A very thoughtful and well written piece. I appreciate it.
Rick Norby Keewaydin Planet Earth Expanding Universe
On Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 09:37 AM, gemgram wrote:
I know people get in trouble addressing a particular person when doing a
Post on the Issues Forum. Perhaps even slander and defamation might be
allowed when done in the third person, or when "properly" posed as a
question. I remember being outraged when Ed Felien was inappropriately
attacked in just such a manner when he was running for office. For that
reason I appreciate being addressed personally by both Rick and David Shore.
Meaningful things that you care about should never be discussed in a
detached de-personalizing third person manner, so thank you to both for
caring enough (even though disagreeing with me).
I sincerely hope there are bars for David Shore to go to that are smoke
free. I DO wish there were bars that were non-smoking and offered good
music for Rick. The problem is that many who support the "Ban" do not seem
to understand that the issue is not about THEM. I did not "dismiss the
opposition with a snide butt-kicking jeer?", I attempted to address with
humor what appeared to me to be a "snide butt-kicking jeer" that hopefully
Eddie also meant as humor. And by the way, I am not "opposition" to
anything, other than perhaps tyranny against individuals in the name of
"Political Correctness". Heck, I wish everyone would choose to quit smoking!
The issue is not to limit the opportunities for David or Rick. The issue is
also not to limit other people's opportunities. The issue IS whether they,
the "Smoke Banners", have the right to make the world conform to them and
ONLY them. What seems to be lost in the discussion is the person that the
ordinance is aimed at - the person who owns the bar and pays his or her own
money to make a business as he or she feels is right.
So David and Rick (and others of like mind), please DO gather together a
great group of like minded people, and start a non-smoking bar that brings
in great bands and musical groups. Start such a great bar that it makes
smokers refrain from the filthy habit for a couple of hours just to be able
to get into such a great bar. In fact make it so successful that you can't
get into it because it is so crowded. Heck, if 70% of this MPLS Issues
Forum alone joined you it would be a very successful bar. So successful
that other similar copycat bars will then also spring up. As successful
business is always copied in our free market system. Also, please do NOT go
to bars who do allow smoking, and just as importantly tell the owners why
you are boycotting them. I sincerely hope many owners of "smoking bars"
will decide it is good business to change and run a smoke free bar.
I truly do sympathize with both David Shove and Rick, and do think they
should have businesses that cater to them. In fact if there were a law that
prevented the operation of a bar catering to non-smokers, I would be in the
forefront of fighting it. The problem is that the "Pro-Banners" are NOT
advocating for themselves to be able to go to a bar of their choice. They
advocate to NOT ALLOW other consenting adults to go to a bar of THEIR choice
and to NOT ALLOW the use of a legal substance in a business dedicated to
that use.
It is not the tyranny of the 20% over the 80%. It is not the attempt create
more personal freedom for the 80%. It IS the attempt to limit the freedom
of other consenting adults from partaking of a "LEGAL" substance in an
establishment where the owner wants it to be consumed in conjunction with
another legal substance which he or she sells in that establishment.
But Rick and David, please be fair minded enough to think about your stance
on the issue. How would either of you like it if the City banned the
drinking of alcohol in Minneapolis bars, or the playing of music in
Minneapolis bars? I am sure you would NOT. Just as some of us who do not
care about smoking still do not think that it is either ethical or right to
ban businesses from allowing the use of legal substances. I would ask each
of you to think of the alternative, a City with closed clubs where only
members could come and listen to good music, while having a drink.
If it is a legal substance for use by consenting adults then allow its use
and the freedom to use it within specific buildings and businesses dedicated
to its use. If not, then make it an illegal substance. Right now people
seem to be advocating limiting the second hand smoke in the one place where
their IS choice. People CAN choose to frequent an establishment or not.
People can also choose to work or not work in such an environment. While in
my youth there was forced labor on plantations in the South, I have not
heard of forced labor in Minneapolis. The hazards of many professions far
exceed the dangers of second hand smoke. (Perhaps we should ban after hours
convenience stores or the police departments? In my mind those jobs might
also be, and often are, far more dangerous?)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now for a another related "Issue". Good move by a politician!
I happen to be pro-choice for several things. I must admit to no small
amount of disappointment in some of my Democratic Party colleagues.
Colleagues who seem to have gone to sleep while dreaming of liberal freedoms
and political correctness and awoken as close minded as some Republicans
sometimes seem; and willing to curtail freedoms of choice for others. And
come awake with what is apparently a smug self righteousness and moral
outrage about smoking in bars that would make the moral majority green with
envy. It reminds me for all the world of the moral majority's stance on
wanting to outlaw "Choice" for women, but at the same time being opposed to
birth control.
It is good to see that RT Rybak can at least see the forest through the
political correct trees. Though I do not always agree with RT Rybak on
issues, this is certainly one where he has had the courage to stand for that
personal freedom, and not bow to the tyranny of the "Moral Majority". Even
if he did quit smoking himself. Of course RT probably remembers that he
CHOSE to quit. So HIP, HIP, HIP for RT!
------------------------------------------------------------
I hope I can again post to the "Issues" Forum, but do not count on it. It
has been hinted that opposing opinions are sometimes not welcome.
Jim Graham,
Speedy Block Club, Ventura Village Neighborhood, Phillips Community Planning
District, Sixth Precinct, Sixth Ward; District 61A, City of Minneapolis,
Hennepin County, Fifth Congressional District, State of Minnesota, United
States of America. (and sometimes other places too).
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
