Re: Some Sanity In California

Rick, your persecution complex rears its head once more. To wit:

RickPiatt <engrtp0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The message was clear -- even if the air wasn't. << obvious slam at air
quality >>

It's quite factually correct. Smoke-filled air isn't clear. *By
definition.*


... where the right to bear Marlboros has taken on a distinctively
libertarian flavor. << makes it sound like smoking is as evil as carrying a
gun - as if that was not a constitutional right - don't get me going on that
one >>

I don't find the term "libertarian" evil at all. Your milage must vary.


When you leave these smokey bars, the smell comes with you, saturating your
hair and clothes and leaving a tightness in the chest. <<not only will you
stink, you will have chest pains if you visit a smoking bar >>

This is both evocative and true -- and it's quite limited to the olfactory
observation. Only you are extending it.


"It's a stupid law for bars," he added. "Restaurants is a different story."
<< rather than Resturants ARE a different story ... don't believe that was a
typo, it was intentionally left in to make the smoker sound illiterate >>

Well, if the interviewee *is* illiterate, who is the reporter to distort
the facts? But I don't find this usage of this construction to be
indicative of illiteracy at all; I find it more associated with certain
blue collar social segments than anything else. ...Which, unsurprising to
find that a bar in Bakersfield has such people in attendance.


The Bellvedere was cited once in 2003 and once again in 2004. The bar beat
the rap the second time, Simon said. << note how this makes a smoking
establishment sound like a cheap ex-con joint >>

Again: it's a fact. There are laws, which many people don't like, but
they *are* laws. This - in no small way - is the *very point* of the
article.


"We fought the law ..." << as if smokers are not law abiding citizens,
somehow being second rate law breakers >>

See above for the facts. And I have no idea from where in this piece
you're getting "second rate".


For those customers, "loyalty only goes as far as their addiction," she
said. << smoking is an addiction. funny, I'm not addicted to my pipe. >>

Funny how this is a quote given to the reporter, and not editorializing on
the part of the reporter, isn't it?


Reed is not a smoker and is no lover of cigarettes or the smoke they produce
<< wasn't that a rude statement >>

No, it wasn't. Try reading the words again. It's remarkably understated.


"What's the point of a law to protect employees who are dying to have a
cigarette?" << note how they are "dying" to have a cigarette >>

Or, note how it's a quotation.


"We just don't get a lot of complaints," he said. "In four years, I've seen
two e-mails." << which is proof that the 'people' didn't put this law in
place, the politicians did through the legal system. This is a complete
bastardization of the american system of rule - the courts are to UPHOLD the
laws, not make them. Citizens are to work with their representatives in the
house and the senate to MAKE laws. >>

Yes, and in this quotation - which you use to soapbox - the reporter is
giving fair voice to the other side of the issue. As they do in certain
other parts of the article which you didn't quote because they also
support the claim that the piece isn't as one-sided as you claim.

This persecution complex that so many of us have -- while I understand
where it comes from -- is far from useful. If it gets in your blood, it
makes you sound like an extremist because you interpret anything that's
not resoundingly positive as an attack.

If you want a sure-fire way to make sure your voice isn't listened to in
the public debate, coming off as an extremist is a really good strategy.

-Jason
.

Loading