|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, September 08, 2008
Damn…looks like Challenger will just stay home and tear the flesh off some unsuspecting sea otters.
This Thursday, all Major League Baseball teams will take the field wearing specially designed “Stars and Stripes” caps, part of the league’s Welcome Back Veterans initiative. (Barring rainouts, the Yankees and Mets won’t take part, as they’re off that day.) Following the games, the caps will be auctioned to raise money for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
There’s nothing wrong with helping veterans — no matter how you feel about America’s current wars, those returning from battle are in undeniable need of help — but doing so on September 11 turns a simple charity event into a troubling political statement. In past years, New York’s teams donned NYPD and FDNY caps to remember the 2,974 people who died that day (most of them in fact ordinary citizens who happened to be at the World Trade Center, not uniformed personnel), and call attention to the ongoing needs of first responders. By choosing instead to make the day about the wars that the U.S launched in the wake of 9/11, baseball is casting its lot with those who say the proper response to tragedy is to retaliate — and delivering a slap in the face to 9/11 family groups like Peaceful Tomorrows that are working to use the shared grief of victims of war and terror to build bridges to international understanding.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (8 - 2:43am, May 26)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1832 - 1:32am, May 26)Last: baudibNewsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (56 - 1:15am, May 26)Last: The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow)Newsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (8 - 12:40am, May 26)Last: The Gurus DO NOT BourbonSamuraiNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (12 - 12:25am, May 26)Last: TriponHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (86 - 11:59pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (4 - 11:26pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (18 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: Fielder's the first baseman, Felder is the fielderHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (27 - 11:16pm, May 25)Last: baudibNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris E
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Is that how it works? Is that how you have justified this slaughter in your mind?
I'm be more than happy to find some pictures of kids with birth defects affected by Agent Orange if that makes you happy becasue it seems likes the ones who scream the loudest about abortion and murder don't seem to give a rat's ass about them after they come out of the womb.
robin, you've got the highest peak value in the history of BTF. Don't dilute our memory of it with a painful-to-watch decline phase.
Nah, I'd call it sophomoric and childish. So is putting anyone on ignore that you don't agree with.
Anyone who has nothing better to do than try to calculate the percentage of "liberals," "conservatives," "libertarians," "Republicans," "Democrats," or anything else, on this site, needs to get a life.
- seeing as how this is aimed at me
well then how about a DEFINITION of each one of those terms
- as for getting a life...
David Nieporent Posted: September 08, 2008 at 11:31 PM (#2933659)
Wait, do we first get to poll members as to who the "dumbest BTFer" is? 'Cause I have a few nominees.
- you rang?
Your mom.
No I am trying to move "out" of her house.
Anyone who has nothing better to do than try to calculate the percentage of "liberals," "conservatives," "libertarians," "Republicans," "Democrats," or anything else, on this site, needs to get a life.
- seeing as how this is aimed at me
Only it wasn't. It wasn't even really aimed at anyone in particular, only the mindset of someone who tries to "prove" by some sort of pidgin statistical analysis that he's a lone maverick standing up against the ideological hordes, whoever those hordes may be in his persecuted mind.
well then how about a DEFINITION of each one of those terms
Which is exactly my point, that these are largely meaningless terms, since so many of us in practice jump all over the place from issue to issue. For every crushingly "consistent" Primate (no names necessary there) there are (blessedly) many like you who can't be pinned down to one specific ideology.
But if you want to try to define those elusive terms yourself, be my guest.
Liberal: Modern liberalism in the United States, also referred to as American liberalism, is a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberty. Liberal issues include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, and also government provision of necessities seen as essential to freedom, such as education, health care, food, and shelter.
Libertarian: is a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberty. Libertarian issues include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from taxation and freedom of the press, and also government provision of necessities seen as essential to freedom, such as law enforcement particularly WRT property rights.
Conservative: is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. Conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism,[1] libertarian conservatism, religious conservatism,[2] as well as support for a strong military,[3] and federalism (but only when conservatives are out of power in Washington).
only maverick i ever really known is my uncle. and he's gone. no, i guess i would rather call him a pioneer
the rest of us - well i think the whole "maverick" thingy is sort of silly - like no one else thinks/acts/talks like you anywhere and you are the first to ever think of something.
- as for defining the undefinable, i got a house to go and clean. that is easier and take a lot less time...
I think you mean "basement."
of course they are :-)
yes they are often wrong
1: What a non-liberal thinks a liberal is- is generally wrong
2: What a liberal thinks a conservative is- is flat out wrong
3: What a conservative thinks a liberal is- is flat out wrong
4: etc etc etc...
It isn't just you, because the idea that liberals want to maximize my individual liberty is a notion I personally find utterly laughable.
Libertarian: is a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberty. Libertarian issues include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from taxation and freedom of the press, and also government provision of necessities seen as essential to freedom, such as law enforcement particularly WRT property rights.
Conservative: is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. Conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism,[1] libertarian conservatism, religious conservatism,[2] as well as support for a strong military,[3] and federalism (but only when conservatives are out of power in Washington).
Of course in real life each and every one of those definitions is riddled with examples of self-contradiction. The only reason that the hardcore libertarians are a bit more "consistent" than the other two is because their core ideology is---to give it a charitable take-- relatively streamlined. That, and the fact that they seldom if ever have had to deal with the consequences of their ideology in practice, since for 99% of the "libertarians" in politics it's little more than a meaningless buzzword, and they wouldn't dream in a million years of following up on it outside the friendly confines of a sheltered congressional district.
Other than taxation issues, how so?
Some would call it a basement, I call it a low level condo with no windows.
Yes:
A "liberal" wants to maximize individual liberty- but they look at it from a wholly different end than a libertarian.
A libertarian says liberty is when an employer is free to hire and fire, and an employee is free to join or quit- a liberal says that's not really liberty for the employee because the typical employee needs to work in order to eat/provide for his family- an employee gains freedom when the employers ability to fire him is hindered.
A liberal says that providing welfare payments to unwed parents enhances "liberty" since that individual can now live on their own and "provide" for her offspring whereas otherwise they will be dependent on family or charity- subordinating her liberty to the control of others.
A libertarian believes the government is the biggest threat to individual liberty- a liberal believes that non-governmental actors (employers/religious leaders, etc) are as big or even greater threat to individual "liberty" (autonomy?).
Being of a utilitarian bent, I believe both are "wrong".
I believe that DMN's libertarian vision would enhance liberty for a few, but greatly diminish it for others.
I believe that the stereotypical liberal's vision, while enhancing certain liberties at a base level by providing necessities (via welfare payments, housing etc) merely substitutes governmental social control for private social control. Also the whole hate speech "thing" I find vaguely creepy and very un liberal...
Are you kidding? Every gun control law that has ever been passed has been pushed entirely at the behest of liberals.
Seat belt laws, helmet laws, anti-smoking laws, I could make a list a mile long of the nannyish "do this, don't do that" rules and regulations imposed by liberals over the course of my lifetime, but I don't really have the time or the inclination to spend hours on the subject.
No. I could pretty well guess, but I wanted to see what you would say.
hate speech
environmental legislation (tells you what you can/can't do with your property)
FDA (tells you what drugs you can buy/sell)
gun control
etc.
how is that so different from laws banning pot for instance?
Sure. But I know people who own 30-40 guns apiece, including an uncle in KY.
Gun control. Speech codes/hate speech/hate crimes. Nanny statism like cigarette/transfat bans, etc. Continued support of the drug war. Overregulation of small business (Large too, but large businesses have the resources to deal with it better. This has the ironic effect of liberal regulation empowering huge corporations at the expense of small, local businesses.).
Conservatives restrict liberties in other areas such as abortion and gay marriage, as well as indulging in several from the list above.
Smoking (tobacco) laws are about where you smoke, not whether you smoke.
It's still a restriction of liberty though.
Hypothetical
1: White Restaurant Owners refuse to serve Blacks
2: Blacks therefore have less liberty since they are a minority and have far fewer options with respect to going out and eating.
Pass a law saying that places of public accommodation (such as restaurants) cannot discriminate based upon race.
1: White Restaurant Owners have less liberty now because they have less control over who to admit into their establishments and who to transact business with.
2: Black customers now have more liberty than before.
What situation enhances liberty?
Is there a difference between potential liberty and de facto liberty?
Except for the tobacco laws about whether you smoke. And, the trend of these laws is rather clearly in the direction of "whether you (are able) to smoke."
That's an interesting question. Wouldn't one say that there's no change in black liberty (well, except in their freedom to have a blacks-only place), but a change in their opportunities to exercise their freedom?
This amused me when I was in Law School, as you note the trend is clear, but I knew a bunch of legalizers (people who wanted to legalize pot), and they thought the trend was in their favor...
my thought was that if government was moving to clamp down on tobacco they were not simultaneously going to move to ease up on pot...
Legislation is almost always about competing interests and cost/benefit, yet the perceived trump cards in the arguments therein are often moral expedients. In your example, blacks are being penalized for something they do not control--their skin color--so we (society) have decided that trumps the right of the business owner to refuse service. Ideologues of all stripes frame it as "liberty" vs. "oppression" or whatever, but generally, in practice, it is more complex.
Theere was a long discusSion in the 6000+ post Obama-based thread about handicapped access to restaurants which highlighted the issue well.
That's rather a contradiction when one considers what "government provision" entails.
Yes, but conservatives don't either. (Pro-life, for example?)
I'm certainly not going to claim that conservatives have been the stalwart defenders of all liberty, particularly in recent years. I was and am appalled at the ham-handed attempts by some conservatives to restrict online gambling, when nobody has been able to show me that it's more inherently harmful than legalized gambling in Vegas, A.C., or the myriad of other places that have some kind of legal brick and mortar gambling. But I wasn't the one who came up with those Wikipedia definitions.
It seems as though the old style libertarian leaning conservatism of Taft and Goldwater just isn't very popular at all in America.
I think that's it.
WRT medical care-
some oppose govt sponsored health care because they feel it infringes their freedom to choose their own medical providers
some say that position is nonsense- a HMO fro them already infringes on that freedom
those who have no health insurance and can't afford same, say, "what freedom?"
Indeed. Competing interests, and different people on the spectrum have different hierarchies of rights, or, perhaps, "opportunities to exercise freeedom."
I don't think so. It just hasn't found the right spokesperson on the national level for awhile (since Reagan, who was that kind of conservative in some ways). I suppose some may think that person is Sarah Palin, but I tend to disagree.
The restriction of online gambling had nothing to do with harmfulness and everything to do with tax revenue, or the lack thereof.
Ah, the days of muttonchop sideburns and saying "Harrumph!" without irony. A better, vanished time.
Says you. Some of us like muttonshops and saying "Harrumph!".
With respect to the online gambling issue, I do find it amusing that online Poker = bad, whereas online gambling on horse and dog races = good.
Take Ray's health care example.
Ray says that single payer universal health care is an infringement of liberty. What does he mean by this? I presume it is that government interference in health care is an infringement of liberty because it personal choice. Thus choice=freedom.
Robinred says that for many individuals their choice is limited by their capacity to pay. Thus their freedom is limited by their economic power. Universal health care thus would represent an increase of their freedom.
Ray responds that in his libertarian paradise people are free to become as rich as they like. Thus if they do not have enough money to pay for the health care of their choice it is because of their earlier choice to not be rich.
I say that even if we grant Ray's premise on the possibilities of the American dream his vision of freedom (economic choice) is an empty understanding of freedom. If my health, and my families health, is dependent upon my ability to engage in economic competition then I'm not free at all because the most fundamental choice of all, how I ought to live, has been forestalled from the beginning. Or to say it succintly freedom limited to economics is slavery under another name and libertarianism is vice clothed in virture, slavery dressed up as freedom.
By the way, I like the "seen as essential to freedom" in there. Always a neat trick to try to market policies which limit someone's freedom as "freedom."
"Hey, we're taking your property, but we're doing this in the name of freedom!"
Except for me and Bobby McGee.
You play that trick too. It is marketing to say that the benefits that are acrued as a result of your structural position in society are instead a result of your hard work, ingenuity and ability. The very notion that people earn anything as a result of themselves is a product of a marketing effort. For example when you say that government takes "your" money in the form of taxes the use of the word "your" is an attempt to rig the game since what money you have has very little to do with you.
Well I know you didn't actually say anything. I was using you as a proxy. I disagree that you are forced to pay for someone else's health care since I disagree with the premise that your tax dollars are yours to begin with.
That being said, there is a good libertarian argument against universal health care. The idea that because government pays for health care they gain a right to what you do with your body (smoking, fatty foods, etc.) is definitely an infringement of freedom. It is for this reason that I consider univeral health care an ethical good not an economic good. If it is treated as an economic good then it turns our bodies into economic units that the government has an economic right to control your body. However if we treat universal health care as an ethical good then the government does not get to control your body even if what you do to your body ends up costing them money.
I don't like the rhetorical sleight of hand with respect to "costing the government money." Nothing costs the government money; it costs the taxpayers money. It is certainly an infringement upon me to force me to pay for someone's health care.
Peoples' "benefits accrue" as a result of lots of things. I don't understand your usage of "instead" up there. "Structural position" can certainly be relevant (*), but so too -- obviously -- can the things you're trying to dismiss as irrelevant (hard work, ingenuity, and ability).
(*) And, yet again, I object to the notion of "accident of birth," since even though children can't control what situation they are born into, parents certainly can.
So the amount of money people have is almost entirely a function of the "structural position" they are born into? If that's what you're arguing, I've just found my nomination for dumbest BBTF poster... :)
i don't know if i have the stomach to wade through this thread, so i'll just say i second this post.
I don't think so. It just hasn't found the right spokesperson on the national level for awhile (since Reagan, who was that kind of conservative in some ways)
Wow, things have really shifted if someone can see Ronald Reagan, in retrospect, as a libertarian-leaning conservative. Or Goldwater, for that matter. They were both leaders of the movement for a more "values"-centered conservatism, as opposed to what they saw as the soulless "let's just not spend any money," laissez-faire on social issues conservatism of Taft (Robert Taft, I reckon, not his Cecil-Fielder-like father). Gerald Ford was that kind of conservative (though he was not of the Taft isolationist-like persuasion on foreign policy). Reagan and Ford were pretty consistently enemies, despite the rumor in '80 that RR wanted Ford to be his running mate.
But I guess, in retrospect, someone like Goldwater who was comfortable defending gay rights because he didn't see what sexuality had to do with patriotism would now qualify as a real maverick – more so than McCain, or, shall we say, Lindsey Graham.
Liberals, unchecked, would have brought all the soldiers home from all over the world, taken away their guns, and taxed them for their shoelaces. then issued a letter of apology to Osama Bin Laden, letting him know we would try and do better next time. They would have probably cut him a check for his hardships too...
I like double mint expresso's, so consider me a conservative.
Like I said, in some ways. In other ways he was very different, but he did certainly attract those kinds of conservatives to his tent, as well as a hell of lot of other people.
And what could beat four Missions Accomplished, unless it was a Blackwater brewed double mint expresso after a tough day on the golf course? This is what makes life truly worth living.
This would be of course if you don't mind having glowing balls.
Going by what Andy just said, isnt the amount of personnel that Blackwater has almost equal to the amount of US solders that we have over there?
Is anybody really surprised that this country made its greatest advances with regards to erectile dysfunction under his presidency?
Going by what Andy just said, isnt the amount of personnel that Blackwater has almost equal to the amount of US solders that we have over there?
More that it means there wouldn't be many surviving Iraqi expresso jockeys to cater to Red Juice's patriotic thirst.
no way. it would become a European vacation spot in no time, and people would flock to work and live there. Also at .10 cents a gallon for fuel, people would migrate there like crazy.
Well, maybe if those four nukes you mentioned were jes' li'l ol' fellas....No hard feelings, Uncle Sam!
The Patriot Act.
And how can anybody who writes, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." not be called libertarian? Goldwater may have been in favor of a "values-centered" approach, but they were generic American values, not the program of the religious right.
One the one hand, I agree with Joey (holy crap, a second time). I already have a mother. On the other hand, I benefit directly from smoking bans. It is nice to go out to a bar and not come home smelling like smoke. This has been a very nice improvement.
Not for the bar owner who had a smoking ban imposed upon his property.
But for the staff that has to work there every day. There's always a trade-off...
Yes, but then, of course, the rejoinder is that they can quit working there. The hard right/Libertarian take is that property rights as they define them trump almost all other considerations. I don't agree with it much of the time, but they are very consistent. I have seen a bunch of studies that show smoking bans don't hurt revenues at bars and restaurants,* and as Andy noted this is a state-by-state thing, which some righties like.
*But these are generally put together by anti-smoking orgs.
Not for the bar owner who had a smoking ban imposed upon his property.
Gee, I'm against smoking bans in private buildings, in great part because it's severely hurt the business of the Montgomery County pool rooms, and because before the law went into effect I was always free to go somewhere else. Does that make me a conservative?
Yea, Ray, that may be true. But I don't own a bar. And at this point, I would probably not go to a bar full of smoke. So if a bar owner wants my business, he better damn well not let people smoke. And before the bans, few if any owners would have done that. Why? Because business owners, even when they are struggling, often won't take chances.
</rant>
But in all seriousness, Ray, you have a tendency to sound like you want to make property owner's rights absolute. But they are not. And they shouldn't be. They have to have some limits.
Now, the question becomes where you want to set those limits. Here is where we probably differ in opinion. For instance, I probably don't want to allow Chris Truby to dismember people on his private property. Too extreme? (You probably don't want the Chris Truby dismemberment either.) Well what about this one. I don't want to allow HITOX CORP to dump cadmium sulfide into a stream that I eat the fish from, even if it crosses their property. OK, so far so good, you are likely with me on this. (Or maybe you are not. It doesn't really matter, as you probably get the idea.)
Eventually, we hit a point where we will disagree. In a real life case, we have to find a place to draw the line. I would like to draw the line such that it allows smoking bans. This is for purely selfish reasons. I have no idealogical basis for wanting this. I just want it. So I can enjoy myself in bars.
Which staff "has to work" there? We fought the Civil War already.
I've never smoked since I was in college, and I've had my share of "you get in that shower and change your clothes before you get into MY bed" ultimatums in my time. So I can appreciate the smoking ban sentiment.
But OTOH over the past 15 years plenty of localities have worked out compromises where they required proper ventilation and (in some cases) non-smoking rooms, which in MoCo was working very well before the actual ban went into effect. The government seems too chickenshlt to go after the tobacco companies, but it's more than willing to go after individual smokers. Three guesses why.
If I ever had the nerve to do the math it would likely be at a ratio of about 500 to 1, I'm afraid. It's the one serious addiction I've ever had, for better or for worse, and the only reason it's subsided lately is because a combination of local tournaments, the internet, and the general decline of the American character has killed off pool gambling.
Yes, and the Red Sox have won two World Series since the Yankees last won one. The country is simply going to hell, huh?
And are also irrelevant, even if accurate, which I doubt. Who cares whether smoking bans do or do not hurt revenues at bars? The issue is who decides, not whether what is decided hurts or helps revenues.
Bar owners.
***
I found a link to a 2004 article about Montgomery County which supports what Andy said, and one of the proprietors quoted said that such studies often ignore small businesses and businesses--like pool halls--that generally do not sell food.
And then they came for me.
I have news for you: he was letting people smoke before the ban, thus risking <gasp!> not receiving your business (which he probably received anyway; or did you really stay out of bars before the ban?).
...should be entitled to decide for themselves how to run their own business.
Not at all. I've yet to put anyone on ignore, and if I were to start, you'd be far down my list, Robinred.
Seconding something that Andy said, I hold my position on the smoking bans despite (A) not being a smoker and (B) preferring a smoke-free environment when I go into a bar. I just don't think I'm entitled to one.
Yes, and the Red Sox have won two World Series since the Yankees last won one. The country is simply going to hell, huh?
Those are certainly two objective signs that it's been going downhill on a toboggan, robin, even if certain Islamists might dispute it.
Utter nonsense. Anyone capable enough to be bar staff is capable of holding down any number of jobs.
And is likely capable of doing better than that.
Start by going to your local mall -- a precious smoke-free environment -- and see how many jobs are being performed by people with that same type of skill set. Sports arenas. Parks departments. The U.S. Senate.
Actually most modern pool rooms sell full course meals, and before the ban they were generally required to have a non-smoking seating area for diners. I never heard any complaints about this.
My favorite bit of schizophrenia is in the Virginia pool rooms, which simultaneously WILL let you smoke in the dining area, but WON'T (by law) serve you a rare hamburger! Must be the influence of the Israeli tobacco trust or something.
Utter nonsense. Anyone capable enough to be bar staff is capable of holding down any number of jobs.
And is likely capable of doing better than that.
Wait? Anyone capable of being bar staff, is likely capable of doing better than haveing a bar job... then why don't they?
Counter-Edit to you edit:
Start by going to your local mall -- a precious smoke-free environment -- and see how many jobs are being performed by people with that same type of skill set. Sports arenas. Parks departments. The U.S. Senate.
I can actually remember when my local mall was not a smoke-free environment. For most people smoking vs not-smoking environment is only a small consideration when choosing a job.
But it really misses the larger point. People in low-skill jobs need a certain degree of protection from their employers. Or the work conditions in these jobs would be atrotious.
I don't know -- why do I have a job that requires me to work 50-60 hours a week?
Choice.
Nice distinction in #250, btw
edit: hmm... good point about rhetorical delivery in an earlier post, rr.
Godwinnish!
So Ray, let me see if I understand you. If I buy a piece of property next to the RD family, dump all kinds of toxins in the groundwater, don't tell the RD family, and the RD family sickens and dies as a result, you'd forgive me? Purely hypothetically, of course.
I'm pretty sure that's an infringement on his property rights, so the answer would be no. My right to swing a fist ends just before it hits your nose. No inconsistancy there.
That said, I disagree with him on the anti-smoking ban. It may be a little ham handed, but it has a net positive on society. Too bad for bar owners I suppose, but if everybody's in the same boat...
How does that square with liberty and property rights?
To be consistent, then, we'll need a noise ordinance to keep me from blasting my stereo day and night and damaging Ray's hearing, the ability in the form of zoning ordinances to prohibit activities that infringe on Ray's view to the extent that that would significantly lower his property's value, and surely I wouldn't be able to burn a big bunch of tobacco even on my side of the property line and thereby blow unpleasant and potentially toxic cigar smoke through Ray's kitchen window...
Where it gets particularly interesting is whether Ray's lungs get protection only when he's on property that he owns and, if so, why that would be the case.
Looks like Obama may be finally okaying some of the nastier ads proposed on his behalf by 527s, especially after the McCain campaign just accused him of promoting sex ed for kindergarteners. Probably too little, too late, particularly after his interview with Olbermann where his flaccid, let's-not-offend-anyone answers to softball question after softball question made John Kerry look like a Viet Minh lifer.
Of course, that's not extreme at all, once we recognize the end game: banning smoking everywhere.
This does seem odd at first blush, but may actually make sense given how viciously hurricanes can uproot even the strongest and oldest trees. To make homeowners liable for any and all damage might make for far more clear-cutting than we'd like.
I know two different bartenders with masters degrees. I always find it funny when people look down on restaurant staff like they are beneath them or something. Actually its typical.
"Those people" make a couple hundred dollars in about a three or four hours, and then go home. If it is a busier bar, like a night club or something, $400 or $500 a night is not uncommon. It's comical actually.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main