Freelance journalist Josh Wolf was just again denied release in San Francisco.
Wolf, a First Amendment hero if there ever was one, could be held through July, when the grand jury's term expires. Police recently dropped charges against the only person accused in the attacks which Wolf filmed.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Banning Indoor Smoking
You'll not find a better example of Portland's nanny-state liberalism than today's Oregonian op-ed by PSU art professor Walton Bernard Fosque. Fosque harps on the fact that there are supposedly 800 deaths a year from second-hand smoke in Oregon (a figure relying on dubious self-reporting methodologies that some dispute).
Who are these people dying of second-hand smoke? My guess is that they are primarily (1) nonsmoking spouses of smokers, and (2) people like bartenders and waitresses who choose to work in a smoke-filled environment. Both of these groups of people choose to live/work in suspect environments, as is their right. Individuals all the time choose to be in suspect/dangerous environments (driving, outdoor recreation, industrial) because they have decided the risks are worth it.
Individuals in both of these groups had other options, but presumably choose to live/work in a smoky environment because they decided the benefits outweighted their risks. Individuals in both groups could have easily avoided living/working in smoky environments if they wanted.
Indeed, I can barely even tell you the last time I was exposed to secondhand smoke. There is no smoke where I live, work, shop, or visit. None of my friends are smokers. There is the occasional waft when I walk in Tom McCall Park along the Willamette River. And while it was momentarily unpleasant, I'm sure it does me no harm. Indeed, my last exposure to concentrated secondhand smoke was probably when visiting a relative in November 2005, and that was because I decided not to make a fuss about it since I would only be there for two hours, and we shared a good bottle of wine. And before that--well, I can't even remember, my exposure is so rare.
So individuals have it well within themselves to avoid secondhand smoke. The only people who don't are children, and for them I have much more sympathy. (Of course, it is not children who are making up this 800 per year death statistic.) Both my parents smoked when I was a kid, and I grew to hate it. I have suffered no noticeable damage as a result--no cancer and no respiratory problems, so far. But if you want to ban smoking around children -- in homes and in cars -- I would probably go along with that. They do not have a choice.
But I'm not willing to ban indoor smoking to avoid secondhand smoke. Adults may choose to be exposed to secondhand smoke, just as adults may choose to smoke. The aesthetic and health effects have been well-known for a long time. People are still free to risk their health if they want. (I suspect this will be in dispute as government comes to "pay" for more and more of our health costs. Already in West Virginia Medicare is going to "prod patients towards health" by punishing those who do not join weight-loss or antismoking programs, or who miss too many appointments, by denying important services (NY Times, Dec. 1, 2006)).
Art professor Fosque has it well within him to avoid secondhand smoke. Why do we have to pass all kinds of laws and take freedoms away from others because something is dangerous? Lots of things are dangerous--driving is dangerous, as is unprotected sex, as are swimming and rock climbing. Are we going to ban all of these as well? Next--you can be sure--people like Fosque will be coming around to ban the dangerous activity that you enjoy. It will be for the common good, after all, and nothing is more important than the common good--not in their eyes, anyway.
Who are these people dying of second-hand smoke? My guess is that they are primarily (1) nonsmoking spouses of smokers, and (2) people like bartenders and waitresses who choose to work in a smoke-filled environment. Both of these groups of people choose to live/work in suspect environments, as is their right. Individuals all the time choose to be in suspect/dangerous environments (driving, outdoor recreation, industrial) because they have decided the risks are worth it.
Individuals in both of these groups had other options, but presumably choose to live/work in a smoky environment because they decided the benefits outweighted their risks. Individuals in both groups could have easily avoided living/working in smoky environments if they wanted.
Indeed, I can barely even tell you the last time I was exposed to secondhand smoke. There is no smoke where I live, work, shop, or visit. None of my friends are smokers. There is the occasional waft when I walk in Tom McCall Park along the Willamette River. And while it was momentarily unpleasant, I'm sure it does me no harm. Indeed, my last exposure to concentrated secondhand smoke was probably when visiting a relative in November 2005, and that was because I decided not to make a fuss about it since I would only be there for two hours, and we shared a good bottle of wine. And before that--well, I can't even remember, my exposure is so rare.
So individuals have it well within themselves to avoid secondhand smoke. The only people who don't are children, and for them I have much more sympathy. (Of course, it is not children who are making up this 800 per year death statistic.) Both my parents smoked when I was a kid, and I grew to hate it. I have suffered no noticeable damage as a result--no cancer and no respiratory problems, so far. But if you want to ban smoking around children -- in homes and in cars -- I would probably go along with that. They do not have a choice.
But I'm not willing to ban indoor smoking to avoid secondhand smoke. Adults may choose to be exposed to secondhand smoke, just as adults may choose to smoke. The aesthetic and health effects have been well-known for a long time. People are still free to risk their health if they want. (I suspect this will be in dispute as government comes to "pay" for more and more of our health costs. Already in West Virginia Medicare is going to "prod patients towards health" by punishing those who do not join weight-loss or antismoking programs, or who miss too many appointments, by denying important services (NY Times, Dec. 1, 2006)).
Art professor Fosque has it well within him to avoid secondhand smoke. Why do we have to pass all kinds of laws and take freedoms away from others because something is dangerous? Lots of things are dangerous--driving is dangerous, as is unprotected sex, as are swimming and rock climbing. Are we going to ban all of these as well? Next--you can be sure--people like Fosque will be coming around to ban the dangerous activity that you enjoy. It will be for the common good, after all, and nothing is more important than the common good--not in their eyes, anyway.
Parents Should Provide
Today's Live Free or Die award goes to Heather Brown of Hillsboro, for her letter in today's Oregonian:
Parents should provide
I agree that health insurance for children is a basic necessity. What I don't understand is why parents cannot take responsibility for the situations they create.
Nicolle Owings says "I'm so mad . . . I'll do anything to get the government to do something to help low-income working people have health care" ("One uninsured girl puts face on crisis in Oregon," Jan. 21).
Does this family not realize that continuing to have children has put them in this situation? My husband and I have one child and can afford health insurance for her. However, if we made the choice to have two more children, we would be considered "low income" as well (as a family of five).
I think it is important for people to take responsibility for the decisions they make, and that includes having children for whom they cannot properly provide.
HEATHER BROWN, Hillsboro
More on Smoking
Lest anyone get me wrong, I should say that I despise smoking. I have never smoked and I never will. It has brought significant damage, and even death, to members of my family who did smoke.
I will not patronize an establishment that allows smoking, period.
So I do not view these kind of articles very happily: "Wall Street Finds a Lob to Like About Tobacco," NY Times, Jan 31.
Personally I wish all the tobacco companies went out of business tomorrow and that all smokers voluntarily quit today. Smokers may well be all quitting in the next couple of decades, in the US at least. I might well bet that in 20 years it will be very unusual to still see a smoker in the US. (If nothing else, they will probably penalize it heavily once government begins paying for all of our health care.) Internationally, though, is another problem, and that is going to be where tobacco companies make their money.
It is a vile habit and one of the most destructive legal practices allowed. But it is still legal, and people still do have a right to damage their health if they wish (we all do it in our own ways, anyway). As long as it is legal, it ought to be left alone to be handled by the private market, and left alone by meddling governments.
I will not patronize an establishment that allows smoking, period.
So I do not view these kind of articles very happily: "Wall Street Finds a Lob to Like About Tobacco," NY Times, Jan 31.
Personally I wish all the tobacco companies went out of business tomorrow and that all smokers voluntarily quit today. Smokers may well be all quitting in the next couple of decades, in the US at least. I might well bet that in 20 years it will be very unusual to still see a smoker in the US. (If nothing else, they will probably penalize it heavily once government begins paying for all of our health care.) Internationally, though, is another problem, and that is going to be where tobacco companies make their money.
It is a vile habit and one of the most destructive legal practices allowed. But it is still legal, and people still do have a right to damage their health if they wish (we all do it in our own ways, anyway). As long as it is legal, it ought to be left alone to be handled by the private market, and left alone by meddling governments.
Smoking Bans and Private Market
Yesterday we saw how Oregon legislators are being forced to consider smoking bans in bars and restaurants because the free market will just not take a position on the matter.
Oops. That's wrong.
It turns out the free market is already solving the problem. At the end of yesterday's Oregonian article we read:
Oops. That's wrong.
It turns out the free market is already solving the problem. At the end of yesterday's Oregonian article we read:
Some businesses aren't waiting for the Legislature to ban smoking in bars and taverns, including several brewpubs.The latest is Jake's Famous Crawfish, a Portland landmark since 1892. Beginning Thursday, Jake's no longer will allow smoking in its bar. "The overwhelming majority of folks do not wish to have smoking in the bar," General Manager John Underhill said.
He's not afraid Jake's will lose business; he said the establishments that have banned smoking have increased their business.
"You can't go anywhere from Canada to California and smoke in a bar, except in Oregon," he said. "That's what the guests want."
So private businesses apparently are capable of making a business decision that best represents their interests, and they are banning smoking as a result. It looks like this situation is already being handled.... so what do we need the legislature for?
--
Predictably, the Oregonian opines that Oregon is too "tobacco-friendly." This after their own news reporting showed the private market can take care of the issue. But we can't have that, can we?
More: The governor is proposing that the tax on smokers be raised considerably to provide health insurance for insurance-less children in Oregon. He does not say why only smokers should pay for such what will become a new state right. (Thankfully, at least one Oregonian letter writer saw something wrong with this arrangement.) Nor does he explain why people are having children if they are unable to provide them something as crucial as health insurance.Dressing Ecofriendly
A letter from Leslie Carlson of Portland in today's NY Times, allowing one to "dress stylishly and be eco-friendly all at the same time." Because we all must be ecofriendly when we dress.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Smoking Bans
Of course, the good nanny-state liberals of Portland, Oregon cannot stand for smoking in public places -- whatever free-willed individuals find enjoyable must be sacrificed to the alter of political correctness. And so Oregon legislators seem determined to enact an indoor smoking ban in bars and taverns, because of course the free-willed citizens of Oregon must not be required to have to choose for themselves whether or not they will patronize an establishment based on its smoking policies -- no, the smoking policies of the establishment must be bent to comply with the majority view.
Smoking has been going on in bars and restaurants for as long as tobacco has been around, which goes back thousands of years. I despise tobacco smoke as much as the next fellow--both for its horrific stink and for the health effects on those who stupidly smoke it. (I am still open on the question of haphazard exposure to second-hand smoke, except for the year-after-year complete inclusion suffered by people like waitresses, bartenders, and smoker's spouses. But, of course, all these people can chose to be elsewhere.)
But stupidity is still a right in this country, and bar and restaurant patrons should be free to excersize their stupid habit if the owner of the establishment agrees. He agrees knowing full well that it may drive nonsmoking patrons to other businesses, which is the way it ought to be in a free and capitalistic environment.
But not, not in Oregon. Here all free choice must bend to the popular will. And so, owners of private business establishments will most likely soon be required to extinguish all smoking materials, because of course we cannot trust adults to make choices for themselves -- choices of whether or not to smoke, of whether or not to allow smoking in their private establishment, and of whether or not to patronize an establishment based on their smoking policies.
No, as of right now (3:20 pm), 78.5% of the "good citizens" of Oregon would have smoking banned in bars and taverns, according to the online poll in the Oregonian (which, being an online poll, is complete scientific crapola).
Isn't it strange -- 78.5% is about equal to the percentage of nonsmokers in the state, as well. It doesn't really seem that the state's citizens really believe in rights for anyone but themselves.
This, despite doubts that the "science" of secondhand smoke it all it's been advertised to be. Most of us have been exposed to secondhand smoke at some point in our lives, and although it made our clothes smell like shit it hardly left us keeling over in tobacco-inspired cancers.
But the question remains: shouldn't free-thinking adults be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow smoking in their places of business? And, shouldn't free-thinking adults be able to decide for themselves whether they will patronize a business based on its smoking policies? What's the problem with this?
Not, apparently, in Nanny-land, where we all must live the same, politically correct lives. Really, when you think about it, it's the perfect philosophy for Pretentious Portland. And for the whole pretentious state of Oregon as well.
Smoking has been going on in bars and restaurants for as long as tobacco has been around, which goes back thousands of years. I despise tobacco smoke as much as the next fellow--both for its horrific stink and for the health effects on those who stupidly smoke it. (I am still open on the question of haphazard exposure to second-hand smoke, except for the year-after-year complete inclusion suffered by people like waitresses, bartenders, and smoker's spouses. But, of course, all these people can chose to be elsewhere.)
But stupidity is still a right in this country, and bar and restaurant patrons should be free to excersize their stupid habit if the owner of the establishment agrees. He agrees knowing full well that it may drive nonsmoking patrons to other businesses, which is the way it ought to be in a free and capitalistic environment.
But not, not in Oregon. Here all free choice must bend to the popular will. And so, owners of private business establishments will most likely soon be required to extinguish all smoking materials, because of course we cannot trust adults to make choices for themselves -- choices of whether or not to smoke, of whether or not to allow smoking in their private establishment, and of whether or not to patronize an establishment based on their smoking policies.
No, as of right now (3:20 pm), 78.5% of the "good citizens" of Oregon would have smoking banned in bars and taverns, according to the online poll in the Oregonian (which, being an online poll, is complete scientific crapola).
Isn't it strange -- 78.5% is about equal to the percentage of nonsmokers in the state, as well. It doesn't really seem that the state's citizens really believe in rights for anyone but themselves.
This, despite doubts that the "science" of secondhand smoke it all it's been advertised to be. Most of us have been exposed to secondhand smoke at some point in our lives, and although it made our clothes smell like shit it hardly left us keeling over in tobacco-inspired cancers.
But the question remains: shouldn't free-thinking adults be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow smoking in their places of business? And, shouldn't free-thinking adults be able to decide for themselves whether they will patronize a business based on its smoking policies? What's the problem with this?
Not, apparently, in Nanny-land, where we all must live the same, politically correct lives. Really, when you think about it, it's the perfect philosophy for Pretentious Portland. And for the whole pretentious state of Oregon as well.
Welcome to Pretentious Portland
Hello and welcome to "Pretentious Portland." I've lived in Portland, Oregon for a few years now, and have come to see the city for what it is -- an average American city with a huge ego problem.
Portland is better than a few cities I've known, worse than some others -- but always, it seems, Portland goes around thinking it's better than everyone else, the cream of the crop, the pick of the litter, the apple of your eye.
In fact, the opposite it mostly true.
Portland has plenty of problems, not the least of which is that it takes itself way too seriously. Hence the title of this blog.
Portland, Oregon is so convinced that it's utopia that it spares no effort to broadcast its superiority to the world at every turn, whether it's environmental consciousness, "world-status" public transportation, its vaunted arts and music and club scene, or a minor new tram that, despite constant crowing, is put to shame by most other trams in the world.
It's the purpose of this blog to show Portland as it really is, to inject some reality into the utopian mindset that affects many of the people who live here, to expose the nanny-state "we'll tell you how to live" liberalism which infects it.
So stay tuned--we're just getting started.
Portland is better than a few cities I've known, worse than some others -- but always, it seems, Portland goes around thinking it's better than everyone else, the cream of the crop, the pick of the litter, the apple of your eye.
In fact, the opposite it mostly true.
Portland has plenty of problems, not the least of which is that it takes itself way too seriously. Hence the title of this blog.
Portland, Oregon is so convinced that it's utopia that it spares no effort to broadcast its superiority to the world at every turn, whether it's environmental consciousness, "world-status" public transportation, its vaunted arts and music and club scene, or a minor new tram that, despite constant crowing, is put to shame by most other trams in the world.
It's the purpose of this blog to show Portland as it really is, to inject some reality into the utopian mindset that affects many of the people who live here, to expose the nanny-state "we'll tell you how to live" liberalism which infects it.
So stay tuned--we're just getting started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
