From: banta@blagg.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:42:22 GMT
Organization: Sun, Moon, and Stars
NNTP-Posting-Host: blagg

(Jenni Sheehey) writes:
>Speaking of sheep, banta@blagg.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
>bleats along after the herd, saying:

Oh, this is beautiful.  In one breath you say "Obey the herder.  Trust
the herder.  The herder will act on your grievances." and in the next,
I'm "bleating."  Air-tight, Jen, air-tight (referring to your head,
not your argument).

>>Pardon me, Jen, but aren't you currently on the state's dole, working
>>for a state university and all?

>Why is it that none of you can seem to see the difference between
>working for money and getting it free?

I fully understand the difference.  Your bimbo-blinders won't allow
*you* to see the difference is moot.  They're collecting public funds;
you're collecting public funds.  The distinction is fuzzy in my mind,
expecially when you're so quick to deny them the due process you
expect and are entitled to.

In clear and simple terms: Both you and they are on the state's
equivalent of a payroll.

>That would be lovely, if I was entitled to maternity leave, or to sick
>leave, or anything else of the sort.  If you were trying to follow in
>the footsteps of everyone else by attempting to bring the thing closer
>to home, you failed.  Sorry.

I, like everyone else, have been trying to drive the point into your
ditzy blonde skull that that violating the basic rights of all welfare
recipients in an effort to make sure state funds are used properly is
immmoral.  I, like everyone else, am appalled at your smug
self-satisfaction in light of the fact that it's not your rights being
violated.  I, probably like eveyone else, anxiously await the day that
you must prove your innocence to sustain your livelihood.

>Gee, is pregnancy illegal in California?  I knew there were some strange
>laws over there, but I was born there, and I don't recall my mother
>having a criminal record.

I want proof.  I'll provide you with a list of crimes your mother
might have been involved in, and I want you to prove she had nothing
to do with them.  She has nothing to hide, right?

Of course pregnancy isn't illegal.  But arbitrary pregnancy testing is
no more illegal or unethical than arbitrary drug testing ...

>>Come to think of it, the pregnancy test doesn't quite have the
>>invasiveness that a drug test does.  I won't be satisfied until you
>>have to have a full pelvic exam on a regular basis, with your boss,
>>his boss, and three of your peers in attendance.

Neither are pelvic exams.  Ok, maybe we aren't trying to prove
wrong-doing.  Maybe we just want it for useful information.  

>Peeve: "reductio ad absurdam" as a form of argument.  If you can't argue
>with the facts as they are, you have no argument.

Do you have a stack of Baltimore crab cakes wedged between your ears?
The discussion was absurd to start with.  For some odd reason, I
thought it make make you rub your two neurons together to realize that
your rights to privacy could be the next to be pissed away.

I can see that you don't mind playing fast and loose with others
rights.  Expect little sympathy from me when they come for you.

andy
banta@abingdon.sun.com
>
>                                                 --Jenni


--
I suppose that if I were a baseball fan I'd get equally peeved at
"RBIs," but the only stick-and-ball-type sport I watch much of is
women's beach volleyball with the sound turned off.
					-- Scott Fisher
Newsgroups: alt.peeves