November 6, 2007

How secretly nervous Democrats were, even as they pretended to laugh along with Colbert.

They act like they have a sense of humor, but "there was no way that Obama, whose campaign is focusing heavily on getting young people to the polls, would let a joke candidacy—even a funny one—get between him and the nomination."

160 comments:

Doyle said...

Yes, it's too bad politicians aren't committed enough to whimsy these days. If Obama really had a sense of humor, any sense of humor at all, he wouldn't mind losing an early state primary on account of a popular entertainer.

former law student said...

Obama suffered enough damage in SC from the fuss that the LGBT/progressive blogosphere made about Obama's hiring a Grammy-award-winning Gospel artist who also happens to be a anti-gay self-hating "ex-gay."

Losing to a comedian would hurt him really bad.

Roost on the Moon said...

"Obama suffered enough damage in SC from the fuss [with the ex-gay event-singer]."

Did he? I'd like to see some poll numbers. It seems to me that 90% of people never heard that story, 50% or those who did didn't really care, and most of those who did care wouldn't change their horse over it. Has it really hurt him, except among the already-hostile readers of Althouse?

Doyle said...

Roost -

I think there are some people who are deciding between Edwards and Obama for whom the latter's endorsement of an anti-gay figure is a definite negative.

Will it be the decisive controversy of the campaign? Probably not, but it's not a total nonstory just because it's an intramural fight on the left.

AJ Lynch said...

Wait a minute Doyle- did you say Obama "endorsed" some else?

Get a life Althouse readers, especially those of you who were "already-hostile"

In my case, I was not hostile until I stumbled on this blog.

Simon said...

Doyle said...
"[I]t's not a total nonstory just because it's an intramural fight on the left."


Correct: it's a total nonstory because as of the last polls I saw, it's a fight between two also-ran candidates whose supporters when put together are still less than the supporters of the frontrunner. Every Obama supporter could move over to the Edwards camp and Hillary would still enjoy a sizable majority over either of them.

Roost on the Moon said...

Well, to be fair, Obama only "endorsed" him so far as he didn't fire him.

And then I've heard of a "controversy" on a similarly tiny scale with Edwards, that he said in 1998 that he's "not comfortable around those people."

I figure it's a wash, but this is the rare question that might be definitively answered... Does anyone follow the polling data? Did the gospel singer kafuffle impact the race?

Luckyoldson said...

Hillary will be the candidate so it's of no consequence...unless of course, Gore is dragged in during the convention.

Luckyoldson said...

Here's another reason the Democrats will win in 2008; our current administration's complete mismanagement of the Iraqi situation:

2.3 million Iraqis reported displaced

November 6, 2007

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's displaced population has grown to 2.3 million people, the Iraqi Red Crescent Society said Monday on the heels of a warning by another humanitarian aid group that border tensions are exacerbating the plight of those who fled north to escape sectarian violence.

The Red Crescent report says an additional 67,000 families left their homes in September, continuing a pattern that has multiplied the number of displaced people more than fivefold this year.

About two-thirds of the total are younger than 12, the Red Crescent said.

In a related report, the International Organization for Migration said shelling of Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq along the Turkish and Iranian borders had driven refugees into nearby cities, driving up rents and leading to evictions and an increase in forced prostitution.

And some of the people here wonder why they hate us?

Luckyoldson said...

King George reaches yet another milestone:

By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president.

Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

*This might have something to do with it: 2007 Marks Deadliest Year For US Troops In Iraq

christopher said...

The surge is working!!!!

tjl said...

Whatever is LOS going to do with his free time after Bush leaves office? What could possibly fill a void so huge?

former law student said...

Hillary will be the candidate
The Republicans will thus be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat: you either love Hillary or hate her and 48% of the population hate her, with 4% undecided. http://www.gallup.com/poll/28834/Who-Likes-Hillary-Clinton-Who-Doesnt.aspx#1

But remember four years ago, when Howard Dean had a similar commanding lead in the polls. If the Dems stay away from Hillary, their chances of winning in 2008 look much brighter.

AJ Lynch said...

LUCY! Where you been- you were missed like when we run out of toilet paper.

I see you got your Dem stalking points for the day. Good lap doggie.

Luckyoldson said...

former law student said..."But remember four years ago, when Howard Dean had a similar commanding lead in the polls."

Dean had a short-lived lead in the polls but never had the Democratic backing, money or commanding percentage lead Hillary does. (In January of 2004 he held about a 5-10 point lead over Clark - 27% - 20%.)

Hillary or Gore will be the next President.

Luckyoldson said...

aj,
I'm sorry, but I still can't quite understand why you refer to me as...Lucy??

Is there some kind of logical association between Lucy...and Lucky...other than the missing "k?"

Or are you missing a key on your keyboard?

Luckyoldson said...

More good news...

Crude oil surges $2.72 and settles at a record $96.70 a barrel.

Clang!Honk!Tweet! said...

The meth-crazed Zen master is here!

Go Lucky go!

;->

reader_iam said...

Luckyoldson:

You've missed the ongoing excerpts here of chapters from a "book" focused on a thinly disguised character named Lucy? I forget who's posting them, and what chapter that person is up to, but ... it's been pretty clear from comment post one who "Lucy" is supposed to be representing.

Surely you didn't miss that? Or maybe I misunderstood.

Luckyoldson said...

Clank-A-Bell,
How many different monikers are you using today?

And our pizza was late again.

Luckyoldson said...

reader,
I SOB anything that I find insipid.

Pogo said...

Lucky

*The deepest point in Earth's oceans 35,840 feet below sea level.

*More than half of British women prefer chocolate to sex, saying it can be depended on to give pleasure.

*"Gada" is the Navajo word for 'dirt', a reference to Mother Earth.


Just adding to your non sequitur theater posts.

Trooper York said...

reader_iam, if you dip a toe into the vortex, you risk being swept away. Beware my dear, beware. I know you are veteran of these shores but you have succumbed to the siren's song. Run for your life! For heaven's sake, run for your life.

john said...

Lucky,

A serious question this time: How can Gore take the nomination in convention? The nomination will be a lock long before that time.

Just to say, I wish he could, as I wish we would go back to the old days of smoke-filled-back-room negotiating. Oh yea, can't smoke inside anymore.

Regards,

Luckyoldson said...

John,
I'm not sure.

Can't he be drafted if Hillary doesn't have the lock on the votes?

P.S. Trooper: Et tu?

reader_iam said...

Why, thank you, Trooper. But never fear: today is a day off (except for the housework I'm procrastinating over), the first in a long while, weekends included, and tomorrow the grind starts up again. So I shall flee and become more scarce again, just ahead of the sucking maw (do maws suck? well, I know mixing metaphors does, on this blog).

Anyway.

rhhardin said...

but you have succumbed to the siren's song.

Doberman pup encounters siren's song. (audio)

Clang!Honk!Tweet! said...

The one and only moi, Lucky.

(Next thing, he'll pretend to see spiders.  Isn't he good?)

Here's a random little thought that I cut and pasted from Wikipedia:

"In 2000, The Economist again described San Diego, California as the methamphetamine capital of North America..."

You know, a little non-sequiter blogging.  Anyone can do it if they try.

Trooper York said...

I just knew Lucky was just being ironic and was pulling your leg. I would never want to tell anyone what to say or do. There has been way to much of that lately.
P.S. Lucky, check out my series on the Russian Ballerina, if you read it closely,you will only be forced to conclude: Et tutu.

reader_iam said...

Which reminds me: Beth (yes, that one) e-mailed me a link to a video, bless her heart, which video I have been really, really been appreciating and which I shall now share with all of you:

Life is complicated.


(But the Preservation Hall Jazz Band rules; also this Kinks song.)

Luckyoldson said...

Clank-A-Bell,
Yeah, San Diego is really the pits.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to live here.

I mean, to be able to get to the ocean, the mountains, the desert, Mexico...all in a matter of minutes or hours...absolutely horrible.

*As for meth, I personally have never indulged. What's it like? Do you deliver pizzas faster?

reader_iam said...

And speaking of Colbert and other things (including, perhaps, non sequiturs)--and while I'm in link mode--my favorite quote from yesterday (a veritable Saying For Our Times) was:

Losing Stewart and Colbert is something like losing Cronkite during the Vietnam War."

From an NYT article about the Writers Guild strike.

AJ Lynch said...

Reader IAM:

Be more careful lest the proprietor takes note of you mocking her beloved NYT.

And for the last time this hour, How's LUCY?

Trooper York said...

Who knows, people might go to the internets for their comedy. Good thing that this is a law blog. What we need is a good long dose of Simon and Mort debating the old ipso facto, to keep out strangers to these here parts. Yessiree bob. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that).

AJ Lynch said...

LUCY:

My keyboard can type KKKKKKK so you see it works fine KKKKKKKK no problem. kkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

You are known as LUCY in these here parts now missy.

Luckyoldson said...

aj,
I notice by your profile that you're in the business services industry.

I'm going to take a wild guess...janitor?

reader_iam said...

Technically speaking, I'm mocking a) the person who was quoted as saying that (I think a union rep) and b) the general--well, I can't think of the exact word or phrase--whatever which enables such an unironical emission.

I fear no flogging from Althouse.

Trooper York said...

Joker: Your mother wore Army shoes.
Batman: Yes, she did. As I recall, she found them quite comfortable.
(Batman TV Show 1966)

reader_iam said...

OK, here is what I hope, with any luck, will be my last non sequitur of the day:

Anyone else getting a kick out of the fact that PostSecret is thus far creaming the pants off all its competition in the Best Blog category of "the 2007 weblog awards"?

Clang!Honk!Tweet! said...

Lucky does the best imiatation of meth blogging I've ever seen, so here's a little song:

Mr. Oldson couldn't sleep
His nerves were slightly off the bean
Until he solved his problem
With a can of Ovaltine
He drank a cupful most every night
And ooh how he would dream
Until something rough got in the stuff
And made his neighbors scream. OW!
Who put the Methamphetamine, in Mr. Oldson's Ovaltine?
Sure was a shame, don't know who's to blame
Cause the old man didn't even get his name
Where did he get that stuff?
Now he just can't get enough
It might have been the man who wasn't there
Now Jack, that guy's a square
He never ever wants to go to sleep
He says that everything is solid all reet
Now Mrs. Oldson don't know what it's all about
Cause he went and threw the old gal out, Clout
Who put the Methamphetamine, in Mr. Oldson's Ovaltine?
Now he wants to swing, the Highland Fling
He says that Methamphetamine's the thing that makes him spring.

from Who Put the Methamphetamine in Mr. Oldson's Ovaltine?
—Henry Gibson, 1947

Luckyoldson said...

Clank-A-Bell,
Good Lord...give it up, Dude.

Meth?

Who in the fuck does meth?

Luckyoldson said...

Views on Iraq are Unchanged despite Better Casualty Reports

Recent reports of fewer casualties in Iraq haven’t altered most Americans’ perceptions of the war: Fifty-nine percent still don’t think the United States is making significant progress restoring civil order there, and a record six in 10 want the level of U.S. forces reduced.

All told, 63 percent say the war was not worth fighting, almost exactly its average this year and a majority steadily since December 2004. Intensity against the war continues to run high, with 51 saying they feel “strongly” that it was not worth fighting, more than double its strong supporters.

Views on Iraq directly inform preferences on the country’s direction after the Bush presidency. Among people who think the war was worth fighting, 49 percent say the next president should follow the same direction as Bush; but among the more than six in 10 who are war opponents, 91 percent want the next president to take new direction.

Simon said...

Pogo said...
"More than half of British women prefer chocolate to sex, saying it can be depended on to give pleasure."

If regular American chocolate was as good as regular British chocolate, you'd understand why. ;) Oh, to be able to buy a real Flake or Twirl at a corner store...

Simon said...

LOS (16:09 comment): yes, we're all well aware that the Dems have won the propaganda war over Iraq and that the public's views on Iraq have nothing to do with what's actually happening on the ground. That's one thing you don't need to provide evidentiary support for, but it's awfully kind of you to try (albeit still without links - bless, I don't think he knows how...)

reader_iam said...

The text of President Bush's proclamation of National Methamphetamine Awareness Day, 2006.

Don't know when/if there will be one this year (last year it at the end of November), but I guess we'll all stay tuned.

reader_iam said...

That pitch was for YOU, Lucky, and it was an easy one ...

reader_iam said...

Poor Ann. We've turned the whole damned place into a coffeehouse today.

Luckyoldson said...

Simon said..."LOS (16:09 comment): yes, we're all well aware that the Dems have won the propaganda war over Iraq..."

Yeah, it's nothing more than a "propaganda war," waged by the "Dems." (60% of Americans are now members of the Democratic party?)

*AMERICAN’S perceptions of the war: Fifty-nine percent still don’t think the United States is making significant progress restoring civil order there, and a record six in 10 want the level of U.S. forces reduced.

Right wing drivel...as usual.

Luckyoldson said...

reader-Clank...do you idiots do meth?

If not...what is your obsession with it?

I know absolutely no one who uses it...do you?

Palladian said...

Lucky, America also voted for Bush (twice!), so why do you trust their obviously flawed judgment about anything?

"Poor Ann. We've turned the whole damned place into a coffeehouse today."

If I walked into any coffeehouse that sounded like this place, I'd call the police.

Palladian said...

"I know absolutely no one who uses it...do you?"

It's a serious problem among urban gay male populations, but of course you don't know anyone like that, since, as I've proclaimed before, you're an anti-gay bigot.

Lawgiver said...

Lucy hated being called boring or boorish. Althouse had called her that one night and it forced Lucy to eat eight of her precious valium just to calm down to a semi-coherent level. Lucy hated Althouse and she was NOT boring. If anything, Lucy was the only reason anyone even came to such a nothing blog site like Althouse. What a hoot!


From Chapter Thirteen of “Hate Me, Hate You, A Tale of Despair and Loathing in The 21stCentury.)

Pogo said...

Simon,
I thought the key phrase was less the chocolate and more the fact that it can be depended on to give pleasure.

Are men less dependable than chocolate? Of course!


Palladian: " I'd call the police."
But what would you call them?
Ba dum bum.

AJ Lynch said...

People - didn't you all read my memo? Henceforth, it's LUCY not Lucky damNit.

Luckyoldson said...

Palladian,
I'm not anti-gay at all...and have no idea where you come up with that. (Other than sidling up to the others here.)

And if you're using meth, that's your prerogative and I wish you the best.

*It helps Clank deliver pizzas faster.

reader_iam said...

reader-Clank...do you idiots do meth?

Oh, Lucky, I thought you'd find that funny. For Pete's sake. What, only you get to go on and on about whatever strikes your fancy?

No, I don't use it and never have tried it, nor am I anything close to obsessed by the issue.

However:

1) As I now see Palladian has pointed out, its use is a problem within the gay community, and as it happens I have close friends within that community (though, thank God, my closest one does not do drugs)

and

2) There are pockets of serious meth use in rural communities in the U.S. as well. Iowa, where I currently reside, happens to be a state which has had to deal with that problem. And yes, I know a person or two here who has run afoul.

Get a life. (And a sense of humor that's broader than your own jokes.)

reader_iam said...

If I walked into any coffeehouse that sounded like this place, I'd call the police.

Thank goodness you never hung out in any biker bars in rural Maryland! You'd have had to call out the National Guard, or something!

; )

Luckyoldson said...

Simon,
More of the Dems propaganda war:

Dems Indies Repubs
War not worth fighting 86% 64 35
No significant progress 80% 61 32
Decrease troops in Iraq 82% 58 36

Luckyoldson said...

Speaking of drugs in general...and I realize this will illicit who-knows-what, but years ago I owned a night club and a couple of bars, and at that time, booze, coke, pot, white crosses, black beauties and amyl nitrates were the drugs of choice.

*The amyl nitrates were very high on the list for the gay patrons.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reader_iam said...

Whatever it illicits, no doubt it will be elicit. Or the other way around.

(Laugh, damnit, Lucky, laugh!!!!!

Also, in all seriousness, I'll bet you were a pretty good club owner.)

***

Anyway, my stolen afternoon is over.

Ta-ta, all.

XXOO

reader_iam

Simon said...

Lucyoldson said...
"Yeah, it's nothing more than a 'propaganda war,' waged by the 'Dems.' (60% of Americans are now members of the Democratic party?)"

As usual, a red herring instead of a rebuttal. It isn't necessary for those who are taken in by propaganda advanced by a party and its enablers to be a member of that party.


Palladian said...
"If I walked into any coffeehouse that sounded like this place, I'd call the police."

If this were a real coffeehouse, you wouldn't need to call the police: they'd already be on the way. Don't you know that in Bushitler's America, one word of dissent and boom, black suits fill up the room. Don't you get how rebellious, how subversive, how cool LOS and his fellow-travellers are being, evading the thought police by only talking like this online? Why, they're damned near heroic.

Fen said...

No significant progress 80% 61% 32%

If anything, that poll indicates how ignorant the public is re whats going on in Iraq. Why are they ignorant? Because the MSM refuses to inform them of the truth. "No significant progress"? LOL.

jeff said...

"but years ago I owned a night club and a couple of bars,"

Well, that's interesting. Did you have any problems turning a profit, what with paying a living wage to all employees and providing a solid insurance plan?

If you owned them now, where would you fall on the no smoking laws?

Luckyoldson said...

Fen said..."If anything, that poll indicates how ignorant the public is re whats going on in Iraq. Why are they ignorant? Because the MSM refuses to inform them of the truth."

Yeah, that's it...the Main Stream Media has everybody in America...H-Y-P-N-O-T-I-Z-E-D.

No, wait...Simon says it's the Dems who have won the P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A WAR.

No, wait...Sloan thinks it's because Americans are just a bunch of U-N-P-A-T-R-I-O-T-I-C fools.

And of course, none of these wing nuts even consider the possibility that the reason Americans feel the way they do...is because...of the current administration's performance...

Oh, it couldn't be that...

Luckyoldson said...

jeff,
All three businesses did very well, the night club by far the best, and yes, we provided health insurance coverage, paid a very good wage, and as for smoking laws...they weren't in effect back then. (I smoked for a few years but gave it up years ago.)

I tended and ran bars in California over the years and the smoking laws haven't even put a mini-dent in the restaurant/bar business...although when they were pushing the laws, everybody said it would destroy the industry.

Luckyoldson said...

Simon said..."As usual, a red herring instead of a rebuttal. It isn't necessary for those who are taken in by propaganda advanced by a party and its enablers to be a member of that party."

What "red herring"...and who are the "enablers" you speak of?
(We're at 60% of the American public and you say we're being "enabled"...that we have no mind of our own?)

YOU'RE the one who said the reason Americans were against the war and wanted out was because of a Democratic "propaganda war."

I think that's total bullshit and pure right wing drivel.

*Unless of course, you're saying that if Americans SUPPORTED the war, it would really be nothing more than the Republicans winning a propaganda war and nothing to do with how the administration was performing their duties and how the war was going.

Is that what you're saying??

Simon said...

Luckyoldson said...
"And of course, none of these wing nuts even consider the possibility that the reason Americans feel the way they do...is because...of the current administration's performance..."

Assuming that you include me amongst these so-called "wingnuts" (kind of funny, since I think of myself as a moderate), I don't even consider that a "possibility" - it's a fact. The reason that the anti-war side is winning the propaganda war (or if you'd rather use a term with less pejorative connotations, "war of words" is because this administration has systematically failed to make the case for what we're doing in Iraq, why it's important we're there, how we're going to move forwards, and what the consequences of surrender would be. The current administration has failed, over and over again, even the most basic communications competency, and in a democracy, that's a fatal flaw, because when you're doing something important and the people turn against you, ceteris paribus, in due course they're going to reassert themselves and shut it down. If we now yank troops out, it won't be because of the myriad failings in the conduct of the war itself, it'll be because the administration has failed to carry the public. I'm not defending the administration for a moment.

jeff said...

"I tended and ran bars in California over the years and the smoking laws haven't even put a mini-dent in the restaurant/bar business...although when they were pushing the laws, everybody said it would destroy the industry."

That's very interesting. Do you attribute that to the California lifestyle? Were there many smokers in the bars before the smoking laws took effect or were the smokers a small percentage of your customer base? Or did you just more than make up for their absence with non smokers who might not have come out before? I have been in 3 states when the smoking laws went thru and they did have an impact on the business. Where I am currently living the smoking laws have not gone thru, however the bars are all putting in decks and beer gardens outside in anticipation.

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
In California it may very well be because of the huge population and tourism, and I suppose the nice weather affords those who do smoke an opportunity to do so without freezing to death.

And, as to your question regarding whether people were smoking in the bars I worked in: Absolutely.

They still do, too...only it's outside now.

tc said...

Democrats are "timid"/feminist assholes according to the NYTimes (11-6-07). However, they are largely female (or despicable faggots or belly and thigh kissers/lesbians)SO:
I tell you Ann, someone suggested you pose in a tub with soap bubbles over your nipples on a videoblog. As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see you on a videoblog nude...no tub or bubbles or whatever. Think you can arrange that ?

Tom

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
I forgot to mention that I go back the the Midwest quite a few times a year and they're trying to push the laws there, too...and the whining is severe.

Luckyoldson said...

Simon,
Okay, now you're making some sense.

A "war of words" is entirely different that a pure "propaganda war." (tomato...tomaaato)

Ineptitude is the reason we are where we are...and you're absolutely correct when you criticize the administrations communication skills...but...and this is obviously MY OPINION...they created their own problems by not being fully truthful at the start, and now people just aren't going along for the ride.

Trooper York said...

Lucky I am a tax man in NYC that specializes in bars and restaurants. The anti-smoking law had a terrible effect on certain type of establishments. The local gin mill where neighborhood guys could just hang out and catch the game took a really big hit. Of course some of them are ignoring the law (depending on who is in the bar and the time of night). Most restaurants have survived the hit, but the dive bars took about a 25% hit in real revenues. Of course no bar in its right mind would open up its books so there are no real hard numbers. The smoking ban just pushed the drunks out on the street to annoy their neighbors. Thank you nanny Bloomberg. The perfect, fair solution is to offer a "smoking" license that a bar can buy if they want to have smokers. The city gets more money and the smokers and non-smokers can self segregate into their respective enclaves. If there is such a great market for smoke free bars, then they will predominate. Of course if it was up to Nanny Bloomberg, we would have alcohol free bars.

Simon said...

Luckyoldson said...
"Okay, now you're making some sense. A 'war of words' is entirely different that a pure "propaganda war." (tomato...tomaaato) Ineptitude is the reason we are where we are...and you're absolutely correct when you criticize the administrations communication skills...but...and this is obviously MY OPINION...they created their own problems by not being fully truthful at the start, and now people just aren't going along for the ride."

I'm inclined to agree with that, although I wouldn't put it in quite those terms. I think that there were obviously several reasons why we went into Iraq, but the administration didn't say that. Instead, they emphasize one of those reasons at one time, and another at another time, and so on and so forth, and in so doing, it left itself open to the "shifting rationales" charge. As I've said before, I think it was by no means inevitable that we would have arrived at this; Obama is wrong, we weren't doomed to this outcome simply by the decision to go to Iraq. That gives the administration far, far too much credit, in my estimation; we're where we are, in large part, because the administration screwed up. It screwed up managing Iraq itself, and just as much of a problem, it screwed up communicating with America at large. And now it's starting to fix both of those things, but it's too late, because a large part of the constituency they need to convince has quit listening.

former law student said...

Two advantages to no-smoking bars: When you get home from a night out, your hair and clothes no longer smell like an ashtray. Further, if you're macking on a chick, you have a reason to step outside the noisy bar and chat a bit.

reader_iam said...

Re: "macking" + "chick"

Slang, generations--even worlds!--collide, in the marrying of just those two words.

Really.

Don't you all think so?

reader_iam said...

Life is a wonderful thing, especially if you live long enough.

jeff said...

I remember very well coming home smelling like an ashtray. I never smoked, but the bars were where the women were. With the smoke eaters the current bars have, most of the bars now have a much better atmosphere. The only reason I am against non smoking laws is that I don't have any money invested in these bars. I don't have to make payroll and I haven't risked my money and time in building up these bars. I don't think I have the right to tell the owner what legal activities are not allowed in his business.

Luckyoldson said...

The ONLY people who want smoking in bars, and especially restaurants...are smokers.

Anybody here familiar with passive ingestion?

Cancer?

jeff said...

"The ONLY people who want smoking in bars, and especially restaurants...are smokers."

Not true. The owners also want it. Otherwise they wouldn't have it.

"Anybody here familiar with passive ingestion?
Cancer?"

Then don't go. Lord knows there were enough bars I stayed out of due to the unbelievable amount of smoke.

Revenant said...

The owners also want it. Otherwise they wouldn't have it.

I doubt they want it anymore, now that it has become apparent that it hasn't hurt their business any. They didn't exactly "want" it before, either -- they were just afraid of what would happen if it were banned. Would smokers quit going to bars? As it turns out the answer is "no" -- they go to bars and smoke out on the patio. The major effect of the smoking ban in California is that pretty much ALL restaurants now have sections with outdoor seating (smoking's legal there). Before, amazingly enough, many didn't.

It is certainly true that the law violates property owners' rights, but personally it isn't on my top ten thousand list of "property rights violations to worry about". Life is so much nicer without air pollution.

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
This is supposedly a "law" blog.

Are you really not familiar with where and how these laws came about?

And when you say: "Then don't go."

Are you including pizza parlors, restaurants, cafes, ...where they serve food and beer, wine, etc...where you might take the kids for the day?

*Ever have a loved one or friend die of lung cancer?

Luckyoldson said...

Revenant said..."It is certainly true that the law violates property owners' rights..."

Would you allow people to speed on your parking lot?

Passive ingestion...read about it.

jeff said...

Jesus Christ. Do you bother to even read this stuff? I don't smoke. I have avoided places full of smoke. I do not see where I have the right to dictate to a private business owner what legal activities are banned from his business. Which part of that do you not understand?

"They didn't exactly "want" it before, either -- they were just afraid of what would happen if it were banned. "
Which means they choose to allow it. Which is another way to say they wanted it.

"Would smokers quit going to bars? As it turns out the answer is "no" -- they go to bars and smoke out on the patio. The major effect of the smoking ban in California is that pretty much ALL restaurants now have sections with outdoor seating (smoking's legal there)."
Right. In California. In other states, places have gone out of business.

"It is certainly true that the law violates property owners' rights, but personally it isn't on my top ten thousand list of "property rights violations to worry about". Life is so much nicer without air pollution."
Right. I agree. It is nicer without air pollution. So I should base the rule of law on what I personally find convenient even at the detriment of others?

"And when you say: "Then don't go."
Are you including pizza parlors, restaurants, cafes, ...where they serve food and beer, wine, etc...where you might take the kids for the day?"
Of course I am. If that causes those businesses to suffer, they will change soon enough.

"*Ever have a loved one or friend die of lung cancer?"

ever have a loved one or friend die of alcohol related reason? We probably should ban the sale and consumption of that.

"Would you allow people to speed on your parking lot?"
And that is analogous in what way?

Trooper York said...

Why not give people a choice. In New York Nanny Bloomberg even tells you how to cook the fucking french fries. If I want to sell fried turds in Trans fat while smoking cigars, determine a reasonable licensing fee and we are good to go. I can tell you of many bars that lost business and had to close or sell out because of the smoking ban. No one would open their books; they just found a pigeon to sell to and slid out from under. The pigeons lose their shirts and the spots have had 3 or 4 owners since then. Great for the landlords and the brokers, for the bar owners not so much. Pretty soon the only place you can go to smoke a cigar will be Cuba. A fine kettle of fish if there ever was one. Bloomberg and the nanny statists should rot in hell, where I think there will be a little smoke.

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
Where did I say or imply you smoke?

And when you say: "I do not see where I have the right to dictate to a private business owner what legal activities are banned from his business."

Well...what I'm asking you is this: Should be able to smoke INDOORS or ENCLOSED...with those who don't...and please, not just "bars"...bars are attached to restaurants where people eat.

Do you think people on airplanes (hint, hint) should be able to smoke? (private business)

Recirculated air, over and over again...your kids beside you...breathing into their lungs....

That sound okay to you?

If so...take your kids into every location you can where they allow smoking. You can explain it to them later...if you're still alive.

Trooper York said...

Furthermore, all smokers drink but not all drinkers smoke. But anyone who pays $7.50 for a pack of cigs won't piss his panties at buying a $7.00 pint of beer. We can have honest taverns where you can smoke and eat red meat and fried fat on one side of the street. On the other you can have ferns, and tofu and white fucking wine spritzers. Let everyone have a choice. Let the market decide. That's how America is supposed to work. I know that scares some of you, but this is the real slippery slope. When they came for the cigars, I did nothing......

Trooper York said...

Airplanes are certainly a resonable restriction. The neighborhood gin mill at four o'clock in the morning is not. If the restaurant doesn't want to have smoking fine, but let the guy next door have it if he wants and pays a premium for another license. You don't want to allow it because you want to impose the fucking fairness doctrine on my fucking stoogie.

Simon said...

jeff said...
"I do not see where I have the right to dictate to a private business owner what legal activities are banned from his business."

Isn't the point that the activity becomes illegal, in that setting? And what's the principal at work here - does government (in the abstract) not have the right to dictate by legislation to private businesses certain things that they can or can't do? Can it tell a private business that it can't decline to serve someone based on their color, for example? Or is the point the perceived disparity of saying that certain conduct is acceptable only in certain contexts - as opposed to, say, public nudity laws, which would represent the flipside of the coin to what you're saying as an example of conduct that is legal in private yet not so in public?

Trooper York said...

Simon are you a communist. You want to ban strip clubs now. Whats the matter with you. If a gentleman wants to enjoy a fine cigar and few cocktails while watching an undulating single mother make enough money to send her little urchins to private school, why do we have to let the government stick it's snozola into it. You better watch out, the next thing you know they will start banning bean sprouts and tofu because they are unfair to minority vegetables. Will the madness never end? When they came for Christy Canyon, I did nothing………

jeff said...

"Jeff,
Where did I say or imply you smoke?"

When you continue to simplify it with these statements.

"The ONLY people who want smoking in bars, and especially restaurants...are smokers.
Anybody here familiar with passive ingestion?
Cancer?"

"Well...what I'm asking you is this: Should be able to smoke INDOORS or ENCLOSED...with those who don't...and please, not just "bars"...bars are attached to restaurants where people eat."
If the owner is willing to give up me and my families business by allowing it, then yes. Personally, I love the cleaner air from the last several years or so. But in this part of the country where the outside temp in the winter might not get above freezing, having a outdoor place to smoke might not keep those smokers coming. Some of the places that have smoking invested in some pretty good smoke eaters and the air is pretty good there. Some didn't and I don't go to them.
"Do you think people on airplanes (hint, hint) should be able to smoke? (private business)"
Do I personally think people should be able to smoke, or do I think I should dictate to the owners of the airlines that people shouldn't smoke? Two different questions and two different answers.
I think that the airlines used the government to justify ending smoking, so not to piss off the smokers.

"If so...take your kids into every location you can where they allow smoking. You can explain it to them later...if you're still alive."

Why in the world would I tell you not to patronize businesses that allow smoking, but take my family into said business? That makes no sense.

Luckyoldson said...

I say..."Would you allow people to speed on your parking lot?"

And you ask: "And that is analogous in what way?"

ONE MORE TIME: PASSIIVE INGESTION OF SMOKE, TAR, NICOTINE CARCINOGENS.

Not as fast as a speeding car, but more effective in the long run.

1,000 a day in America.

Trooper York said...

If I choose to ingest passive smoke with like minded Americans that should be my right. If I want to pass some of my hard earned money to large breasted college students who are on fourlough from the Sorbonne, that's my right.You don't have to come to my bar. You can go to all the massively popular one's that don't allow smoking. But you want to come into my house and tell me what to do because you want to contol by legislation what has been man's right since he first learned to start a fire. Soon you will be regulating all food content on the basis of "science" made by douches who proably never had a smoke or drink in their entire pitiful miserable live. Hey Lucky, vote for Giuliani baby, he's right up your fucking alley. But just wait until he decides to regulate something you enjoy, like use of the internet, then you will see. Its a big joke until somebody gets their eye put out. When they came for the trans fat in my french fries, I did nothing....

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
It's too late.

The secret is out.

Smoking kills...even those who don't.

Handle it any way you want.

Trooper York said...

That's furlough, because I am typing too fast because I am pissed off.

Luckyoldson said...

Trooper York said..."If I choose to ingest passive smoke with like minded Americans that should be my right."

Yes it is.

Just not near me in an enclosed space where laws say you can't.

Otherwise...smoke and breath away...it's your right as an American.

Simon said...

Trooper, well, I'm just asking questions, but I''ll have to dig out the photo of me -- aged fifteen or sixteen -- outside the Lenin Mausoleum for you. :) And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've now been called both a wingnut and a communist in the same thread. ;)

(Actually, to be candid, I was a communist, years and years ago, as I confessed in various comments to this post - I continue to be somewhat comforted about my youthful idiocy by the knowledge that Bob Bork made a similar intellectual journey.)

Luckyoldson said...

Trooper,
Eat and do what you want...especially in your own home.

jeff said...

"Isn't the point that the activity becomes illegal, in that setting? And what's the principal at work here - does government (in the abstract) not have the right to dictate by legislation to private businesses certain things that they can or can't do?"
It would be far more impressive if the government didn't get a significant percentage of the profits. If there is this concern for public safety, then ban tobacco and be done with it. My current employer doesn't allow smoking inside. No law necessary.

"public nudity laws"
Most places the strip bars are controlled via zoning. As are restaurants and bars.

I admit, I am the ultimate hypocrite on this. I unapologetically take advantage of those laws. I enjoy coming home and not having my clothes wreak of smoke. But I wish that decision was made by the guy that has his own money invested in his own business.

Simon said...

BTW, my commen above also furnishes an answer to whoever it was who asked a few weeks ago if I'd read Das Kapital - sonny, I'd read Das Kapital before I was out of short trousers.

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
What is it you just don't seem to understand about PASSIVE INGESTION OF HARMFUL SMOKE, TAR, NICOTINE and CARCINOGENS?

The laws are to PROTECT those whose lives and health are being infringed upon.

Period.

Simon said...

Jeff, I'm not trying to be an ass about it, I'm jut trying to push a little to see wht the principle is that's at work here and what its limits are.

Trooper York said...

Simon, I have a lot of respect for you, but I have a lot of experience in this area and I know what I talking about. It's easy for family people to say, hey this doesn't concern me, what do I care? But not everyone has the same lifestyle or desires, and the intrusion of the government has gotten more and more onerous under the guise of some nebulous study or other. Don't provide intellectual cover for these murderers. Because they want to kill fun. If they don't like it, they don't want anyone else to enjoy it. Take Titus for example. His activities are not my cup of tea. But if he want to indulge in them in a club with likeminded individuals, that should be his right. Sure, stop it in public restrooms or if Republican politicians are involved, but he's an American and he can smoke as many bones as he wants in establishments that cater to that sort of thing (big, big money makers by the way). Freedom isn't free unless we stand together against the nanny state. If Bloomberg has his way the terrorists have won. When they came for the gay bars, I did nothing......

Simon said...

Trooper, you're assuming I'm taking a position on such things, but as I said to Jeff in my 10:14 reply, I'm just trying to push a little to see what the principle is that's at work here and what its limits are.

Trooper York said...

Lucky, you don't get it. The fuckin smoke Nazi's want to ban smoking in your car, in your home, in your fuckin dreams if they could. They are pushing the envelope. They tried this during Prohibition. Do you know that a lot of drug dealers have stopped selling dope in New York, and instead truck in untaxed cigs from South Carolina. The smoke Nazi's will never stop. Soon it will be the strip clubs, then porno, then we might as well all put on burkas. When they came for the hedgehog, I did nothing......

reader_iam said...

Oh, for God's sake.

Luckyoldson:

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT CLAMPING DOWN ON ALL BEHAVIORS THAT MIGHT LEAD TO BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT DEATHS????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Even I'm recoiling from my excessive use of caps and punctation.

But, you know, it was for a specific cause.

Don't confuse that for an understanding of broader principle, implicational thinking, or even an appreciation of ...

ohnevermind.

jeff said...

"Jeff,
What is it you just don't seem to understand about PASSIVE INGESTION OF HARMFUL SMOKE, TAR, NICOTINE and CARCINOGENS?"

Ok, we're going with all caps for emphasis. DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT ARE SMOKY.

"I'm jut trying to push a little to see wht the principle is that's at work here and what its limits are."
Sure. As I have said, I am more than sympathetic to this particular argument. I would say my quality of life has improved by not having to deal with the amount of smoke as say, 10 years ago. But I don't see how I can dictate to someone how he runs his business based on my preferences. I can vote with my feet and encourage him to change his business.

Luckyoldson said...

Okay, who here thinks people should be able to smoke on "privately owned" airlines?

Let's hear it.

Simon said...

FWIW, having said I wasn't taking a position, I'll say this much: I'm not a smoker (I smoked a pipe in college, which given that we're talking about the late 1990s says a lot about me, and the attraction wore off after a while) and I think it's generally an unattractive habit (with certain exceptions), but I'm inclined to think that laws against smoking in bars are pretentious and insipid gestures towards political correctness. Whether they're also invidious, as you suggest, I don't know.

Luckyoldson said...

reader,
Provide your "broader issue" argument against passive ingestion of smoke.

And be sure to run it by the courts because they've already heard 'em all.

Asshole.

Trooper York said...

Simon you are providing erudite intellectual cover for totalitarian monsters who want to take away my Cohiba's. We are going to the mattresses on this one. To coin a phrase, you are with us or you against us. The commissars of the anti-smoking brigade will send us all to reeducation camps where we have to listen to Pete Segar and eat rice cakes. No sweet soul music because it is too loud and will hurt your ears. No beer on a sunny Sunday afternoon. No wine with your pasta. No cognac with your cigar. Please come over to the side of America. George Washington smoked. FDR smoked. Madame Curie smoked. Martin Luther King smoked. Don't be fooled and provide a modicum of justification for these tyrants. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson smoked. Soon they will ban chocolate cigarettes and take the corn cob pipes out of the mouths of Halloween displays. When they came for the Scarecrows pipe, I did nothing.......

Luckyoldson said...

Simon says: "...but I'm inclined to think that laws against smoking in bars are pretentious and insipid gestures towards political correctness."

"...pretentious and insipid...????"

And, it has nothing to do with "political correctness"...it's about the health risks.

jeff said...

"Okay, who here thinks people should be able to smoke on "privately owned" airlines?
Let's hear it."

*sigh* if one of the airlines thinks they could fill a plane with smokers, why not? I would suspect, that even smokers would prefer not to spend a couple of hours in a smoke filled tub. Then again, maybe they would.

Why would you care if 100 people wanted to fly in a smoky airplane?

jeff said...

"we have to listen to Pete Segar"

oh, hell no. There is a reason I fight to keep my guns......

reader_iam said...

I'm opposed to smoking on airlines, on obvious grounds (and for the obvious reasons). (Though if someone wanted to start an airline as specifically naed The Smokers Airline and could make a go of it, which I suspect they could not, because of the specific context ... they should be able to go for it.)

I'll cop to it: I can be asshole. Frequently enough, I am here. In fact: OK, there is a definite asshole part of personality, of me.

Will you cop to willfully assuming blinders, whenever it suits you?

And sometimes, quite markedly though in smaller subset, being a fool?

Simon said...

Luckyoldson said...
"[I]t has nothing to do with 'political correctness'...it's about the health risks."

On a plane, sure. And I'm inclined to agree with you when we're talking about a closed environment like that, although if there were some way to provide for smokers to have an area of the plane that was isolated, that'd be ideal. But in a bar? I'm not going to go for that, and no one with a triple-digit IQ ought to. No one is forced to be in a bar, and even if they were, it seems to me that in bars there are far more dangerous substances being ingested, starting with alcohol. Maybe it's just me, because I'm an adult, but if a bar was too smoky, I went somewhere else that wasn't too smoky. There's some contexts where smoking regulations may be appropriate, but bars strike me as being the last such place.

Luckyoldson said...

jeff says: "*sigh* if one of the airlines thinks they could fill a plane with smokers, why not?"

SIGH...oh, you're sooooooo smart.

But...why do you think they don't?

Think maybe it's because of the people, unlike yourself, who are fully aware of the health risks...who would NEVER buy a ticket??

Do you REALLY think the smoking laws are based in some kind of political correctness or government intrusion...and not medical evidence?

jeff said...

"Think maybe it's because of the people, unlike yourself, who are fully aware of the health risks...who would NEVER buy a ticket??"

Actually, I think that's exactly why. Are you not reading these? If the flight was a smoking flight, I dont think they could find enough people to fill it up. See last remark.

The next thing....
“A male worker observed having bare-hand contact with one slice of ready-to-eat lime while placing on top of beer bottle for patron in bar,” the citation, dated Oct. 9, states."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/nyregion/06tongs.html?ex=1352091600&en=2cc39d47fb73a5fc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Luckyoldson said...

Simon, and others evidently believe..."On a plane, sure."

NO, Simon...it's ALL about the HEALTH RISKS...just about everywhere you find the law applied.

Hospitals, airports, taxis, elevators, buildings, stadiums, hallways, offices, planes, trains, trolleys...

In California they don't even allow it on some beaches.

Do you know why?

About 10,000,000 cigarette butts soiling our beaches and ocean.

Down on that, too?

jeff said...

"Do you REALLY think the smoking laws are based in some kind of political correctness or government intrusion...and not medical evidence?"

Oh, absolutely. No question about it. The medical evidence on second hand smoke is no where near conclusive. But that has nothing to do with my point. No one forces anybody to go to a place that allows smoking. You assume whatever the risk is. When people stop doing going to those places, those places change. This is a shortcut brought along by people that know better than everyone else and are want to protect us from ourselves.

Trooper York said...

Lucky stop with the fucking airplanes already. That's fine, no smoking in airplanes, libraries, churches, subways, buses, health food stores, kindergartens, movie theaters, malls and a whole host of other places where it will impinge on people who don't want to smoke or are afraid of second hand smoke. We agree. But don't stop me from enjoying a smoke in a bar at four o’clock in the morning while you are home posting on the internet. I want to be able to smoke in a bar that buys a special license to cater to other likeminded real Americans. If you can't see that simple plain fact, then let’s just forget it. But just remember, they will come for something you like some day and you will be all alone. They might ban Japanese pornography and the animal acts you down load on your computer . If you can't see that a whole class of Americans are having their civil rights violated, then there is nothing to say.
We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day

Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day

We'll walk hand in hand
We'll walk hand in hand
We'll walk hand in hand some day


We shall all be free
We shall all be free
We shall all be free some day

We are not afraid
We are not afraid
We are not afraid some day

We are not alone
We are not alone
We are not alone some day


The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around some day

We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
Dumb.

reader_iam said...

And every once in a while, being intellectually dishonest--most particularly when you will allow in yourself, most generously, what you will not permit as even a minor slip in others, just 'cause ... .

(I'm specifically NOT referring to myself, there. Here's one [rat's] asshole who's learned not to trade a rat's ass for your "fair and balanced" judgments. OTOH, I have thought it worth while to pay attention to your assessments, to read and listen to what you were trying say among all the other ... stuff.

I guess I should concede that that was a waste of time. Ah, well. So be it. Assholes tend to be indiscriminate about the content of the shit that passes through them.

I shall endeavor to go forth and Do Better.

reader_iam said...

Have I lived up to the expectation yet?

jeff said...

"About 10,000,000 cigarette butts soiling our beaches and ocean.
Down on that, too?"

Yes. You see right through us. I believe we have the right to throw not just cigarette butts, but any and all trash on the public beach. This is JUST like banning smoking in private business. Dammit. I would have gotten away with it if it just wasnt for that meddling Lucky.

Trooper York said...

Reader_Iam, I didn't listen to my own words. I heard the siren song and was lost. But I think I can make my escape. I am going upstairs now; I think my wife is knitting a scarf.

Luckyoldson said...

Trooper,
If you can fins a bar that can legally allow you to smoke...SMOKE...and there are certainly locations that indeed do just that.

But over the years, most people have come to the realization that passive ingestion kills people who just happen to be near someone who SMOKES...and it's difficult to control...without laws.

And these laws relate to HEALTH RISKS to those WHO DON'T SMOKE.

Where the fuck have you and these others been for the past number of years?

This is NOT new...

Luckyoldson said...

jeff said..."I believe we have the right to throw not just cigarette butts, but any and all trash on the public beach."

Based on your comments here I believe it.

P.S. Reader: Too wordy and poorly written.

jeff said...

Eh. I got to get up early and go to work in the morning. Plus go visit my mother in the hospital where she is getting a stint. 78 years old and dealing with a pacemaker, cancer, diabetes, dialysis and now a stint. Lifetime non smoker. She has walked out of places that had one smoker sitting on the other side of the restaurant, and let management know why she was leaving. Militant non-smoker. No smoking ever in her house. As is mine.

reader_iam said...

Trooper: I'm still wasting time engaging with Luckyoldson.

You were not intended to be, shall we say, collateral damage. But I will, right now, stop and go back to see how I managed to achieve that one, which was unintended. I wasn't thinking of you.

A useful endeavor, doesn't everyone think ... in terms of assessing how one can get caught up in one's own (self-) righteous passions?

Well, I already admitted my own asshole-tendencies.

Et ... ?

jeff said...

"Based on your comments here I believe it."
Yes, I expect you do. As clearly all my comments point to a pro-littering agenda. And your representing the party of nuance. Funny world.

Going to bed.

reader_iam said...

P.S. Reader: Too wordy and poorly written.

You're in luck, then, so to speak!

Don't worry: I don't expect any thanks.

Trooper York said...

Reader_iam, you are one cool babe. If you are ever in Brooklyn, I will take you and your husband out to dinner where we will enjoy good food, fine wines, after dinner cocktails and a fine cigar if you are so inclined. All the best

former law student said...

Trooper -- those private property owners who allow smoking all have signs saying, "No pipes or cigars, please." So you have to take your Cohiba some place else, any ways.

But I have a hard time respecting anyone addicted to a drug that won't even make you high, a drug principally known for killing you in any of several unpleasant ways. Plus it cuts blood supply to several important organs, not least of which is the privy member.

The law won't let me rent out my back yard for the storage of nuclear waste, so I feel everyone on the subject of unwarranted government interference with private property rights.

Galvanized said...

I would be interested to see someone donate that $35,000 fee to Colbert to run on the Republican ticket. Because, being serious, I think that a huge number of young voters would carry him. And they're right -- his inclusion WOULD make candidates itch under the collar. I think that he makes more earnest points in jest than a lot of politicians do in (mock) sincerity. I say let him run. As much as I respect Bush, I think that Colbert does so much to keep American politicians on their toes -- and that dinner should have proven him as one to contend with.

Revenant said...

In California. In other states, places have gone out of business.

I was only talking about California.

It is nicer without air pollution. So I should base the rule of law on what I personally find convenient even at the detriment of others?

There's no question of rule of law here; the states can ban smoking in bars. The owners' natural rights are being violated, but those rights are not recognized by the law. So the relevant question is: how outraged am I that that right isn't recognized? Answer: my outrage is all used up being bothered by the many, many unrecognized rights that *wouldn't* make my life worse if they were suddenly recognized. Yeah, I can't smoke in the local strip club. I can't get a topless lapdance either, and I actually WANT one of those. :)

I'd also like to point out that while it is wrong to tell a property owner "you may not allow smoking on your property", it would be entirely right to say "you may not allow any smoke to exit your property". That would have approximately the same effect as a ban, since few bars would pay for hermetic sealing and airlocks just to attract a rapidly shrinking pool of tobacco addicts. So this whole discussion would be moot even IF the courts agreed that people can allow whatever they want on their own property.

Luckyoldson said...

Can states regulate...

Drinking age?

Yeah.

Speed limits?

Yeah.

Littering?

Yeah.

Seat belts?

Yeah.

Signage?

Yeah.

Pornography?

Yeah.

Noise?

Yeah.

Health?

Yeah.

Animal control?

Yeah.

Taxes?

Yeah.

Licensing?

Yeah.

It's sooooooooooooooooooo unfair.

Pogo said...

look, if we're going to go the whole Nanny state nine yards and ban all those things that present "health risks", then I want a piece of the fundamentalist action.

The following need state regulation or should be banned altogether (in no particular order):
* rock climbing
* motorcycles
* casual sex outside of a state-sanctioned relationship
* more than three sexual partners in a lifetime
* violent movies
* porn
* anti-global warming books, speeches, and movies
* violent or sexual video games
* spanking
* more than three glasses of alcohol per week
* skiing, rollerblading, & skateboarding
* extreme sports
* all fast food restaurants should be closed for good
* novels, TV shows, or movies showing unapproved lifestyles, eating, or smoking (even in a negative light)


Further:
* having an STD should be criminalized
* people should be provided a food ration, preferably a single pre-mixed meal for the exact right combination of calories, vitamins and minerals. Call it People Chow.
* speeding should result in a criminal sentence
* morning group exercises will be mandatory, failure to comply results in imprisonment
* driving more than three miles per day is forbidden; you must walk or ride a bike
* adultery will be criminalized (STD risk, harm to children, wounds self-esteem, etc.)

It's for your own good.

jeff said...

What Pogo said.
Or do you think they will stop at cigarettes?

former law student said...

Widespread cigarette smoking was a brief era in human history; I don't regret its loss. Few of those habits affect the people around you as much as smoking does...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFSymUhbVMg

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
No, I think, starting in 2008 we won't be able to go outside.

Duh.

As for Pogo's inane list...and things that are ALREADY IN EFFECT:

POGO: "The following need state regulation or should be banned altogether (in no particular order)":

* motorcycles - Already have to wear helmets...because of sever injuries, insurance claims, hospital bills. Against that, too?

* casual sex outside of a state-sanctioned relationship - If you've got AIDS and don't tell your partner, you can go to jail.

* violent movies - Movies are already rated to protect kids. (Ever go to a movie?)

* porn - Regulated. (Check out 7-11's, Walmarts, etc...child porn, is outlawed, too.)

* violent or sexual video games - Already doing that.

* spanking - Against the law in some states...(it's called child abuse.)

* skiing, rollerblading, & skateboarding - Already regulated in some cities...(due to insurance liability and injury claims.)

* all fast food restaurants should be closed for good - Already regulating trans fats, etc. (Read newspapers)

* novels, TV shows, or movies showing unapproved lifestyles, eating, or smoking (even in a negative light) - Producers are already removing smoking from specific films, especially those directed at kids. (Again, read newspapers)

Luckyoldson said...

Smoking kills 1,000 Americans every day of the week.

Over 5,000,000 worldwide.

And that doesn't consider the illnesses associated with the smoking, the hospital and doctor bills and how it effects EVERYBODY'S insurance and doctor bills.

*OH...and you don't even have to be a smoker. Just be NEAR one while they smoke.

Pogo said...

LOS: read more closely.

I don't mean lightly regulate them.
I mean ban them just like smoking is banned.

It's for your own good.

former law student said...

Pogo -- I don't get it. Do you normally rollerblade in bars and restaurants? I'm pretty sure they don't allow you to. I've never seen anyone watching porn on a portable DVD player, but I'm pretty sure you can't masturbate in a bar.

You can still smoke: in your home, in your car (just try drinking and driving some time), at friends' houses, on the sidewalk, while fishing, etc. And if smokers would only have cleaned up after themselves, there would be no push to ban smoking in parks and beaches. No law entitles you to be a slob.

Pogo said...

What don't you get?

All those things I listed are harmaful to individual health or they increase health care spending. The ban on smoking used similar reasoning: harm to the community. My city narrowly defeated banning smoking on public sidewalks (it's already illegal outside within 15 feet of a public entrance).

We're going to eventually get to that point with the slow nanny state encroachment anyway, so I say just get it the hell over with and give people the authoritarian health care they want, good and hard.

Jettison individual liberty in one thing and the rest follow quite easily. If you doubt it, just watch.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo,
As far as I'm concerned, they should ban cigarettes, cigars, etc.

Why?

Well, because of the inherent health risks (400,000 Americans die each year), the passive ingestion by those who don't smoke, fires, health insurance rates, costs to hospitals, etc. that also drive up costs...and...

...my dad and my mother-in-law both died of lung cancer, directly related to long term smoking and I wouldn't wish the 1-2 year flat out misery on anyone...even Fen.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo said..."All those things I listed are harmaful to individual health or they increase health care spending."

Oh, come on, Pogo.

You're actually comparing porn, roller-blading, etc. to 400,000 Americans dying year in and year out...and that doesn't count those who have health problems that they don't die from...only suffer along...and the health coverage, costs that are effected...for everybody??

A ridiculous argument.

Pogo said...

A ridiculous argument.

Automobiles kill far more than smoking, including more "passive" deaths. And the exhaust fumes cause far more pollution.

Ban automobiles.


LOS, what I am pointing out is that the very same mechanism that made smoking illegal can be used against every other vice and pasttime, regardless of numbers.

And why not, if it's for your own good? Face it, you have unleashed a monster.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo said..."Automobiles kill far more than smoking, including more "passive" deaths. And the exhaust fumes cause far more pollution."

No they don't.

Automobile fatalities are at about 50,000 a year.

Pogo, Have YOU ever experienced a loved one who died of lung caner?

Until you do...forget it. (And if you have, and still hold to your specious arguments...I feel sorry for you.)

Pogo said...

Cars kill. As do motorcycles.
All the others I named cause various harms.
Why toleratye them when we won't tolerate smoking?

When you begin to legislate moral behavior in the way you condone, anyhting is possible.
Affected by lung cancer? Ban smoking and cars and factories. Affected by sexual assault? ban porn and testosterone.
Affected by violence? Ban movies, books, and video games with violence.
Affected by obesity?
Ban fatty foods, certain stores, restaurants, and cars.

Soft fascism is in fact occurring already in England. Why not here?

Pogo said...

And even if car accidents are 1/10th the killers of tobacco (an inflated number, BTW, as it is called smoking-attributable even when the cause is mixed) deaths, that's too many.

Why not ban it all?
Why not?

Luckyoldson said...

Pgo,
Pick yourself up some cigarettes, get your kids smoking them hand them out to your friends...and GFL.

I can't believe you're actually arguing such a ridiculous side to this.

Want to smoke?

Go right ahead.

Pogo said...

You're not comprehending what you read. I am saying, ban smoking and the rest will soon follow.

But you refuse to see.

Luckyoldson said...

Pogo,
What the fuck are you talking about????

Are you saying that if smoking is banned...driving, roller-blading, porn, motorcycles, drinking, etc...will also soon be banned, too????

Good Lord...

Pogo said...

I'll say this, LOS, you're a quick study.

Hector Owen said...

Trooper, that's a great idea about the smoking licenses.

The rest of this is too long: apologies in advance. Lucy, manyy things have been banned in the past. The anti-fun brigade has not been vanquished, merely set back, and they are ever resurgent. Drinking used to be banned--did you forget about Prohibition? and the wonders that brought to the land. Al Capone and so on. Porn and anything that even looked like it used to be banned:

"A master work of modernist literature, Ulysses used the structure of the Homeric Odyssey as a contrast to the lives of the Dublin working class. The entire 732-page work takes place during Dublin's "dailiest day possible," Thursday, 16 June 1904. The bleak lives of the Dublin working class formed a stark contrast to the heroic Odyssey, and Joyce's frank realism was too avant-garde for the cultural police of the day. As Joyce began writing Ulysses in Trieste, he was approached by expatriate American writer Ezra Pound, who worked as foreign editor of an American magazine, The Little Review. Pound sought material for serialization in the magazine, and Joyce agreed to submit installments of Ulysses with Pound as an intermediary. Serial rights were purchased by Little Review financial backer John Quinn, a New York attorney. From the first installment in 1918, censorship issues dogged Ulysses, eventually forcing a halt to its serialization in 1920. Copies of The Little Review were confiscated, and editors Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap were convicted in New York of publishing obscenity. Ulysses was subsequently banned in the U.S. until 1933, but copies often trickled in clandestinely as its suppression and subsequent publicity assured a wider demand for what was originally a relatively obscure avant-garde text."

Thomas Jefferson couldn't believe that anyone would consider permitting the government to ban foodstuffs or drugs, as it had religious differences, so he used that as an ad absurdum:

"At the common law, heresy was a capital offence, punishable by burning.... Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17. gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring, that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ De haeretico comburendo. By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail.... This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom.... Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food."

One more from Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

And Mencken: "Puritanism - The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." That would be me or Trooper, having a drink and a smoke in the neighborhood dive.

Lucy, you're such a Puritan.

Hector Owen said...

Phooey, the first Jefferson link got munged. It's Notes on the State of Virginia.

Luckyoldson said...

Trooper,
Do you smoke in your house?

Just wondered.

Pogo: Get lost.

Trooper York said...

Of course Lucky I smoke in the house, in my den. It has many book cases and my desk together with a couple of lazy boys and a wide screen TV. I have an air purifier so as to not stink out the rest of the house. It is a very reasonable arrangement, which the current trend to draconian banning of all smoking is not. I am sorry to hear about your family's experience with cancer. I am sure their memories live on with you and make you emotional in your arguments. But the fun police are out there and Rudy is their champion and Hillary their handmaiden. They will come for us all someday if we don't stop them at the gates of Vienna.