|
 E-mail Story Print Friendly
Biz GM Sued Over Impala Fix |
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Letters to Outlook
.
In praise of tattoos in the workplace
I just finished reading the article about body art in the workplace. I found it interesting, because I have been surrounded by controversy since I decided to, in the pursuit of my own happiness, decorate my own body (as) I saw fit.
At my last job, as a security police officer, at Los Alamos National Lab, there was a post order that "demanded" that no visible tattoos that were deemed "lewd or offensive" could be displayed, and upon seeing that, I decided to get some body art on my forearms depicting scantily clad women.
I understand that, to corporate America, a woman's breasts are disgusting and offensive, but I find a woman's body beautiful. I had to wear long-sleeved uniforms after that, which was a bit hot in the middle of the summer but of little consequence to me or my level of professionalism. A fair enough rule was to simply cover the tattoo while on duty.
I, shortly after, decided to go back to school, to enter the medical field and needed some cash while I was attending classes, so I applied at (a) restaurant ... for the position of bartender ... where I was impressive enough to the manager during the interview. He asked me if I had any visible tattoos on my forearms, to which I said yes and watched his face drop. Even though I argued that I was more than willing to wear long sleeves full time, he mentioned some idiotic rule about the bartenders' "being required to fold their sleeves during the summer" (A bartender with tattoos??! Imagine that?) Needless to say, he offered me a possible position as a salad prep. Luckily, the rules at (another restaurant) simply allowed me to wear a long-sleeved shirt.
Dan J. Almeida Jr.
Santa Fe
The uglier side of home associations
The Business Outlook section of the Journal on June 30, 2005 published a (column) titled "The Association is King" about neighborhoods that control the behavior of their residents for the purpose of maintaining property values.
Let me address the uglier side of these associations, from firsthand experience. It is one thing for people to deliberately buy houses in areas which, from the beginning, are under the control of such associations, in the full knowledge that their behavior will be strictly controlled, and agreeing with such control. There are always such people who, for the sake of their property values (as they see it) would be quite happy to give up many of their rights as property owners and live in what amounts to a socialist police state. This is America, and people have a right to live as they choose, within the law.
It is quite another thing for such homeowner associations to spring up in older neighborhoods that have never had them, and then attempt to coerce and control residents who do not want or agree with such controls. In that case such an organization is anti-American, representing what is otherwise known as socialism, of which communism is one variant, and the world has seen for a century what happens to the rights of people living under communism. The Founding Fathers of the United States wrote strong individual and property rights into the U.S. Constitution, which these homeowner associations attempt to nullify in order to control the behavior of all neighborhood residents.
There have always been good neighborhoods in any city in which there are no "cars up on blocks, jeans drying on walls, trucks staining driveways, and loud all-night parties," to quote (the column). Such trashy or antisocial behavior has never required neighborhood homeowner associations to control. There are civil laws to control obnoxious behavior such as loud parties, and residents have always had recourse to zoning laws and nuisance laws or lawsuits against residents whose behavior crosses some commonly agreed-upon boundary of decency or propriety. Such antisocial behavior does not, repeat does not, require homeowner associations to control.
Tom and Don Baker
Albuquerque
Are you annoyed? Just get over it
You know what annoys me? This obsession with annoyance by our government. Our government should just say to the obsessively annoyed, "Hey, get over it."
Instead, we get new rules, regulations and ordinances to try to keep people from being annoyed. There are some people who are determined to be annoyed and by now I am sure those people are annoyed with me.
Example: Fireworks are not bought or used for the purpose of annoying neighbors. And, for the most part, fireworks are annoying only to those who wish to be annoyed.
The reason for fireworks is to show exuberance. The fireworks do not commemorate the bombardment of Fort McHenry, though there are some parallels in sight and sound. Also, the use of fireworks is not about patriotism or our military, though they can be if you so desire.
Fireworks are more basic and at the core of America. We set off fireworks to celebrate that we live in a prosperous nation. We celebrate liberty and justice. More so, we rejoice that we are not living in some third-world hellhole with a dictator stealing everything of value from us and telling us how to live each day. The choice to use fireworks or not celebrates our freedom.
Fireworks celebrate being alive in the best country in the world and at the greatest time of all in America's history. We celebrate ourselves. Yes, I know you can hear them going off. You can hear many other things that will annoy you if you so desire— trains, planes and freeway traffic.
There are always people weeping to the city council about how annoying fireworks are to themselves and their dogs. They talk about how their dog shivers under the bed. I do not make any points with them when I ask, "So what about thunderstorms? You have to speak to a higher authority than the city council about thunderstorms scaring your dog, don't you?"
My advice: Get your dog earmuffs or doggie downers and don't go to the city council because dollars to doughnuts as soon as you complain about fireworks someone else will complain about dogs.
I don't condone the irresponsible use of fireworks any more than the irresponsible use of automobiles or chain saws. But I also don't seek to ban cars and chain saws.
Michael Swickard
Radio talk-show host
Las Cruces