What do you mean by the PoMo version of the left? It has been well documented for years that smoking is bad for you, but it took over four decades after the famous report(1964) for the PC crowd to wield their clout. In most taverns at least 65 percent of the patrons and employees are smokers. One idea that was tossed around in Chicago for a while was to allow establishments to buy a license that would allow smoking. This does seem like a sensible idea, but only if at least 65 percent of the regular customers are smokers.

What do you mean by the PoMo version of the left? It has been well documented for years that smoking is bad for you, but it took over four decades after the famous report(1964) for the PC crowd to wield their clout. In most taverns at least 65 percent of the patrons and employees are smokers. One idea that was tossed around in Chicago for a while was to allow establishments to buy a license that would allow smoking. This does seem like a sensible idea, but only if at least 65 percent of the regular customers are smokers.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.

Welcome to the PoMo version of the left. Their focus on the PC way is both a distraction (even if you buy it, which I don't, there are much more important issues) and an afront to the open minded. I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:

Of course smoking is quite different from drinking. It does not have quite the association with vice that drinking did. Also, when you go to a place that serves alcohol, you don't have to drink if you don't want to. When you go somewhere where there is smoking, you smoke along with the smoker. The laws are important if only to protect employees and performers such as Dana Reeve, who has lung cancer.

Agreed, but the PC crowd seems to lack a sense of proportion. Insisting that others not smoke in closed public spaces is defensible. Insisting that no smoke in public - even outdoors - is simple PC overkill.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.

Welcome to the PoMo version of the left. Their focus on the PC way is both a distraction (even if you buy it, which I don't, there are much more important issues) and an afront to the open minded. I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:

Of course smoking is quite different from drinking. It does not have quite the association with vice that drinking did. Also, when you go to a place that serves alcohol, you don't have to drink if you don't want to. When you go somewhere where there is smoking, you smoke along with the smoker. The laws are important if only to protect employees and performers such as Dana Reeve, who has lung cancer.

Agreed, but the PC crowd seems to lack a sense of proportion. Insisting that others not smoke in closed public spaces is defensible. Insisting that no smoke in public - even outdoors - is simple PC overkill.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

What do you mean by the PoMo version of the left? It has been well documented for years that smoking is bad for you, but it took over four decades after the famous report(1964) for the PC crowd to wield their clout. In most taverns at least 65 percent of the patrons and employees are smokers. One idea that was tossed around in Chicago for a while was to allow establishments to buy a license that would allow smoking. This does seem like a sensible idea, but only if at least 65 percent of the regular customers are smokers.

An even better solution is the Smokers Club, similar to the Cigar Bars of a few years ago. If a non-smoker goes in there, they do it with full warning. Other places can and should be non-smoking. The smoking section concept is usually pretty flawed, but done right, that's a possibilty too.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

What do you mean by the PoMo version of the left? It has been well documented for years that smoking is bad for you, but it took over four decades after the famous report(1964) for the PC crowd to wield their clout. In most taverns at least 65 percent of the patrons and employees are smokers. One idea that was tossed around in Chicago for a while was to allow establishments to buy a license that would allow smoking. This does seem like a sensible idea, but only if at least 65 percent of the regular customers are smokers.

An even better solution is the Smokers Club, similar to the Cigar Bars of a few years ago. If a non-smoker goes in there, they do it with full warning. Other places can and should be non-smoking. The smoking section concept is usually pretty flawed, but done right, that's a possibilty too.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Yes, and I also argue that this is largely the reason why liberals find themselves on the wrong side of history. They have always pooh poohed the significance of these despots, while reserving great indignance for a much greater threat posed, in their minds-eye, by tail-gunner Joe.

And so it continues today. Bush and Alito totally eclipse the danger posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamism.

Republicans benefited from Soviet Russia and Red China being big scary threats. Today they benefit from al Qaeda being a big scary threat. Republicans use these threats to push "Democrats are weak on defense" memes to gain the power to direct Federal spending towards their own constituencies and away from Democratic constituencies. Democrats use "third rail" Social Security and "grandma eating dogfood" memes to do the same. It's pure politics.

If al Qaeda were a serious threat to America, they would be a serious threat to the Bush administration as well. (What good is being president over smoking ruins?) It is inconconcievable that Bin Laden would still live today had he actually posed the slightest threat to the administration. Men of power protect their interests. That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1) asked for a declaration of war against al Qaeda and those states that support them, (2) cancelled the tax cut and ask for a tax surcharge to pay for the War on al Qaeda (3) reinstated universal conscription (4) authorized a quadrupling of the size of the Army (5) sent Rumsfeld to India to look for allies in a potential war with Pakistan (6) sounded out China to assess the potential of them remaining neutral in the coming war (7) begun a crash program analogous to (but larger than) the WW II biofuel program to reduce US dependency on oil from Saudi Arabia.

Bush did one of these, obtaining authorization to use (a very small amount of) force against al Qaeda. He not only kept the tax cut but pased new ones, making the war entirely financed by debt. Thus, China now has a potential veto over US foreign policy.

Rather than look for allies for a war against the state supporters of the extremist Sunni ideology that drives al Qaeda (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), he has continued to court them and snubbed India, our natural ally against these extremists.

Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Yes, and I also argue that this is largely the reason why liberals find themselves on the wrong side of history. They have always pooh poohed the significance of these despots, while reserving great indignance for a much greater threat posed, in their minds-eye, by tail-gunner Joe.

And so it continues today. Bush and Alito totally eclipse the danger posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamism.

Republicans benefited from Soviet Russia and Red China being big scary threats. Today they benefit from al Qaeda being a big scary threat. Republicans use these threats to push "Democrats are weak on defense" memes to gain the power to direct Federal spending towards their own constituencies and away from Democratic constituencies. Democrats use "third rail" Social Security and "grandma eating dogfood" memes to do the same. It's pure politics.

If al Qaeda were a serious threat to America, they would be a serious threat to the Bush administration as well. (What good is being president over smoking ruins?) It is inconconcievable that Bin Laden would still live today had he actually posed the slightest threat to the administration. Men of power protect their interests. That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1) asked for a declaration of war against al Qaeda and those states that support them, (2) cancelled the tax cut and ask for a tax surcharge to pay for the War on al Qaeda (3) reinstated universal conscription (4) authorized a quadrupling of the size of the Army (5) sent Rumsfeld to India to look for allies in a potential war with Pakistan (6) sounded out China to assess the potential of them remaining neutral in the coming war (7) begun a crash program analogous to (but larger than) the WW II biofuel program to reduce US dependency on oil from Saudi Arabia.

Bush did one of these, obtaining authorization to use (a very small amount of) force against al Qaeda. He not only kept the tax cut but pased new ones, making the war entirely financed by debt. Thus, China now has a potential veto over US foreign policy.

Rather than look for allies for a war against the state supporters of the extremist Sunni ideology that drives al Qaeda (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), he has continued to court them and snubbed India, our natural ally against these extremists.

Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

Retailers Redesign as Boomers Hit 60

She can now get household implements that are easily gripped without writing to her Euro-nieces and Euro-nephews to go shopping at Sokos for her needs. The Nordics have done ergonomic design for decades. Now we have the Crown of Creation bringing it forth just in time for our Coming of Age.

Originally Posted by Wa[i

Po[/i]]"They are the first generation to hit age 50 and now age 60 with a high degree of confidence that they're going to live another 35 to 40 years," he said. "They know they're not going to get old until the very end."

Retailers Redesign as Boomers Hit 60

She can now get household implements that are easily gripped without writing to her Euro-nieces and Euro-nephews to go shopping at Sokos for her needs. The Nordics have done ergonomic design for decades. Now we have the Crown of Creation bringing it forth just in time for our Coming of Age.

Originally Posted by Wa[i

Po[/i]]"They are the first generation to hit age 50 and now age 60 with a high degree of confidence that they're going to live another 35 to 40 years," he said. "They know they're not going to get old until the very end."

I'm betting that the response from DA to Mike Alexander's last post will be one or more of these:

1. Nonexistent
2. Nonresponsive
3. Nosensical

I'm betting that the response from DA to Mike Alexander's last post will be one or more of these:

1. Nonexistent
2. Nonresponsive
3. Nosensical

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Retailers Redesign as Boomers Hit 60

She can now get household implements that are easily gripped without writing to her Euro-nieces and Euro-nephews to go shopping at Sokos for her needs. The Nordics have done ergonomic design for decades. Now we have the Crown of Creation bringing it forth just in time for our Coming of Age.

Originally Posted by Wa[i

Po[/i]]"They are the first generation to hit age 50 and now age 60 with a high degree of confidence that they're going to live another 35 to 40 years," he said. "They know they're not going to get old until the very end."

So I guess we no longer "... hope to die before I get old", or have merely redefined 'old' to suit ourselves. 8)

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Retailers Redesign as Boomers Hit 60

She can now get household implements that are easily gripped without writing to her Euro-nieces and Euro-nephews to go shopping at Sokos for her needs. The Nordics have done ergonomic design for decades. Now we have the Crown of Creation bringing it forth just in time for our Coming of Age.

Originally Posted by Wa[i

Po[/i]]"They are the first generation to hit age 50 and now age 60 with a high degree of confidence that they're going to live another 35 to 40 years," he said. "They know they're not going to get old until the very end."

So I guess we no longer "... hope to die before I get old", or have merely redefined 'old' to suit ourselves. 8)

To return to the smoking issue, I shall direct this one primarily to those on the forum who have lived in areas that have had the smoking bans for awhile.

Have so-called Smokers Clubs formed in your area? Does this seem to be this saeculum's answer to the speakeasies of the alcohol prohibition era?

To return to the smoking issue, I shall direct this one primarily to those on the forum who have lived in areas that have had the smoking bans for awhile.

Have so-called Smokers Clubs formed in your area? Does this seem to be this saeculum's answer to the speakeasies of the alcohol prohibition era?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

What do you mean by the PoMo version of the left? It has been well documented for years that smoking is bad for you, but it took over four decades after the famous report(1964) for the PC crowd to wield their clout. In most taverns at least 65 percent of the patrons and employees are smokers. One idea that was tossed around in Chicago for a while was to allow establishments to buy a license that would allow smoking. This does seem like a sensible idea, but only if at least 65 percent of the regular customers are smokers.

Smoking is a health issue, not a political one. I would not use the term "political correctness" for those who oppose having to breathe the stuff in a public place.

I don't have a problem with private smoking clubs if people want to indulge themselves away from the general public.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

What do you mean by the PoMo version of the left? It has been well documented for years that smoking is bad for you, but it took over four decades after the famous report(1964) for the PC crowd to wield their clout. In most taverns at least 65 percent of the patrons and employees are smokers. One idea that was tossed around in Chicago for a while was to allow establishments to buy a license that would allow smoking. This does seem like a sensible idea, but only if at least 65 percent of the regular customers are smokers.

Smoking is a health issue, not a political one. I would not use the term "political correctness" for those who oppose having to breathe the stuff in a public place.

I don't have a problem with private smoking clubs if people want to indulge themselves away from the general public.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

To return to the smoking issue, I shall direct this one primarily to those on the forum who have lived in areas that have had the smoking bans for awhile.

Have so-called Smokers Clubs formed in your area? Does this seem to be this saeculum's answer to the speakeasies of the alcohol prohibition era?

I have seen some "smoke shops" offer "sampling rooms" but that's about it. I don't smoke and I enjoy the smoking ban as I strongly dislike hanging my jacket outside waiting for it to smell normal again.

Whenever I'm in Jersey or Philly, I feel as if I have gone back in time. I mean I was in a restaurant and people were smoking. It was like when I wa sa kid and people smoked everywhere, on planes, at the library.

But second hand smoke just stinks so bad, I have to say I enjoy the revocation of that "liberty."

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

To return to the smoking issue, I shall direct this one primarily to those on the forum who have lived in areas that have had the smoking bans for awhile.

Have so-called Smokers Clubs formed in your area? Does this seem to be this saeculum's answer to the speakeasies of the alcohol prohibition era?

I have seen some "smoke shops" offer "sampling rooms" but that's about it. I don't smoke and I enjoy the smoking ban as I strongly dislike hanging my jacket outside waiting for it to smell normal again.

Whenever I'm in Jersey or Philly, I feel as if I have gone back in time. I mean I was in a restaurant and people were smoking. It was like when I wa sa kid and people smoked everywhere, on planes, at the library.

But second hand smoke just stinks so bad, I have to say I enjoy the revocation of that "liberty."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm betting that the response from DA to Mike Alexander's last post will be one or more of these:

1. Nonexistent
2. Nonresponsive
3. Nosensical

I would have bet on

1. Cynical
2. Snide
3. Obnoxious.

:wink:

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm betting that the response from DA to Mike Alexander's last post will be one or more of these:

1. Nonexistent
2. Nonresponsive
3. Nosensical

I would have bet on

1. Cynical
2. Snide
3. Obnoxious.

:wink:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Yes, and I also argue that this is largely the reason why liberals find themselves on the wrong side of history. They have always pooh poohed the significance of these despots, while reserving great indignance for a much greater threat posed, in their minds-eye, by tail-gunner Joe.

And so it continues today. Bush and Alito totally eclipse the danger posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamism.

Republicans benefited from Soviet Russia and Red China being big scary threats. Today they benefit from al Qaeda being a big scary threat. Republicans use these threats to push "Democrats are weak on defense" memes to gain the power to direct Federal spending towards their own constituencies and away from Democratic constituencies. Democrats use "third rail" Social Security and "grandma eating dogfood" memes to do the same. It's pure politics.

If al Qaeda were a serious threat to America, they would be a serious threat to the Bush administration as well. (What good is being president over smoking ruins?) It is inconconcievable that Bin Laden would still live today had he actually posed the slightest threat to the administration. Men of power protect their interests. That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1) asked for a declaration of war against al Qaeda and those states that support them, (2) cancelled the tax cut and ask for a tax surcharge to pay for the War on al Qaeda (3) reinstated universal conscription (4) authorized a quadrupling of the size of the Army (5) sent Rumsfeld to India to look for allies in a potential war with Pakistan (6) sounded out China to assess the potential of them remaining neutral in the coming war (7) begun a crash program analogous to (but larger than) the WW II biofuel program to reduce US dependency on oil from Saudi Arabia.

Bush did one of these, obtaining authorization to use (a very small amount of) force against al Qaeda. He not only kept the tax cut but pased new ones, making the war entirely financed by debt. Thus, China now has a potential veto over US foreign policy.

Rather than look for allies for a war against the state supporters of the extremist Sunni ideology that drives al Qaeda (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), he has continued to court them and snubbed India, our natural ally against these extremists.

Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

I'm retaining the entire post because it will show up on a new page. That's a convincing argument, Mike, and I'm with you, but it reminded me of something I find paradoxically interesting. Stonedog had much the same attitude about two or three years ago. He thought Bush was incompetent, was serving the interests of big business, and was no friend of liberty. He also thought that bin Ladin and al Qaeda were overblown as threats by Bush and his administration so they could exploid fear. Back then, his view on al Qaeda seemed eccentric, at the very least, if not paranoid. Now, events are continuing to prove his views on Bush correct, and the most reasonable posters are starting to agree with them. Isn't that something?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Yes, and I also argue that this is largely the reason why liberals find themselves on the wrong side of history. They have always pooh poohed the significance of these despots, while reserving great indignance for a much greater threat posed, in their minds-eye, by tail-gunner Joe.

And so it continues today. Bush and Alito totally eclipse the danger posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamism.

Republicans benefited from Soviet Russia and Red China being big scary threats. Today they benefit from al Qaeda being a big scary threat. Republicans use these threats to push "Democrats are weak on defense" memes to gain the power to direct Federal spending towards their own constituencies and away from Democratic constituencies. Democrats use "third rail" Social Security and "grandma eating dogfood" memes to do the same. It's pure politics.

If al Qaeda were a serious threat to America, they would be a serious threat to the Bush administration as well. (What good is being president over smoking ruins?) It is inconconcievable that Bin Laden would still live today had he actually posed the slightest threat to the administration. Men of power protect their interests. That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1) asked for a declaration of war against al Qaeda and those states that support them, (2) cancelled the tax cut and ask for a tax surcharge to pay for the War on al Qaeda (3) reinstated universal conscription (4) authorized a quadrupling of the size of the Army (5) sent Rumsfeld to India to look for allies in a potential war with Pakistan (6) sounded out China to assess the potential of them remaining neutral in the coming war (7) begun a crash program analogous to (but larger than) the WW II biofuel program to reduce US dependency on oil from Saudi Arabia.

Bush did one of these, obtaining authorization to use (a very small amount of) force against al Qaeda. He not only kept the tax cut but pased new ones, making the war entirely financed by debt. Thus, China now has a potential veto over US foreign policy.

Rather than look for allies for a war against the state supporters of the extremist Sunni ideology that drives al Qaeda (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), he has continued to court them and snubbed India, our natural ally against these extremists.

Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

I'm retaining the entire post because it will show up on a new page. That's a convincing argument, Mike, and I'm with you, but it reminded me of something I find paradoxically interesting. Stonedog had much the same attitude about two or three years ago. He thought Bush was incompetent, was serving the interests of big business, and was no friend of liberty. He also thought that bin Ladin and al Qaeda were overblown as threats by Bush and his administration so they could exploid fear. Back then, his view on al Qaeda seemed eccentric, at the very least, if not paranoid. Now, events are continuing to prove his views on Bush correct, and the most reasonable posters are starting to agree with them. Isn't that something?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm betting that the response from DA to Mike Alexander's last post will be one or more of these:

1. Nonexistent
2. Nonresponsive
3. Nosensical

I would have bet on

1. Cynical
2. Snide
3. Obnoxious.

:wink:

Speaking of cynical, when Mike tackles HC68, the latter's response has lately become a Sir Robin imitation. At least with DA, there's likely to be a response.