Sick day? Nah, I have to go to work

According to a survey conducted by the Thomson Reuters’ health unit, nearly three-quarters of Americans will go to work even if they are sick. Though snot may be hanging out of the nose and coughing is more frequent than speaking, it’s a challenge the working American has to face.

The study shows people will not take off work because they do not want to lose that day’s wages. Also, a missed day at work means work will be double the next day back. Today, a measly $100 means a lot, and apparently it’s not worth it to miss a day of work.

Employers stress the importance of taking time off to recuperate from an illness, but rarely does that happen. If a sick person attends work, he or she increases the chance of infecting co-workers with that ailment and prolonging the illness.

I look at my office, and I can hear someone hacking away every few days. Noses are blown loudly, and the smell of sickness hovers in the air. People are constantly using hand sanitizers and spraying desks with Lysol to exterminate germs.

It’s hard to take a day off where I work. Because of the nature of my work, we need to meet certain goals every month for projects. If we even miss a day, it will double our workload the next. One day can throw off an entire month’s productivity; if we don’t meet our goals at the end of each month, we will be written up. After a certain number of write-ups, a person may lose his or her job.

So, is it worth it to suffer through the day and infect other co-workers than get fired? The answer is yes.

My company provides excellent sick time and benefits, but rarely do I hear or see a co-worker take advantage of this time.

For now, I’m going to keep using that Lysol in my area and maybe start wearing a protective mask to work.

French President Proposes New Ban on Fashion

Currently, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is attempting to propose a law that would ban women from wearing Islamic veils and coverings in public.

In an NPR article, Sarkozy said clothing of this nature is demeaning toward women and unwanted in France. He also claims Muslim clothing “threatens the dignity of women.”

But when wearing this clothing is a part of a culture and a tradition, how can it be threatening, especially if it is by choice and free will? If this legislation is banned, it will be taking away free will for women who chose to wear the Islamic veils.

It is as if Sarkozy is no better than his ultra-conservative counterparts around the world, Like those extreme traditionalists, Sarkozy is attempting to tell women what they can and cannot wear. While he claims he is trying to preserve dignity, he is destroying it. Additionally, he has no evidence if this is demeaning or not because he is not a woman and he has not had the experience of wearing these clothes on a daily basis.

Women should have the right to choose what they wear in public, but even this will not be exercised in the 21st century when people like Sarkozy are making fashion choices for us. Besides, isn’t it a truth universally acknowledged that women have better fashion sense than men?

Also, France is predominately Catholic, so why not restrict what Catholics can wear? Some nuns wear the traditional habit; the only skin showing is the face. They wear coifs or veils that cover hair and part of the face. There has been no mention of nuns uncovering themselves in public, only those who wear the Islamic fashion.

Sarkozy is committing a heinous act of chauvinistic pigism. He is segregating Islamic women in France, wanting them to become more French by not wearing the coverings. Instead of promoting culture and peace, Sarkozy cares about the French national image rather than what the people have to offer.

Coming from a wealthy background and named one of Vanity Fair’s Best-Dressed list, it is apparent image is important to Sarkozy. However, the type of image vital to Sarkozy is coming off as superficial and arrogant.

Instead of censoring what women should wear in France, Sarkozy should focus on the image France is portraying; right now, it’s disrespectful and shallow. Those should not be the front-running qualities of a country as big as France.

With the financial crisis around the world and the never-ending threat of terrorism, Sarkozy should be focusing his effort and attention on matters more pressing than fashion choices.

By dictating what people are and are not allowed to wear is only the beginning of more demands. Though this type of action may not explode into a dictatorship, it’s a small step in that direction.

When Hitler began his expenditure to extinguish those of Jewish descent from Europe, he started small by forcing hem wear yellow stars on their clothing. This act took away free will and identity.

In other words, I think this proposed legislation is a cover-up for public image. Sarkozy doesn’t want France to be associated with ultra-conservative terrorist culture, but the thinking behind this idea is backward and medieval, as well.

Let’s just hope that the rest of the French government doesn’t worry about the latest Gucci clothing line or sparkling white teeth, but will focus on preserving free will and other central issues.

Hello Lawnchair, Goodbye Blood, Sweat & Tears

America is trillions of dollars in debt. Hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed. There are increased taxes on the smallest items like soft drinks and cigarettes.

These are only some of the many problems facing the average American today. Hope is scarce for a better tomorrow, but Americans have no problem blaming the government for the current economic struggle today.

True, the American government overspends and money should be utilized at home in cities and towns, not abroad. But, when push comes to shove, are Americans blaming the government for lack of money and jobs instead of themselves because that is the easy way out? By George, I think he’s got it.

The government is like a parent to its citizens, but there comes a time when the baby has to leave the nest. America has finally let the flocks fly from the coop, but the flocks are not taking responsibility for themselves, therefore crashing and burning.

Americans have the resources to better conditions and lifestyles. We have a free public education. However, dropout rates are high. It is almost impossible to find a job without a high-school diploma or GED. The fact is that people are too lazy and stubborn to continue their education.

Instead of trying to better themselves, people will hold signs on street corners hoping a Good Samaritan will lend out food or money. This is not an acceptable use of time, and it’s pure laziness. That time could be spent looking for jobs or opportunities to finish an education.

We blame the government for overspending, but have we examined our own pocketbooks recently? Americans overspend like the government does, but on a much smaller scale.

Let’s face it: Americans are materialistic. We need to have the latest technology, the designer labels and expensive vacations.

I’ve heard people complain they can barely pay rent, but what else is the paycheck going for? Cell-phone plans, iPods and cigarettes are not necessities in life, but people will spend money on these items instead of bills and rent. How is that responsible?

To not be in debt, Americans should curb their costs and budget like there is no tomorrow. A vacation to Cancun may have to wait a year or the new text-messaging plan may have to be cancelled for a few months.

America is in so much debt because Americans spend so much money and live on credit. Simplicity and the essentials have long been obsolete to the American mind. We should focus on the things we need, not the things we want.


Also, we blame the government because we are selfish. It makes so many mistakes, what is one more added to the list? The government acts as our scapegoat, when in fact we should take responsibility for ourselves. Blaming a third party is immature and irresponsible.

I remember hearing stories of hard-working immigrants coming through Ellis Island in high school. These people came to America hoping for a better life than the one they left in the old country. They were not afraid to work hard, and they had the dream of a better tomorrow.

But whatever happened to the American dream? Immigrants dreamed American streets were paved in gold and a poor man could become rich. Not all people who came to America succeeded, but there were thousands who worked hard and flourished, creating better lives for them and their families.

They took advantage of education and job opportunities. They saved money for a new house or for their families. Poor men and women became millionaires.

Maybe it’s time Americans get this kind of work ethic back. It’s in our blood from our ancestors from hundreds or dozens of years ago. We need something to wake up this potential that runs in our veins. Or, maybe we are ignoring the call for greatness because we are fat and lazy.

The struggling economy is not going to go away overnight. It’s going to take years and years for things to be right again; even that hope is a far cry out into the wild. It is up to each person to take responsibility for his or her actions and work hard. Maybe then, we can have a happier America.

When I grow up I wanna be famous, be on TV

“What do you want to do with your life?”

Well, I’m finally able to ask the what-do-you-want-to-do-with-your-life question I am asked at every family function. Now, I can answer this question to strangers and friends without hesitation or awkwardness.

I want to be a librarian. I’m planning to receive my Master’s in this at Syracuse.

However, this new-found statement brings another series of questions people ask. “Why would you want to be a librarian,” “You don’t look like a librarian,” “You have to go to school for that” or “Don’t you mean high-school librarian?”

These are only a few of the many questions I’ve received in the past few months, but before I knew more about the program at Syracuse or the profession in general, I had the same stereotypes fixed in my head as my questioners. After doing some research, I realized how wrong and ignorant I was.

People ask me why I want to go in this profession. I really can’t give a good answer because it feels right. It’s hard to describe a feeling.

As a child, I loved books. Some of my favorite memories would be the weekly trip to the library, rummaging through the shelves, seeing what books I would take home with me.

In middle school, I was the librarian’s teachers pet. She would always save the new release, giving me a change to read them before the other students even looked at them. Because of her, my love for stories and books grew.

In college, I majored in English, again cultivating my interest in books. Then I thought I would want to go into publishing or the library world. And it looks like I’m going to.

I want to work in a library more for the love of reading. It’s for the books themselves. You may discover a lone book among the shelves, covered in dust, waiting for someone to check it out. I want to be able to provide people with resources for research or the love of learning.

I’m not really sure what to expect from this journey or what graduate school will entail; everything is so new to me, but my experience so far has been enlightening, making me eager to find out more about this profession and what it can offer me.

Ever since President Obama announced his plan to deploy tens of thousands of United States troops to Afghanistan, I’ve been wondering if this plan could have any hope of success. The honest truth: I don’t know because it’s way too early in the game to predict an accurate statement.

Obama hopes to bring democracy to Afghanistan, but is this really plausible? Do the Afghan people want democracy or the United States to leave their country alone? I think there is a mixture of both sentiments. However, I don’t think the U.S. truly understands the Afghan people; representatives may say its citizens want a Western world in the country, but are those lies or the true wants of the people?

For the past few decades, Afghanistan has undergone a tumultuous history, never truly belonging to itself. The Russians came to invade the country in 1979, bring their Marxist ideals and laws. America took a huge interest in Afghanistan because it didn’t truly trust Russian and Marxist ideals in the country. During Russian rule, millions of people died and thousands upon thousands of people fled to neighboring countries. Instability and terror was a daily worry for a country of innocent people.

Eventually, the Taliban, who took the Islamic religion to another dimension, replaced Russian rule. Civil rights and liberties were stripped from the people. Laughing, singing and dancing were considered illegal and punishments could include imprisonment and public beatings.

During Russian rule, intellectual and prominent leaders fled the country to escape Soviet inquisition. This led to a loss of thousands of people who could represent the people, leaving room for tribal lords in rural areas to rise up and make their voices heard.

Like the Russians, the Taliban was forced from government, placing Western influence in the region yet again. America has tried to place Western ideas on a country that has followed its own tradition for thousands of years. This seems like a near-to-impossible task to me.

There has to be some way to incorporate modernization, but still maintaining Afghan tradition and culture. Americans can’t wipe out the culture; I think that most of us don’t even understand anything about the tradition and values of countries in the Middle East. We might like to say we do, but we can’t even begin to understand the hardship and trauma millions of people have had to face.

Also, people wonder why a country rich with history, culture and tradition could be so war-torn and degraded still. I think it’s because the country has not had a chance to prove itself. It always has had a babysitter or unwanted presence. I think the people have not had a chance to speak without fear of reprimand.

I don’t think the problems the country faces will be fixed with Obama’s plan. It’s going to take decades, if not hundreds of years before there is mostly peace in the country. There is so much hatred and fear of foreigners and of fellow countrymen. Trust and respect needs to be the dominant force to unifying a government, not fear and ignorance.

Education can dilute ignorance, but the U.S. would benefit for the need of the history lesson. We need to understand a problem before we can even begin to have a solution. I honestly don’t feel like America has done its research in regard to Afghanistan. I understand of the current threats that are being posed, but we have to know what we are battling before we enter. Preparedness and steadiness, not action and impulsivity will reap better, long-term results.

Each Afghan generation has had different reigns of rulers, and each generation has different views how the country should be run and what would be most beneficial for the country. Until the country can think like one, I feel it’s going to be numerous generations before we see a truly successful and happy Afghanistan.

Catcher Catches Me

When the news announced that J.D. Salinger died of natural causes earlier last week, I began to contemplate his famous character, Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye. Holden is one of the most notorious teenage figures in literary history. His intellect is dark and brooding, yet thoughtful, and he is a quiet rebel. With these unpopular characteristics, Holden becomes the unlikely hero for millions of teenagers.

Typically, one would think Holden is not a character one should admire because he ends up in a mental institution, but what makes him fascinating is his honesty despite his mental instability. While Holden’s peers are upper-middle class snobs who play hypocritical games and lives in denial, Holden doesn’t. Holden is aware of the lying and hypocrisy in the world, but there is nothing he can do but witness it. However, this hypocrisy causes him to become so depressed he becomes a brooding, condescending man.

These qualities do not make for the typical hero of a literary work. Normally, protagonists are happy individuals who must overcome a particular obstacle and everything is resolved in the end. I like Holden’s character because he is not a waif-like person waiting for people to help him. He realizes what is wrong around him and doesn’t deny reality, though there is nothing he can do about it. Ultimately, Holden realizes people can’t change the “phoniness” of the world. Unlike people around him, Holden doesn’t be something he isn’t.

If you think about it, would Holden be a person you would want to be friends with in real life? I would say no. Though he has a leg up on most people when it comes to reality, he is pessimistic and sulks. Instead of accepting the way the world works, Holden whines and broods over the world’s and people’s shortcoming. I don’t think he yet realizes there is nothing he can do; he is both pessimistic and hopefully optimistic at the same time.

Still, despite Holden’s numerous shortcomings, I still feel he is a real character. He is imperfect and doesn’t have a happy ending, and this characteristic makes Holden real and tangible, a figure to which people can relate.

Please sir, may I have a structurally-sound school?

Working at construction publication, I see projects that are currently being planned by the state. There is hundreds of million-dollar future new construction and renovations people don’t know about.

But, what gets me is how the state can afford all these projects, especially when funds are cut from programs and there is a high rate of unemployment.

For instance, there is a multimillion dollar convention center being in Albany. This project seems too extravagant, when Albany already has sufficient hotels and conference spaces available. After all, the city is the crux of state legislation, so I am sure it has a proper number of places to house government makers and organizations.

I see capital improvements on school districts put on hold because there is not enough funding for much-need renovations and alterations. Asbestos is present in buildings and roofs are deteriorating. With the money for the convention center in Albany, you could improve half a dozen school districts.

I even look at my Alma matter. They are building a large sports complex center when current buildings on campus are in dire need of renovations, especially the dorms.

Towns and villages also can’t get funds to improve water and sewer districts. Neighborhoods smell, and people aren’t getting clean water.

Why can’t the state realize there are buildings and other projects that already exist that need a facelift? This will improve the life of New York residents and students, increasing the quality of life and learning. Instead, the state spends millions of dollars to impress non-residents.

It’s disappointing to see the state puts the new construction of a luxurious convention center over the improvements of educational facilities. The focus of the state government should be to work for the best interest of the residents, not what will make New York aesthetically pleasing.