From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: Fmaily leave (was: ...so little vacation time?)
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 09:50:16 GMT

In article <greg.718340945@octopus> greg@octopus.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
>orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:
>
>>Why should being married make a difference, either?  But the real question is,
>>"Is it legal in this country to show hiring preference to people that are more
>>likely to be there when the company needs them?"  The Politikally Korrekt
>>answer is "Not if the gender of the job candidate or their degree of sexual
>>activity is considered a factor."
>
>Orville, you're getting more and more hysterical as time goes on.  It's
>kind of fun, but it's kind of scary too.  The best kind of thrill,
>I think.  And it doesn't sound like you've had sex in quite a while.

That is none of your business, but since you ask, I have, but would enjoy it
more if I could afford a second child -- but I can't, too busy paying taxes
for a bunch of ***** that can't control their hormones and then forget who
the father is. And the scary thing is that even with all the taxes I pay,
the government gets deeper into debt every day and the trade deficit gets worse
every day, and if I don't wind up paying for it when I should be retired, my
child[ren] certainly will.

>How about:
>
>"Is it desirable in this, or any other country, to show compassion to
>people that need leave for medical reasons?  Can we afford, as a
>nation and society, to place human needs above immediate capital?"

It is desirable, but there are lots of things that are desirable that we
can't afford in this country until someone sets some priorities and cuts back
on SOMETHING. Half the taxes I pay go into social programs that the recipients
claim as their "right".

While your claims that the country [and I] would be better off if people had
more time off [paid for by the employers or the taxpayer], you have not
convinced me, simply because you have not demonstrated any way to pay for it
nor have you proposed any other "social" program that could be cut to pay for
the luxury [not neccessity] that you propose.

Arguments like yours that we are a rich country have been made for far too long
... we no longer ARE a rich country ... we are a country full of vcrs and
z-cars that are [figuratively speaking] about to be reposessed if we don't
shape up and pay for things  as we go.

And consider some of the cruel and uncompassionate alternatives that we could
use all that filthy capitalistic money for besides using it to pay for
your "compassionate" forcing employers to use a less than optimal workforce
in a way that increases the cost per unit of goods and services produced
[for export to pay for our debts]. We could focus on reducing infant mortality,
increasing life expectancy, breaking the welfare cycle [now entering it's
fourth time around],...

orville

--------------------------------------   **************************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                        Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                     POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                   Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer            Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net
--------------------------------------   **************************************