A possible smoking ban is in the works in Pennsylvania.
The proposed smoking bill in the State Senate is a bill that deserves to die a quick death. Take away the tobacco element, and the the core of the bill is a frightening assault on our liberties hiding behind words like "public health" and "common sense".
Proponents of the bill cite public health. They say that the poor employees and other customers of an establishment are at risk. They fail to mention that most restaurants and many workplaces are already smoke-free. They did so on their own free will and accord. No heavy-handed government regulations caused them to do so. The remaining bars and restaurants that allow smoking have done so again on their own accord.
As customers we have the choice where to go. We vote with our wallets. The fact that there are still bars and restaurants that allow smoking show that there is not a strong enough economic push for every single establishment to go smoke free. So why can't smokers go to a place that allows smoking if they wish, and people who don't want to smoke choose a place that doens't allow it? Seems simple to me.
Lastly, this law is more about government intrusion into our lives. If it was really about public health tobacco would have been banned outright. The reason governments do not do so is because of the huge tax revenue brought in from tobacco. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2005 Pennsylvania brought in over 1 billion dollars in tax revenue from tobacco. That is a lot of money. Money that funds roads, schools, and even the social programs that bad mouth tobacco. Without this 1 billion dollars we would see cuts in services across the state or higher property and income taxes.
Are we willing to see that happen? Maybe, but I'm willing to bet the same activists who are pushing these bills across the country would be the same ones who would cry when social programs are cut or when taxes go up because of lost tobacco reveune.
We live in a world of laws. To damned many of them. These politicians have way too much time on their hands. A country that was founded on the ideals of liberty, personal freedom, and freedom from tyranny has become an endorser of everything our founding fathers stood for.
NJ to ban texting and talking on the phone
New Hampshire has banned smoking in bars and restaurants. I guess the phrase "Live Free or Die" is only lip service.
I am sick of these freedom hating assholes trying to legislate us to death. Our founding fathers would be sick if they saw this today. More importantly if people like Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and George Washington were alive today they would be considerd cooks, or fringe candidate because they would be against this needless legislation.
They would stand against cell phone bans and limits on where you can smoke.
John Stuart Mill said it best
The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Michael Moore's new movie Sicko comes out on June 29th. Already it's getting a lot of publicity.
Yesterday he was on the Howard Stern show which gave all the feel good libs on the show reason to wax philosophic about how great a taxpayer funded single-payer system would be. I'm not going to argue that. I'll let smarter peole do that for me.
Like the Sacramento Bee. They wrote a nice article on it.
It looks like the Red Lobster of the BBQ world, Smokey Bones, is closing a majority of their stores.
I am a little bummed. But overall I am not. Their BBQ was above average but their decor sucked. It looked more like a steakhouse than a rib joint. My BBQ is better, but sometimes it's just easier to go to a restaurant than smoke a brisket for 14 hours.
I've recently eaten at a steakhouse called Texas Roadhouse. It was awesome. I suggest the Filet. And oh yeah, pick you own from the case. It'll taste even better!
As usual police officers practice the old adage. Do as I say, not as I do.
A young man in Carlisle was arrested and thrown in jail for videotaping his traffic stop. Apparently police don't like to be filmed, unless they control the camera.
According to law, you cannot video tape police if there is sound. As usual, this law doesn't apply to the police.
The Sopranos finale was last night. And it was awful. Like an afterthought of a shitty sequel this final episode was out of character compared to the other 85 episodes. The whole episode seemed forced and contrived.
And don't start me on the ending. A part of what makes a good series ending is that it gives closure, possibly leaves the door open to something new. More importantly it should fit into the rest of the series. The mood/tone and the style. This ending, cutting to grey in the middle of the scene, makes no sense compared to the rest of the show. Even the usual end credits lacked the music the show was known for.
My guess and the only explanation that makes sense is that Tony was killed. Earlier in the season Bobby and Tony were asking about what it was like to get whacked. They speculated that you never heard it coming. And this ending you didn't hear coming. Comfortably sitting with his family eating onion rings his world suddenly went black. Dead that is.
That is what I think.
There is more here
And some people think that David Chase should have a price on his head.
I work in the public sector and most everyone I work with is great. The problem is most of them are big time liberals.
I was talking to my boss the other day and I was discussing with her possible names for my wife and my baby. I mentioned I like the name Reagan if it's a girl. She asked why and I told her it was after Ronald Reagan. You could tell the disgust in her voice. She did not like my admiration for Ronald Reagan.
Now, I was too young to know all of Ronald Reagan's achievements. But having been born in 1975, the first President I really had any memory of was Ronald Reagan. When the space shuttle blew up in 1986, my school ushered us into our classrooms and we watched television coverage of it. It included comments from President Reagan, momemts like those stick in my head.
Years later I also came to know a few eastern block europeans who spoke highly of Ronald Reagan. Most of eastern Europe came to think of Reagan as a savior, the one who stood toe to toe with the USSR and won.
Which brings me back to my dear friends. They routinely speak about and pine for the days of Bill Clinton. They matter of factly inject him into conversations whenver politics are brought up and talk about his Presidency the way most of us whould speak about things like gravity and the Earth being round. That is they just are under the impression that it is a given that EVERYONE knows he was the best President.
I admit he was alright, but he had his flaws. So did Reagan. But unlike my Clinton admiring co-workers I can acknowledge his flaws and talk about them. But Bill Clinton? To them he did no bad deeds whatsoever.