If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Sven Golly wrote:
Mary Malmros wrote in news:g9OdnSo-eZKrt1XcRVn- : No, Sven. Wrong. _You_ may feel that safety _should_ be considered, but safety is _not_ the justification that is provided for the invasion of privacy that is involved in athlete drug tests. If you, or anyone, wants to advance that justification as a rationale for extending drug tests on athletes, you may feel free to do so. But you have to make your case and convince WADA, the FIS, or someone else in authority to agree with you. You don't read well do you? Just rant on a hot button. I said safety should be considered -- not that it necessarily is. No, you didn't. You said, "Uh, there's also a safety consideration." Not that it should be, but that there _is_ a safety consideration. I understand that it's not what you meant, but it is what you said, so you've no call to attack my reading comprehension. Safety AND performance enhancement are both used as justifications for athlete drug testing. Cite, please? Specifically, a cite of spectator safety, or athlete safety due to NON-performance during an event -- not to athlete safety as result of using a _harmful_ performance-enhancing substance -- being used as a justification for athlete drug testing? Obviously, most orgs are more concerned with the performance side of the coin. If that were all, they'd ban water. They're concerned about substances and practices that enhance performance while doing harm to the user. As for getting hired for a job, if there's a reasonable chance that your performance will be affected by what you smoke, shoot, snort, inhale or swallow, then yes, I think you should be tested. I don't want alcoholics flying the 757 I'm flying in either. Where you may have a point is where safety is NOT affected. Clerical work for example. BUT, in the US, someone will argue (successfully I'd add) that testing one class of worker but not another is a form of discrimination. Which is why most companies (legally) have to have policies to test their entire workforce. And yet they can't explain to you why they are testing, what they are testing for, why they're testing for that collection of stuff (typically it's "illegal" drugs, not prescription or alcohol...make sense to you?), or what they will do with the test results. The whole rationale behind allowing workplace drug testing in the first place was a demonstrable safety issue, as in your example of the 757. That was the justification. The justification for clerical staff? Completely absent. Now, go smoke a bowl for me will ya? Go do it yourself it that's what you're into. -- Mary Malmros Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Sven Golly wrote:
For example, I personally think we should not be screening 72-year old whitebread ladies for bombs at airports but that males between 16 and 45 who look Middle Eastern and speak with funny accents otta be strip-searched at the drop of an "Allah akbar". But the left in the US gets all worked up over profiling so we don't. We do it randomly. And stupidly. But WTFDIK? Exactly. WTFDYK. Terrorists have a large selection of potential agents - they can easily select non-obvious agent; as they do. You perhaps have heard of the several 16 yr old pale appearing young female suicide bombers? Re airport searches - the Sept 11 planes were hijacks using small blades; the hijackers knew they couldn't, and therefore didn't attempt to, smuggle guns aboard. The hijackings worked because passengers had for years been warned by authorities that their best chance of survival was passivity. These days if somebody jumps up with a pocket knife do you think the passengers are going to passively let them pilot the plane into a building? Of course not. Yet the primary anti-terror response by authorities is to search, as you said, little old ladies at the airport. We always prepare to fight the last battle, and never the next battle. Therefore we now have anti-terror protection against a small group using small blades to hijack and airliner full of passive passengers and fly it into a building. None of which is likely ever to be repeated. We have however no protection against other possibly terrorist activities except the joke of color coding. We have squandered the good will and anti-terroist aid of the entire world by attacking a non-participant bystander whom the president didn't like before hand and whom was fond of making billigerant noises, without the means to actually be billigerant; which the president well knew and deliberately suppressed from both congress and the people. Our country is run by elected fools who can't think their way out of a paper bag. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
lal_truckee wrote:
Sven Golly wrote: For example, I personally think we should not be screening 72-year old whitebread ladies for bombs at airports but that males between 16 and 45 who look Middle Eastern and speak with funny accents otta be strip-searched at the drop of an "Allah akbar". But the left in the US gets all worked up over profiling so we don't. We do it randomly. And stupidly. But WTFDIK? Exactly. WTFDYK. Terrorists have a large selection of potential agents - they can easily select non-obvious agent; as they do. You perhaps have heard of the several 16 yr old pale appearing young female suicide bombers? Re airport searches - the Sept 11 planes were hijacks using small blades; the hijackers knew they couldn't, and therefore didn't attempt to, smuggle guns aboard. The hijackings worked because passengers had for years been warned by authorities that their best chance of survival was passivity. These days if somebody jumps up with a pocket knife do you think the passengers are going to passively let them pilot the plane into a building? Of course not. Yet the primary anti-terror response by authorities is to search, as you said, little old ladies at the airport. We always prepare to fight the last battle, and never the next battle. Therefore we now have anti-terror protection against a small group using small blades to hijack and airliner full of passive passengers and fly it into a building. None of which is likely ever to be repeated. We have however no protection against other possibly terrorist activities except the joke of color coding. We have squandered the good will and anti-terroist aid of the entire world by attacking a non-participant bystander whom the president didn't like before hand and whom was fond of making billigerant noises, without the means to actually be billigerant; which the president well knew and deliberately suppressed from both congress and the people. Our country is run by elected fools who can't think their way out of a paper bag. Amen |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"lal_truckee" wrote in message
... We have squandered the good will and anti-terroist aid of the entire world by attacking a non-participant bystander A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. In that world the lack of ability to engage us conventionally only increases the likelihood that they will resort to despicable underhanded tactics like the attacks on the Russian school awhile back (and Bali and WTC and........). Afghanistan and Iraq are the two that received the most immediate response to their tactics. Perhaps there will be more. Perhaps the opportunity that seems to be taking hold somewhat in Afghanistan and is about to begin with the elections in Iraq will reduce the need to go on to the next one. I'm glad that the terrorists are occupied there fighting our military than here blowing up old folks homes. It would be nice to have more than the 30-40 countries "on our side". But it's even nicer to be able to do what's right for us without relying on them. BTW: I hear that France has announced an increased their terror alert level from "run" to "hide". It seems to me that they have already gone past the 3rd level (surrender) to their highest level (collaborate), as is apparent from their involvement in the money for france (aka oil for food) program. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Well, you might be wondering just what the heck I'm doing scanning usenet
on Christmas eve, well, I'm at work, so of course I was screwing around doing the procrastination thing when I ran across... In article , wrote: Our country is run by elected fools who can't think their way out of a paper bag. ....this, and I couldn't help the following knee jerk reaction to that comment: Hey, lal, I'm not positive which is the most foolish collection, the elected ones or the ones who elected them. We had our chances. all the best, john |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|