Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500
employees and has the following statistics:
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line.
Would I hire this company?
At face value? No. However:
"29 have been accused of spousal abuse"
"19 have been accused of writing bad checks"
There's accused and then there's proven. Also, it depends how long ago and under what circumstances; were they drunk at the time (as far as the abuse goes) and have they stopped drinking since...etc.
"3 have done time for assault"
Assaulting who and why?
"14 have been arrested on drug-related charges"
What drugs and how long ago? Granted, since aparently the drug was illegal (hence the arrest) they were still in the wrong....however, if it was a long time ago and they got caught with pot....it's not such a big deal if any at all.
"21 are currently defendants in lawsuits"
What does the lawsuits pertain to?
The rest...yeah, pretty scary.
My room mate has a DUI. I'm in favor of drug legalization and I have several times been guilty of but never charged with assault. Accused and proven are 2 different things, lots of people have bankrupted businesses on there paths to success it''s called getting up and trying again when you fail. Hell, I've (accidentally) written a bad check. My family has been the defendant of a lawsuit.
As far as a business goes, none of that scares me.
Posted by: skywalker at April 4, 2005 05:14 PM"I'm in favor of drug legalization.."
So am I...but that's not the point. They are illegal and that's apparently why they were arrested. But like I said, it depends on how long ago it was. If it was before they had any position as a lawmaker, then I could care less. If it was while they were lawmakers (and if they aren't using it for medical purposes) then they do need to abide by the same law as everyone else. I'm sure you would agree with that.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at April 4, 2005 05:30 PMSure they should...but I have a hard time faulting someone for committing a crime that I don't think should be a crime.
Posted by: skywalker at April 4, 2005 08:27 PMUnderstandable.
BTW...just out of curiousity, have you ever taken steps (like calling your senator, congressman or starting a petition) to try to get them legalized or is it not that important of an issue to you compared to others?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at April 4, 2005 10:20 PMCause it is a futile cause and the overall benefits and/or degradations to society are minor compared tos ay conversion from what Marx called a heavy and progressive income tax to a national retail sales tax. Which will have far reaching effects and before the people who haven't read the fair tax bill speak up, WON'T HURT THE POOR BUT IT WILL INSTEAD HELP THEM!
So yeah, there is saving our country from socialism and ensuring guys who get shot at for a living get taken care of hanging high on my priority list. Ensuring the freedom of potheads is incredibly low on my list of priorities.
Hey Is aid I was for it but it's not that important thank you very much.
That being said boys and girls: drugs are stupid, legal or otherwise, don't use them.
Thank you, this PSA is brought to you by muddysmind.com.
Posted by: skywalker at April 4, 2005 11:20 PM"Thank you, this PSA is brought to you by muddysmind.com."
Wow! LOL! What? YOu mean you're not going to include:
"The views expressed here at muddysmind.com are not neccessarily the views *of* muddysmind.com."?
Like I said, I was just curious...and yes, you're right - drugs are stupid (medical marijuana is debatable - IMO). Besides, I figured if you ever did try to change something like that, maybe it would have been a few years back...like in high school. Not to mention that perhapes you could have fought in favor of that issue before realizing the more important issues at hand. It's quite obviously your more passionate about frying much bigger fish than that now (of course, anyone could tell that by all the postings and comments you make anyway). Frankly a "yes" or "no" would have sufficed but thanks for taking time to answer me in such a ....uh...well rounded manner.:-D
Just one more question: What do you do with your soap box at the end of the day? Personally, I keep mine beside me at all times...just never know when you're gonna have to whip that baby out - unfortunatly, it does make it a little hard and uncomfortable to sleep at nights.:-P
Posted by: mrs. muddy at April 5, 2005 12:48 AMAccoording to mom medical marajauna is effective at exactly what everyone says its for: helping nausea and painf rom things like cancer and glaucoma.
I've never made a serious effort to legalize drugs. I have no use for them personally, so it's not exactly a near and dear issue. I was a Junior in high school before I got on that bandwagon...that's when I started reading the statistics and found out the origins of our drug laws. Specifically marajauna laws. If you don't know drugs were legal up until the 30s when they uses the interstate commerce clause to make marajauna de facto illegal (technially legal, but a bitch to get a hold of legally) in order to force out legal mexican migrant workers. Note the word legal. This is actually a deep root of the large involvement that the federal government has in our lives as prior to this, most peacetime government was done at the local level. This use of the interstate commerce clause passed supreme court scrutiny and made all this involvement possible.
Prior to that they had attempted to make marajauna illegal straight out but that was found unconstitutional: that right was relagated to the states. So they instead found a way to do it through regulating it as interstate commerce.
Posted by: skywalker at April 5, 2005 03:19 AM"Accoording to mom medical marajauna is effective at exactly what everyone says its for: helping nausea and painf rom things like cancer and glaucoma."
Well, yeah. Also, according to a comedian that muddy was watching about a year ago, because of the "munchies" that marijuana brings about, it should also be used to keep anorexics from starving themselves.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at April 5, 2005 10:06 AMBring on those statistics about the present bush administration ... (Or bush Himself), it would be interesting too...
You could add that at least 450 out of them must be part of the 2% most rich people in the USA.
Members of congress are rich people. They make laws that help rich people. But there's no connection. :-)
I'd bet you're wrong about that DF.
Posted by: skywalker at April 5, 2005 03:21 PMOn a side note, I'd be happier if they were: it would mean they'd understand how businesses work.
Posted by: skywalker at April 5, 2005 06:12 PMdf you say that our governmeet is full of rich people, name one country that has a government made up of poor people? And if they were poor when they got in I'll bet they are'nt poor any more.
Posted by: 1029fd at April 6, 2005 12:16 PM