocent children indoctrinated into their own ideology. What kind of government usually have programs that take children away from parents to be raised by the state? Communists and Socialists! Yup. I've heard all about that kind of blame-game before. Usually though, it is allegedly the fault of society. Accountability for one's own action is hardly existent - blame anyone but me! No kidding. That's the result of moral bankruptcy. "It's never my fault. They made me do it! They made me this way!"

How? Can you explain?

It is still a choice. Of course I speak of the Christian religion. One who decides to walk away from God had already come to a decision that there is no God, or he doesn't believe in God's existence....so whatever the believers say about spending eternity in hell should not be of any concern to him. Why would it bother him if he doesn't believe. As long as the believers do not decide to take it upon themselves to force him to believe or worse, put him in that hell in an untimely manner (like some religion we know). The believers are free to believe as they wish...just like he's free to believe what he wish. From the explanation given above, now do you follow? It is hard to explain to a non-believer. It's all about having faith. The comparison that comes to mind: Do you believe in positive thinking? Do you believe your doctor? Your shrink?

I agree bad PR hurts. On the other hand, if a certain special interest group, or any specific group with an agenda or vested self-interest ever decide to target a particular company....getting a company facing allegations for whatever they can come up with is not that hard. In fact, it seems to become a trend that started with targetting McDonald's. Then there are those who'd sue a company for monetary compensation. Was it Wendy's who got sued and then later on they found out the complainant had a history of doing this to other companies....of course, hoping for out-of-court settlements. Bad PR hurts businesses. An enemy of a company only knows that too well. My point is: Don't assume a company is evil just because of all the bad PR. Especially, in the case such as Wal-Mart when it had been voted as one of the Top 50 employers, and there are those who work for it who speak highly of it too. Those "lock-ups" in high-crime areas....I think the management in those areas are also at a loss how to stop "inside-jobs", goods going out through the window so to speak. If safety is such a grave concern in an area, I guess it's judgement call. Delivery trucks have been hijacked and drivers killed for their contents, to be sold in the blackmarket. It's not farfetched to think that a place such as WalMart could be a target in a high-crime area. Perhaps Wal-Mart should just nix getting into areas that have high-crime statistics.

It's an interesting read. The alleged labour abuses are just that, so far - allegations. Unless I'm mistaken, no judgement had been rendered yet in court. But it just shows you - competition is the key. Some stores are right there successfully competing with this giant. Just imagine, WalMart even pulled out of Germany and South Korea!

I didn't say they care about the people. In fact I don't want them to care about me. I don't need another mother! And I certainly don't need another mother who care so much about me they want to take my money. When I say they are concerned about your lifestyle, I mean they want to interfere with your lifestyle. So they'll come checking on your fridge to see what you've got stocked in there? All I said was, I would rather they were doing it for their own monetary gain than to interfere with my private life. But whatever, I don't want them taking money out of my pocket. That's obvious. If they win and get away doing this, believe me this is just the start! No, I'm talking about those who know WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. Like the ones who wants to ban all fatty foods...who want to pick your daycare for you....who censor school curricula....etc.., As for abortion, I find it morally repugnant. But if you're going to do it make sure it's done to only potential liberals.

That's being naive. That's what they want us to think....but they're the most controlling. Frankly speaking, I'd rather people are more concerned about making money, than my behaviour/lifestyle. If it wasn't for the liberal drivel that made employers hire whoever comes along, whether they're qualified or not....these employers wouldn't feel the need to manipulate the behaviour of their employees. They would've hired only those they wanted in the first place without worrying that some fat people will scream discrimination. I predict that this type of behaviour by employers will be found discriminatory, unless of course the "HEALTH FASCISTS" trump the human rights tribunal fascists.

Yes, I've read about too...and it makes sense. When your budget is so stretched, you'd settle for anything that's filling, rather than what's healthy. Besides, stress is also another factor why some people couldn't stop from eating. Financial worry is one major cause of stress. So how can these companies justify what they're doing to their employees based on this study? Docking their pay? I'm sure a lot of these employees count on every penny they make...

I don't think this is really about capitalism....although it does seem that way. I think, this is more about "control"....the same kind you see when some group would lobby to force the public to do this or that, all in the name of "what's good for you." This is "big-brother" at work, you know, the one who knows what's best for you. The ones who will not give you any choice at all.

Moderation is the answer, imho. Followed by proper labelling. Fixing the ozone layer (if it's truly fixable and not a part of a regular natural cycle) will not happen overnight nor does it offer any guarantee. And I have no complete trust in chemicals that usually offer Protection" for some things but usually have side-effects or damages on other things. I'll apply sunscreen only when I'll be in the sun that long, depending the time of day.

It's always a treat reading your posts. I find them so informative. Same with M Dancer's too.

And to think that this was allowed to go un-challenged. Aren't U-Haul workers with a Union? I'm almost sure those hospital workers are unionized.....so why no comments from any union reps?

Yes. And it's not only on the poor sectors, so they can't really blame it on poverty. I really think it is our sedentary lifestyle that technology had given us, what with all these kinds of fastfood available everywhere not to mention the hectic and stressful pace others are leading....it all adds up. Big companies who really are serious about their employees' health could get their cafeteria to offer mostly healthy foods that are low in fat, sodium and "bad" carbohydrates.

A parent will usually have a much higher absentee rate than a person with no children. And that's not even counting on the chance when daycare workers happen to go on strike!

If a company is concerned about the insurance premium that they are paying fro their group insurance, then they should just tell their employees to get their own healthcare insurance or if they want to join the company's health group package, then they need to meet certain requirements. Docking pay is definitely NOT the way to go! I find it morally wrong, among other things. Bloody hell, these employees are supposed to be paid for doing their jobs! Why should they get less pay for doing what the rest are getting just because of weight problems? As long as they are doing their jobs I'd say butt out of people's lives!

Not only that, but this statement as well: Clarian Health Partners, an Indianapolis-based hospital chain, announced that beginning in 2009 employees will be fined up to $30 a week if they don' t meet corporate health standards. That could mean anything, depending on their own standards. This is more than just interfering with private lives. What is worrisome is that it says this is becoming a trend. It is catching on....and it is being allowed to go on. Somebody ought to start challenging these corporates in court, and demand mega bucks in punitive damages just so to discourage other comapnies to get in on this wagon. Any employees suffering any heart attacks or anything stress-related should point its fingers at this ridiculous policy.

I recall something like that being said on the news sometime ago. I do not enforce sunscreen on children....the parents are told to bring them, but if they don't I do not make a big fuss. I do tell them to wear their cap though to protect their eyes. What I do is get the children outdoors at around 7:30 am and they're back indoors at 10 am. It's been "old wives' tale" that the morning sun is very beneficial for everyone especially babies and children...and I tend to believe that.

"Docking Pay For Overweight Workers Aug 10, 2007 06:20 PM EDT Some major U.S. companies are going to great lengths to improve employee health. But, are they crossing the line? It's a staggering statistic, 1 in 3 Americans are currently deemed obese, and as employee waists continue to expand at an alarming rate, so do their employer's insurance premiums. In an effort to combat these costs some companies are now saying: shape up or pay up! Clarian Health Partners, an Indianapolis-based hospital chain, announced that beginning in 2009 employees will be fined up to $30 a week if they don' t meet corporate health standards. At U-haul, if employees smoke or are overweight with body mass index above thirty, their paycheck is docked roughly 13-dollars, money that is put toward a Wellness Program. But if you quit smoking or lose weight the fee is cut in half. Bernice Owens loves her weight loss program and feels U-haul is only trying to help. "They're concerned about their employee , not just only to do the work. I know they're concerned about me," says Owens. Though it is legal to offer incentives for workers to get in shape, it is illegal to discriminate against an employee's health status, a trend experts say is already taking place at the office. Walter Lindstrom, founder of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center says "the question is are you going to dock somebody's pay, are you going to make them pay a higher premium because they have a disease like obesity?" Butch Greer, with U-haul International, says "the point of the program is not to penalize anyone, it's to encourage them to look at their lifestyle and maybe think about that bag of potato chips before they eat it." http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6916688 Now, this is ridiculous, don't you think so? If there's anything to boycott on, it's companies like these who are downright fascist with this new policy. What does this U-Haul Greer mean by "not meant to penalize anyone"...of course that's exactly what it means! This is not to "encourage". This is to coersce, to force someone! If they want to use the word "encouragement" as in providing incentives - then it's should be the other way around: GIVE A BONUS FOR THOSE WHO LOSE WEIGHT! I hope their overweight employees sue the pants off these companies for all these humiliation, discrimination and STRESS that they're being made to feel!

Why do you say that? Can you cite some incidents? Actually, Christianity is the most freely maligned religion around. Sure there are outcries from Christians, but those protests surely do not prevent anyone from stopping...in fact, movie-makers and book publishers like it so much when there are outcries since sensationalism makes good publicity.