Morrissey Questioned as Security Threat

From Contactmusic.com through a headline on The Raw Story:

Singer Morrissey was quizzed by the FBI and British intelligence after speaking out against the American and British governments.

They always seem to be working on ways to chip away at our first amendment rights (or at least intimidate us out of using them). Morrissey's response:

"I don't belong to any political groups, I don't really say anything unless I'm asked directly and I don't even demonstrate in public. I always assume that so-called authoritarian figures just assume that pop/rock music is slightly insane and an untouchable platform for the working classes to stand up and say something noticeable.

"My view is that neither England or America are democratic societies. You can't really speak your mind and if you do you're investigated."

I honestly don't think of Morrissey when I think about threats to our national security. My first thought is usually that guy currently "running" this country. Also, when it comes to questioning musicians they don't like, why haven't they brought these guys in?:

Open Forum: Discussing Salaries at Work

I have been thinking lately about the ethics and legality of discussing salaries with coworkers. I have especially been thinking about it lately, as I recently received a less than expected raise and feel as though I am underpaid. I often wonder if my coworkers are getting the same treatment, and if not, why? I want to talk to them about it, but can I? Should I?

The truth is that I have never been sure. I could certainly argue one way or the other. Every employer I have worked under has made known, expressly or implicitly, that they frown upon such discussions amongst their staff. Well, I did a bit of research and found that there is precedent protecting coworkers' rights to such discussion: Silencing Salary Talk Can Lead to Trouble | workforce.com (free membership required to read.) From this article:

Answer: Salary discussions are concerted protected activity.
Both actions will likely be considered unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Wage discussions among coworkers are generally considered to be concerted and protected activity under the NLRA. So under most circumstances management cannot prohibit salary discussions, or threaten, discharge or discipline for revealing salaries.

The "both actions" referred to was a manager telling staff that discussion of salaries is forbidden and subjects them to discipline and drafting a policy stating such.

That is somewhat comforting to read. Part of the problem is that many employers do not realize this and will still fire you for discussing salaries. The good news is that you can sue for wrongful termination and likely win, but that's quite a hassle.

I feel that discussion of salaries is a good thing. When the company holds a monopoly on the information, they can pay people whatever they want to, which can lead to women being paid less that their male peers and similar improprieties. Discussing salaries allows one to know where they stand in relation to their peers. We are supposed to get raises based on our merit, right? So, why not discuss salaries so you know how your performance/merit rates compared to your coworkers. That helps to reinforce the need to improve oneself, or it lets you know when you are being screwed.

So, why not discuss? I guess some people may use the information in an unprofessional manner and/or not think rationally about it. It seems to me that if we were open and willing (both employees and employers) to communicate such things, individuals would handle it in a much more appropriate manner. Overall, I feel that it would lead to much more fair and equal salary standards, so I think the benefits far outweigh the cons.

So, I've said my piece. I open the floor to comments, opinions, suggestions. Am I wrong? Convince me...

Talent Drops Cosponsorship of Cloning Ban

Cloning shift by Talent upsets his supporters

His reasoning isn't too bad:

Talent yesterday cited the possibilities offered by a scientific procedure called "altered nuclear transfer," or ANT, which he said holds great promise for creating embryonic stem cells without producing cloned embryos. Talent argued that because the Brownback bill is vaguely written, it could forestall research using ANT.

I fear, however, that this is simply a political move to sway borderline voters (because even though he is "upsetting his base," it's not like ultra-conservative voters are going to vote for the other party over this). However, if he is reelected, I hope to be proven wrong and see him continue support ANT. However, just to be safe, let's vote for the better candidate (my opinion), McCaskill.

Campaign takes familiar turn

Campaign takes familiar turn

Frist said Saturday that if Democrats want to disagree with the president’s approach on wiretapping, "I think it is at their peril."

To paraphrase: Agree with Bush, or fall under the foot of our machine. OR: Either you are for us or you are against us. If you are against us, you are wrong and must die.

That's what they want to say.

Bush Defends Exxon/Mobil Profits

DenverPost.com - NATION/WORLD

How much money are his family and friends making off of this?

Bush:

"I think that basically the price is determined by the marketplace and that's the way it should be."

I understand the marketplace and economics, and it is hard to argue against that. However, isn't there a point, when you are making millions and millions of dollars, more than you can find a way to spend, that you find it more ethical to lower your margins, give up making that next few million dollars profit, and give the poor and neglected a chance to afford the things they need? Whatever happened to looking out for one another and helping your fellow man?

Alito Upholds MO Stay of Execution

Alito Opposes Mo. Execution

Overall, I've been opposed to Alito. From what I know of his record, he has proven to be a conservative activist moreso than a rational interpreter of the law. However, I will give him credit for breaking party lines on this one and supporting the stay of execution. Of course, it doesn't mean he opposes the execution, just that he supports the grounds for this stay. Nonetheless, he gets a point.

That brings up a more sad topic, though. That topic is the fact that the votes of our Supreme Court judges can (usually) be predicted based on party lines. That is not what the SC is meant for; how does that provide a check or balance? I don't care what side of the tracks you are from, the judges of our highest court are not supposed to make decisions based on their religious beliefs or the generalizations of their party. They are supposed to make those judgements based on the laws of our country and the nearly extinct rational thought that made our country what it is today.

I am extremely liberal. However, if I were president, my nominee would be much like Sandra Day O'Conner. I would nominate someone because they would apply rational thought to every decision and make their judgements and rulings based on how it applies within the constrains of our Constitution as a living document to our current society and best benefits the rights of ALL American citizens. I would not nominate someone just because they will oppose conservative views at every turn.

With the way we're going right now, the conservative & religious (ie: Christian) groups will be happy with what they get out of THEIR Supreme Court. However, they get that at the risk of taking away much from the other half of the country. I know it feels good to win every time, but if you stop and think about it, that means someone else is losing every time. Buck up and learn to compromise; that's far more patriotic because it will benefit our country in the long run.