Sandra Myers of Bensenville, IL writes:
I smoke. This is a very bold statement to make in this day and age. Do I commit murders? No. Do I rob people? No. So why have I become the criminal? I am a mother, a member of my community and church. Do I deserve to be treated as if I am a criminal? I have rights just like a non-smoker. I understand that some people cannot understand that, but aren't they discriminating against me and other smokers? At what point did smoking become illegal? If it did, then I do not have the right to smoke, but if it did not, then I have the right to smoke as much as anyone over the age of 18.I believe it is time to stop discriminating against smokers. Give us our areas to smoke in and we will go there. Don't treat us worse than animals and shove us out in the bitter cold several feet from the doors. Don't put us on display for people to point and criticize us.
With today's advancements in technology there are plenty of high-quality smoke eaters that can be installed in designated areas of public establishments that will allow us to have a cigarette without offending any non-smoker. Remember we are your neighbors, day-care workers, teachers, priests and friends. It is time to stop stripping us of our rights and dignity.
By God, you're right Sandra!!! I quit smoking 7 1/2 years ago and I decided to use the money that I'd been spending on cigarettes to purchase furry little puppies, which I could then sacrifice in Daley Plaza, right under the Picasso. I figured that it was my right, and as there was no secondhand smoke or alcohol involved there'd be no problem. But I found that there are damned laws against it... It just goes to show how far these butt-ins at the city council will go to kill a guy's buzz...
Ms Myers' letter is followed immediately by this gem from Cincinnati's own Robert Moon:
If members of the Democratic Party want to market themselves as the party of the working middle class, they might want to reconsider their policies like the minimum wage increase, which merely makes everything more expensive for the middle class, makes the poor even less employable and further empowers companies like Wal-Mart by killing off their competition.They might also want to rethink their support for higher taxes on small businesses, which cripples economic growth.They should rethink their ceaseless opposition to any and all measures against frivolous lawsuits, which dramatically increases health-care costs and kills jobs.And they should rethink their undying support for labor unions, which needlessly makes it unaffordable for American companies to keep their work in this country.
You know Robert, Walmart isn't the problem - it's the solution!! We don't need to create a living wage in this country - we need more and more of our working poor working at more and more Walmarts. Of course, they'll need to get a second job, since Walmart intentionally depresses their full-time staff and refuses to offer anything approaching real benefits, but hey, there's nothing like a 60 or 70 hour work week at minimum wage to build character. Besides, parenting time for the working poor is way over-rated, and all those poor minority kids will fend for themselves just fine without affirmative action and college diversity programs (well, at least it's true in Jonah Goldberg's world). And yep, labor unions are the reason that all of the jobs have left this country because as you well know, overseas unorganized labor is treated incredibly well by those multi-national corporations...
and finally Keith Best of Wausesha, Wisconsin shares his deep depth of wisdom:
I feel sorry for all the great people around our nation who don't understand the ramifications of our recent election.
A major change in Congress has just given power to a party that is more worried about the rights of detainees who, when given the chance, would kill as many Americans as possible. This same party opposes the National Security Agency wiretapping program designed to monitor calls from troubled areas around the world to inside these United States without court approval in each case.
This is a party whose leaders were so desperate for power that their every action seemed to embolden our enemies, because our president was doing all he could to protect us. It seems like the American people are more worried about who is next to be eliminated on "Dancing with the Stars" than the fact that Al Qaeda has deemed the war in Iraq as the central front in its war against us. It is imperative that we win. I hope we can forgive these people, for they know not what they have done.
What I love most about Keith's letter is the adaptation of a famous biblical verse to highlight just how wrong-headed all those "great people" are who supported democrats in the election last week. I mean, really, guys like Darth, Rummy and Drinky all knew precisely what they were doing when they declared war on a tactic and commenced to shredding individual clauses and whole amendments in the constitution. And really, who understands all those liberal foreign terms like ex post facto and habeas corpus. Besides, as General Boykin has rightly pointed out: Our God is bigger than their god...
Oh, and Keith, since you've identified the problems and seem to be in possession of all the answers, can you please tell me when we know we've "won" this war? And while you're pondering that, join Sandra and Robert and
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
16 comments:
Too much to comment on! Why do these people insist on publicizing their idiocy?
So the pilots union is going to drive all the airline jobs overseas, which is a good thing since we'll be sending our kids there for school after the teachers union drives the teaching jobs overseas.
Kieth is parroting Limbag who yesterday told listeners that congress would be deadlocked, which is a good thing. It will keep the Dems from enacting all sorts of liberal laws that will invade your privacy, control your personal life, drive up the debt and destroy our countries morals. Yeah, lack of morals, illegal wire tapping, making my choice of marriage partner illegal, controlling if and when I have children and spending without oversight; all the realm of the Democrats.
As for Smoky Sandra, I like to drive on the sidewalk. Watch out.
Just how big is that corner?
1. That's right Sandra, your smoking bothers other people, so we (not you!) should pay for the equipment so that we aren't offended.
2. Robert, the key phrase in your post is "middle class," because without those provisions you rail against, there wouldn't be a middle class. There would be a small upper class and a large upper class. What's that called: Plutocracy? Oligarchy? These are big words; look them up.
3. What can you say to Keith (other than "Go sit in the corner, dumbass") that hasn't been said already? This sentence confuses me: "This is a party whose leaders were so desperate for power that their every action seemed to embolden our enemies, because our president was doing all he could to protect us." "Because"? What does that mean, that "our president" cause Democrats to "emboldened our enemies"? It's like Keith is merely trying to fit EVERY single talking point into a single post.
BTW, good post, RR!
It is a huge corner, built by union carpenters and masons...
Thanks, RR, it was quite a morning!
I guess I missed all the president was doing to protect us, like port security, securing the borders, funding first responders, having the National Guard GUARD the NATION, etc. instead of just torture and invading the wrong country.
Yes, Sandy, you may smoke. You may also play naked Twister. You have NO RIGHT to impose either on me.
And "They should rethink their ceaseless opposition to any and all measures against frivolous lawsuits, which dramatically increases health-care costs and kills jobs?"
The federal court system and most states allow for sanctions against litigants and counsel for frivilous lawsuits. Judges have tremendous discretion to summarily dismiss actions and reduce improper jury awards (which are quite scarce). Malpractice verdicts also have little effect on insurance premiums, hence health care costs. They just increase insurer profits.
I guess I'm the only one here who thinks anti-smoking laws are a bad artifact of a nanny state.
Question: if a majority of restaurant customers really wanted smoke-free restaurants, why weren't restaurant owners making the decision to go smoke-free in droves and marketing aggressively to the anti-smoke crowd?
Tyrrany of the minority is just as bad as tyrrany of the majority. The anti-smoker rhetoric in this country borders on the psychotic.
We have a lot more important stuff on our plates than this bullshit.
And by the way, I've never smoked, and yes, I've worked in bars for 20+ years.
Actually Schmidlap, I think that anti-smoking laws are stupid (as are most laws of that type - i.e. no auto sales on Sunday, seatbelt requirements for adults, bar closings at 2 a.m.). I had an issue with the whininess of her letter, and I was trying to make the point that legislatures outlaw all kinds of activities simply because they can, and/or at the behest of a special interest group...
You're the goods, RR. Thanks for the clarification.
I don't call for anti-smoking laws in hospitality establishments. I enjoy going to California, New York, etc. where they have them, but here, if I'm not in the mood, I won't go.
Other public facilities and private workplaces(offices, gov't buildings, etc.)are a different story, of course--and I also thought the whininess worth mocking.
Sandra certainly doesn't do anything to help her cause, that's for sure. Words like "rights" and "discrimination" don't apply to her plight and reveal her to be a whining idiot.
Neither, though, does equating her desire to smoke to a desire to drive on the sidewalk advance the counterargument.
Just IMHO.
Incidentally, and I swear this is the last I'll say about it, the only argument I will hear in favor of banning smoking in restaurants/bars is from the point of view of protecting the workers there.
Workers have the right to a safe workplace. Customers have the right to go somewhere else if they don't like it.
But I did think the sidewalk driving comment was funny.
I largely think that smoking laws are stupid also, but not as assinine as mandating that restaurants install air purifiers. In other words, "I will force you to let me smoke AND pay for the cost of inconvenience to others." Doesn't fly with me!
Thanks Peter. ;^)
Where I work you can't leave a building without walking through a cloud of smoke. I don't care what you do at home or in your car (although many states have laws against smoking or eating while driving) but when I have to breath it you lose the argument. "Don't treat us worse than animals and shove us out in the bitter cold several feet from the doors." Funny thing Sandra, my animals treat me better than you do. Get away from the door!
Just like my desire to drive on the sidewalks, it's harmless... unless someone else is there.
I love when people feel they have a "right" to do something. Smoking is not a right just as driving is not a right (even on the sidewalk). Most people don't understand what their rights are or how those rights are established. If they did I think W. would be impeached by now.
And poor Sandra has to ask, "At what point did smoking become illegal?" well, that would be when they passed a law in your area against smoking in certain locations/situations.
As for my "neighbors, daycare workers, teachers, priests and friends" who smoke, they don't, except for one friend who is courtious enough to not smoke around others.
As for seatbelt/helmet laws, I think you should have the choice, but (yer gonna love this) if you die without a seatbelt or helmet you should be a mandatory organ donor. (I wear a helmet in a no-helmet state.)
I'll take that last point one step further - I believe that insurance companies should be held harmless for payment of damages if any victim of an auto accident was found NOT to have been wearing a restraint. In my mind that would immediately end the need for any mandatory helmet/seatbelt laws for adults... However, kids MUST be protected from the bad decisions of adults whenever possible, so I am not opposed to keeping laws mandating safety restraints for children under 18.
Mr. Rabble, I like that idea!
Post a Comment