Selective traditions
European settlers in America have married drinking and smoking for over 300 years I would suspect.
No one cares.
But inject minority status into the issue, and suddenly smoking and drinking becomes a “centuries-old tradition” the ban is “killing.”
JB lets City Pages have it, but good.
I guess it’s the epitome of American culture to pretend we don’t have one.
Misinformation specialists like Fraters want to push the smoking ban off as a left wing endeavor - a ridiculous accusation. The statewide smoking ban is in place because of a coalition of anti-smoking forces across the political spectrum, a coalition that pretty clearly didn’t include City Pages, and didn’t include a LOT of left-leaning folks.
Go to City Pages and do a search on smoking ban. If Fraters thinks City Pages only editorialized against the ban on behalf of minorities, then I must wonder what he’s been smoking himself. A variety of different writers there have written on the smoking ban, from a variety of different perspectives, including the supposed “poor schlub from Northeast of Polish stock.”
Looks to me like the voice behind Fraters Libertas doesn’t want to acknowledge allies on an issue unless those allies buy into everything else he thinks as well. A nice tidy little world for him, I guess; just not a world that actually exists.
My impression of JB’s assertion “why does it only rise to the level of an article when a minority group is involved?” was in regards to CPs interest in drinking and smoking as a “cultural issue,” not an accusation that the paper hasn’t written about the smoking ban before, or provided multiple viewpoints.
That impression is bolstered when the immediately preceding sentence is added for context: “Correct me, but wasn’t tipping pints and smoking also a centuries-old tradition in…America? So, why does it only rise to the level of an article when a minority group is involved?”
I searched City Pages and was unable, at a glance, to find any editorials regarding drinking and smoking as a cultural issue for Americans. So, without any further information to the contrary, I have to conclude that your allegation of “misinformation specialists” was not only unwarranted in this case, but a teensy bit ironic.
As to the bans, while the left has managed to coax some moderate Republicans into supporting them, true conservatives do not. It comes down to two things.
1. Either you believe people are capable of making their own decisions, both personal and in business (a conservative viewpoint) or;
2. You believe the hand government is needed to require persons and business to do what politicians think is best for them (an inherently liberal position);
To suggest that smoking bans have any level of true support from conservatives is to delve a tad into that whole “misinformation” thing yourself.
Finally, JB never asserted that CP hasn’t given the viewpoint of “some poor schlub in Northeast Minneapolis who sadly happens to be from Polish stock.” He suggested that, while government might find a way to let a minority with a government loan off the hook, the “poor schlub” won’t be so lucky. Given that many of the smoking bans that have been passed nationwide have made exceptions for hookah bars, he’s probably not that far off the mark.
Trying to remember who it was signed the smoking ban bill into law. And who voted for him.
As far points #1 and #2 - apply them to the current ‘War on Terror’ and see how long things float.
City Pages | City Pages
Indeed HB, and Pawlenty is a moderate. In fact, he has been bending over backwards to move left for the last two years. He is many things, but he is not an example of a true conservative.
As far as point two, I’m not even sure what you are driving at. We’re talking civil liberties issues. Iraq had nothing to with conservative or liberal, it was a national security decision with an overwhelming, bipartisan, Senate blessing.
In fact, it enjoyed far stronger bipartisan support than Mn’s smoking ban. That hasn’t stopped the left from calling it the right’s war. Using your argument, anyone who puts the war on Republican shoulders, then, is defacto a misinformation specialist. That would include every Democratic member of Congress for heaven’s sake.
How we got on the subject of the war is beyond me, actually. You criticized Fraters as “misinformation specialists,” wondered what they’ve “been smoking,” and concluded that they were blind to allies that aren’t lock step on conservative issues.
I responded that the basis for that was not solid, because Fraters was tackling the “cultural” issue of the smoking ban, not the ban at large. Nowhere is it claimed by Fraters that CP didn’t editorialize against the ban, only that CP failed to address the “cultural tradition” of Americans and bars. Nowhere is it claimed that CP didn’t defend the “poor schlub” either. That remark was made in a totally different context.
Neither of your links are examples of CP editorializing about America’s culture of drinking and smoking, which is the issue whether you want it to be or not. They are intended to show that CP did write against the ban, but it is a response in a vacuum. No one argued to the contrary. Again, here is the quote from Fraters:
Correct me, but wasn’t tipping pints and smoking also a centuries-old tradition in”
Interesting that your view of the War on Terror only includes Iraq; that actually explains a lot.
I didn’t even mention Iraq. The Justice Department has been tramping all over American civil liberties in the name of their War on Terror. I believe your so-called “true conservatives” pick and choose civil liberties in the same manner as people of all political persuasions. So I guess we’d called that what, a SEQUITUR? Or maybe just selective traditions.
Sorry HB, when someone puts war on terror in scare quotes I assume they are referring to Iraq. My bad.
My view on the war on terror (scare quotes excluded) is quite broad actually and maybe someday we can discuss it. Your assumption that it “only includes Iraq” would be way off. As well, maybe someday we can discuss the leftist myth that the government is “picking and choosing” civil liberties to “trample” on.
As for this post, we were discussing the smoking ban, cultural traditions, and what I thought was an unfair attack on an author who never alleged any of the things you criticized him of. How exactly Iraq, the war on terror, or the ‘war on terror’ has anything to do with it is beyond me.
I’m still of a mind to discuss it if you like, although I get the distinct impression at this point you have no intention of returning to the actual topic of the post or the debate you appeared to want to have.
It’s important to me that my comment sections maintain some topic discipline. If you have something to add to your original comment, or a rebuttal to my charge that you jumped the shark in your comment, great. Otherwise, have a great weekend and perhaps we can address these other topics another day. I do post on the war on terror and civil liberties issues when they arise and would be a much more appropriate place to have those discussions.
I’m going fishing now.