Stork-neck is practically a socialist. I never could stand that broad (met her in person years ago when she was still working at 11). I still remember her cringing and giving the "Oh, those poor deer" look when they had stories about hunters on during open season. I can tell you without hesitation she's licking her chops hoping smokers are made criminals. I was happy as hell when she left 11-but, of course-Block then picked her up so she could finally show her true colors with a 'column'. It's a damned shame, but we lose almost EVERY worthwhile tv news person here (especially the female ones), but the obnoxious ones like her and Anderson will be here forever in one capacity or another. They just switch to another station or another type of media.
Can you tell us much, Jim, or would you rather we tried to view it first? I'll find it very difficult to watch if she's the host.
posted by Darkseid at 03:24 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 27, 2006 #
Thanks, Jim! I'll mark it on the calendar now! That way I don't forget to tune in. You know - senior brain and all....
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:56 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 27, 2006 #
Before the interview started, she was nice and social, talking about how she enjoys having a cigarette occasionally when going out socially. Then the lights came on and it was like she morphed into a smoke hater.
Just for fun, count the number of times she:
1. Asks the same question over and over and 2. Interrupts the answers being given.
Jake did a good job keeping his cool, while I sat there like a deer in the headlights. I couldn't believe the hostility in her tone.
Tonight I join Bill Delaney in the taping of Conklin and Company which will air on Sunday morning on 13. I'm expecting a much more balanced interview, but now have the experience to deal with it properly should the interview turn hostile.
posted by jimavolt at 11:56 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 27, 2006 #
Well sure tells you these people in the spotlight like her don't even believe what they want the public to believe.
Michael Coleman (Columbus mayor) is a smoker, too.
Or was. Not sure on that. Anyway, a downtown tobacco store owner told me he came over to the store 5 or 6 times a day to smoke around the time of the 04 ban.
Didn't have the balls to stand up to Tavares or Hadash on the thing either.
Oh well.
posted by Musician at 03:30 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 27, 2006 #
I really find it hard to believe she's a smoker, but who knows? Even if she is, she's probably been brainwashed into feeling guilty about it and stays in the closet(like another local tv babe).
posted by Darkseid at 05:42 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 27, 2006 #
Well smokers who hide it.
What can be said?
Low self-esteem.
I can understand not wanting the anti-hassles, but at the same time, I have always found these kinds of people to be curious.
posted by Musician at 06:34 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 27, 2006 #
Some people only smoke a few times a week. Others only smoke when they drink. I've known a few like this, and they're mostly women, don't know why. Others are so brainwashed and brow-beaten-to the point where they're ASHAMED of consuming a legal product-that they actually welcome smoker bans. They deliberately seek these people out for the media coverage leading up to it ("Oh, good, I support it because I shouldn't be smoking anyway, and it'll force me to quit"). My call is Johanek falls into one of these categories.
posted by Darkseid at 04:15 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
Are there any posters here who aren't smokers?
The previous posters are right... smokers have the right to use a legal product. However, to a good portion of those who don't smoke, second hand smoke is disgusting. If the majority of citizens agree something is not acceptable in enclosed public spaces, isn't the ban on said practice democracy?
The argument that smokers will become an oppressed minority (the flaw of democracy) is empty. Smokers can keep on smoking in their homes, cars, and the great outdoors. They will even continue to get special breaks in many workplaces.
If smokers can't last the hour of an enjoyable meal without smoking, maybe they ought to question what is driving their activity... pleasure or addiction?
posted by cameramano at 09:35 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
Are there any posters here who aren't smokers?
I'm a non-smoker. And I'm voting no on issue 4 and yes on issue 5.
posted by McCaskey at 09:59 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061028/NEWS09/610280356
Mr. Reynolds also wrote a column on the Blade's Op-Ed page today.
posted by McCaskey at 10:04 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
You're almost right McCaskey. It was clearly an editorial, but it was printed on the FRONT page of the Blade under the guise of a news story, not on the Op-Ed page where it belonged. Sadly, that's what we've come to expect from the daily paper.
I too am a non-smoker, but I vote Yes on Four and No on Five. Many businesses will fail if the statewide ban is passed. I feel sorry for the owners of small taverns whose clientele will stay at home if they cannot smoke.
My friend Arnie Elzey followed the law two years ago when JFo passed his ban. No non-smokers came in to replace the smokers who went elsewhere. The vacant property still stands as a testament to JFo's failed design for an "Elegant City".
The advertisements the anti smokers are running are bullshit. They show wafts of smoke covering a plate of food. The reality of the situation is that if Issue 4 passes, smoking will be allowed in separated enclosed rooms in restaurants, should the owner decide to make the investment to please his/her customer base.
I disagree with cameramano on the democracy issue. Voting on these types of issues is nothing more than tyranny by majority. It's akin to a group of four wolves and one sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
You say smoking is "disgusting" and apparently not acceptable in public places. Why do you feel the need to support an issue that bans smoking everywhere? So that your precious self won't be disgusted by the environment in every place that you may or may not choose to enter?
I take it you have never invested a few hundred thousand dollars and built a successful business, then had non-customers attempt to legislate that you change the environment so they won't be disgusted. I think your position foolish and entirely self-serving.
I'll continue to vote in favor of laws that help businesses and keep people employed.
posted by jimavolt at 12:01 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
You're almost right McCaskey. It was clearly an editorial, but it was printed on the FRONT page of the Blade under the guise of a news story, not on the Op-Ed page where it belonged. Sadly, that's what we've come to expect from the daily paper.
Jim: We're just not going to agree on this.
There was a news story on page 1 that jumped to page 7. That dealt with Patrick Reynolds speaking at the county health department. When a grandson of a tobacco company founder comes to speak on an issue such as this that's about to voted upon, that is news. He also wrote an opinion piece, Saturday's essay, on page 9.
Granted, he got alot of ink and I don't doubt the Blade is on the side of issue 5 and it will say so editorially, if it hasn't already.
If know you're a business owner and you're concerned about the economic impact of a public smoking ban. When I was much younger and lived in the south end, I had many a fine evening at the Distillery, enjoying the music, cold beer and lovely young women. The best place in the south end, hands down. I'd like to think it could still be such a fun establishment if there was a smoking ban.
For what its worth, I believe issue 4 will win out this time. But time is not on your side in this debate. I'm convinced there will be a state-wide public smoking ban as some point down the road--5 years, 10 years, whatever. And it will be true in almost every state. Everybody, including the public who smokes and business owners, will adjust.
posted by McCaskey at 01:57 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
McCaskey, I'm sorry, I apologize. I didn't realize that the Blade ran THREE anti-smoking stories in the paper today. I stopped before I got to the 3/8 of a page they gave to Mr. Reynolds. Christ, they spent more ink against smoking than they did on Noe.
I also think that Issue 4 will win this time and I agree with you that sooner or later Ohio will all go smokefree.
Come to the bar on Tuesday 11/7. It's the bar's 18th anniversary. My wife and I will be in to have a few beers - so will a few Toledotalkers. Take care.
posted by jimavolt at 06:23 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
cameramano - take the time to read the archive topics on the smoking ban on this board. Make an effort and actually click on the links about OSHA studies that jimavolt put up about second hand smoke (amazing, thanks again jimavolt). This topic has been debated ad nauseum - there's no good reason to spend time re-posting the same information, feedback,studies, etc. when you can just as easily read up on them by doing an archive search. But I doubt you'll take the time to do that, because rabid non-smoker nazis just want what they want, when they want it, right or wrong. Simply put - a restaurant, bar, bowling alley, etc. are NOT public places as deemed 'public' by the law books. They are private businesses, where private individuals have invested THEIR money, and you can choose to enter or NOT. A public place, as deemed by the law would be government buildings, places a person would have to go because of the business they conduct there.
I will once again (ad nauseum) repeat myself with whines about the lack of smoking available restaurants. Go through the damned yellow pages under "Restaurants" - call each one and ask 'do you have a smoking section?' (I have). You will find less than one handful has a smoking section that isn't confined to a tiny, dingy bar with high bar stools and a small wobbly bar table. So what's the gripe all you non-smokers have? You already have it your way, and still you whine. And my bet is that if these bars were smoke free - your ass wouldn't be there anyway.
posted by starling02 at 07:51 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
Jim: No need to apologize.
Thanks for the invite on the 7th, but I can't make it. Prior committment.
No matter what happens on issues 4 and 5, I hope the Distillary has a long and prosperous future.
posted by McCaskey at 08:10 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
Once again:
Public: That which is PAID FOR VIA TAX DOLLARS.
Private: That which is paid for via PRIVATE INVESTMENT, and tax dollars are paid for BY THE OWNER.
And if four does pass, the ONLY reason we would one day STILL go totally smoker-free, is for the same sole reason-RABID SMOKER-HATERS WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED until ALL SMOKERS ARE DECLARED TO BE CRIMINALS and icarcerated if they are caught lighting up. If that ever happens, then I assure you I shall do what I've always done-be an outlaw. NO ONE is ever taking my cigars from me, if I have to get them from Bin Laden himself-guess what-I will. F*^k this country if they want to have a dictatorship.
posted by Darkseid at 10:30 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 28, 2006 #
The poster who said, "you can still smoke outside"...etc...
As we speak, California is enacting many OUTDOOR smoking bans.
The enabler of this?
Their "clean indoor air act".
Do not be fooled. If Issue 5 passes, they will be back for more restrictions.
Note: SFO/Issue 5 calls their thing a "clean indoor air act".
Just thought I'd mention it.
posted by Musician at 12:54 A.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
McCaskey said: “I hope the Distillary [sic] has a long and prosperous future.”
Shit. You can do more than just hope, by not voting to ban smoking at that establishment. Hypocrisy, much?
We will all lose our rights of individual independence if all of us fail to be dutiful stewards of such rights without regard to the beneficiaries. McCaskey, approximately when did you miss out on this lesson during your upbringing and schooling?
posted by GuestZero at 01:11 A.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
I think the Distillary, and other establishments, will do fine with a state-wide ban. You disagree, fine.
I appreciate your concern for my "upbringing and schooling", LOL, though. Really, I do.
It's good for you that this board allows you to assert your....individual independence.
Rock out with your cock out, son.
.
posted by McCaskey at 10:30 A.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
Hey Darkseid,I also am a person who likes to have a cigar once in awhile.I especially enjoy one with a good single malt scotch.I am having a problem finding a good restaurant with a SMOKING SECTION that will allow me to have a cigar with my scotch.Isn't that ironic that I am not allowed to have a cigar or smoke a pipe in the SMOKING SECTION!
Recently(this past year)my wife and I had gone to the Chop House restaurant in Maumee to have an after dinner drink and a cigar in their SMOKING SECTION.I asked the bartender if it was okay to light up my cigar.He said to me as he handed me a lighter and a cigar cutter that it was okay and that they encouraged customers to do so.We enjoyed our drinks,cigars and the pleasant conversation that night.About a month later we returned to the Chop House to repeat what we had done the prior month and before I could get my cigar fired up in the SMOKING SECTION I was told they no longer allowed cigar or pipe smoking in their establishment.Of course I asked why and they said too many cigarette smoking customers were complaining about the smell of cigar smoke.I find this totally ironic that the very same people that are crying about their rights to smoke a cigarette would deny me my right to smoke a cigar(or pipe) in the SMOKING SECTION!The same thing also happened at the Rib Cage restaurant in Maumee where they used to allow cigar and pipe smoking in their SMOKING SECTION.Hell, the owner even smokes cigars and won"t allow me to light one up until everyone leaves the SMOKING SECTION/BAR area.Years ago ,I even had a barmaid tell me while she was smoking a cigarette behind the bar at the old Bungelow restaurant that she was going to send me her cleaning bill if I fired up the cigar that I was holding in my hand.What hypocrisy!You cigarette smokers can't have it both ways!What is your problem with my smoking a cigar(pipe) in the SMOKING SECTION/BAR area?
posted by buckeye277 at 11:21 A.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
I never had that problem myself, but I usually smoke the little cigarillos, which look like dark cigs, and they really don't smell that strong. I know what you're talking about though, but in fairness, I've seen it the other way around, too-cigar smokers discriminating against cig smokers. For the life of me, I don't get why anybody would bitch about a pipe in the smoking section/rooms, because the tobacco for them is usually scented and quite pleasant.
posted by Darkseid at 03:21 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
Yeah, Musician, if issue 5 became the law of the land here, they'd never ask for anything else. Right.
Ban on smoking in cars snuffed
PARMA HEIGHTS — A controversial ordinance that would have banned smoking in cars when kids were passengers has been snuffed.
Councilman Rick Schwachenwald, who introduced the measure last fall, said on Monday he would abandon his efforts to get it approved.
"I think it was an important piece of legislation, a groundbreaking piece of legislation," Schwachenwald said.
But it became apparent during discussions last year that the proposal did not have the support it needed to become law.
Schwachenwald said this week he would "drop it for now" in order to focus on more pressing issues, like getting a citywide inspection program for rental properties up and running.
The measure, believed to be the first of its kind in Ohio, would have prohibited adults from smoking cigarettes in motor vehicles in which children were present. Schwachenwald said he wanted to protect kids from the effects of secondhand smoke in such close quarters.
But other council members said the legislation was too intrusive, a step away from looking into people's home to make sure parents weren't smoking in front of their kids.
posted by Darkseid at 03:44 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20051215-112826-9119r.htm
.
posted by Darkseid at 03:46 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
To the pipe and cigar smokers.
I think it's crazy that you can't smoke these in smoking sections in some of these places. I think both smell quite good, although I do not smoke either of these things.
One of the clove cigarettes or a bidi is about as close as I get to that.
Hell, White Owl cigars are a welcome fragrance compared to the second hand BO in smokefree "bars".
posted by Musician at 05:33 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
Orwell's world is almost here anyway, gang.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413345&in_page_id=1770
.
posted by Darkseid at 10:12 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
I am a non-smoker, voted yes on 4, no on 5.
posted by holland at 10:29 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
Thanks for that Holland!
Darkseid, I was thinking about this the other day. Terrible news on that UK thing.
Some of the Bowie music from about '73 or '74 had these kinds of themes, too.
But as we all have thought when reading Orwell or listening to Bowie....these were fantasy scenarios.
Apparently not.
posted by Musician at 10:36 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 29, 2006 #
I read in the rag that 'Rob' Ludeman already voted and went no on issue four, yes on issue five. Anyone else besides me remember this phony lying sack of shit saying how he 'regretted his vote' shortly after Council's UNANIMOUS ban vote?? I sure as hell do. He said he was concerned it would hurt or kill small business, and should have been hashed over more before a vote, or something like that. Convict McCloskey said the same things. All lies. He's an elitist rabid smoker-hater just like everyone else on council. HEY, "ROB"-if you're reading this, you worthless prick, I hope every one of your equally worthless, lying, corrupt, two-faced Party members GETS THEIR NUTS CRUSHED by the Dims next week. I hope it's so bad, you are nauseated the next day, and can't show your face. The party of small government, personal responsibility, low taxes, small business friendly, personal freedoms, etc;etc....all gone by the wayside with the country club RHINOS here in Ohio (and nationwide). You deserve to lose power, because you governed like democrats. Hell, I might as well have the real thing. I just can't believe it, but it took the dems 40 or 50 years to get as arrogant, elitist,screwed up and corrupt as they are-your party , once they got the power, managed to accomplish the same thing in a mere 12 years. Amazing.
posted by Darkseid at 03:38 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
And apologies to Mag-I don't include you in that tirade, hell, you were the only 'R' worth voting for here for years. 8^)
posted by Darkseid at 03:39 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
Toledo's strict smoking ban was passed by council 11-0 on July 8, 2003. Karyn McConnell missed the vote but was on record as saying she would have voted "yes."
August 24, 2003 Blade story:
"Now that Toledo's smoking ban is in effect at most bars and restaurants, this year's candidates for City Council seats are, almost without exception, split on the merits of the law. Incumbents are defending last month's 11-0 vote for the ban that went into effect at 12:01 this morning."
"Challengers said they think the council overstepped its authority by dictating how business owners should run their operations, and should have exempted such places as bars, bowling alleys, and bingo halls."
"Incumbent Republican Rob Ludeman said he is satisfied that his support for the ban was appropriate. "I think that the ordinance as it came through is probably much more generous to the business owners than it started out to be," Mr. Ludeman said. "I certainly agree that it is a health issue. People can be very seriously affected by second-hand smoke."
And the public is also affected by Ludeman's first and second-hand stupidity, yet it's still legal for him to remain in public office. If we're really concerned about the public's health, then most politicians should be banned.
More from that August 2003 Blade story:
"District 3 Councilman Bob McCloskey, a Democrat, said he stands by his vote for the ban, but acknowledged that it may make him politically vulnerable. "The timing on this sort of thing could not be tougher for people who are running for office. We are catching it from every side. I am not changing my position on the smoking ban, but I will certainly be watching down the road to see what the financial impact will be" on bars and restaurants."
September 23, 2003 Blade story titled: "Council hears pleas to ease smoking ban: 4-hour hearing attracts more than 200."
"Councilman Bob McCloskey said longtime friends who owned taverns and restaurants have told him of their disappointment in him, and have taken his political signs off their buildings. He said Toledo is a "laughingstock" to its neighbors and predicted no adjoining city would follow Toledo's lead. "Secondhand smoke is bad, but so is putting people out of business," Mr. McCloskey said. "I hope we can do something so I can look myself in the mirror." "
"Mr. Kapszukiewicz said any councilman who changes his vote is admitting either he or she made a mistake the first time they voted, or is too "weak-minded" to stand by his or her vote. "Council has to be careful not to try to have its cake and eat it too," Mr. Kapszukiewicz said, a reference to councilmen members who sympathized with the business owners after having voted for the ban."
September 20, 2003 Blade story titled: "Toledo extending deadline for smoking lounge permits."
"Councilman Rob Ludeman, who had publicly called for the extension, said bar owners delayed hiring architects and engineers in hopes the issue would go to a referendum on Nov. 4. But a petition drive fell short of the needed valid signatures. "I don't think anybody thought the petition drive would fail," Mr. Ludeman said. "Folks making a good-faith effort to comply will be given a 30-day extension. That's good." "
"Mr. Ludeman is chairing a hearing of council's health and community relations committee at 3 p.m. Monday in council chambers and is seeking testimony from those affected by the law. He said the purpose of the hearing is to live up to council's promise to evaluate the effects of the ban. Mr. Ludeman, who voted for the ban, said he is not aware of any planned amendments. But he said there might be gray areas in the ordinance that could be interpreted favorably to business owners. Yesterday, bar owners said council will get an earful."
"Mr. Ludeman's committee hearing has prompted some criticism from others on council who say the dust hasn't cleared enough to know the impact of the law. "I think the example from all the other cities that have gone through it is you usually don't have a good sense of the economic impact for 8 to 12 months," said Councilman Wade Kapszukiewicz. Council President Louis Escobar also said the hearing is premature. "The function it provides is to blow off steam," he said."
"Stuart Kerr, regional coordinator for Tobacco-Free Ohio, said it has ads in support of the ban running on Buckeye CableSystem. "We're going to start our offensive on City Council to make sure they stay the course," Mr. Kerr said."
And of course, in November 2004, the citizens corrected the wrong committed by council. And I don't think Ludeman regrets his vote for the strict ban.
Carty has Ludeman by the nose, but on this smoking issue they disagree. At least they did two years ago.
In 2004, Issue 4 ammended Toledo's strict smoking ban. The Blade opposed Issue 4, but Carty supported it.
"A possible mayoral contender next year, former Toledo mayor Carty Finkbeiner, said he is going to vote for Issue 4 because he said it will help small bars and restaurants around the city, which he feels have been forced into an unfair competition with bars and restaurants in surrounding communities. Jack Ford's name isn't on the ballot Nov. 2, but he's out campaigning to defeat Issue 4."
Ahh, unfair competition with surrounding communities. So I wonder if Carty now supports Issue 5, the strict statewide ban, since the competition would supposedly be eliminated? Carty probably has to first check to see what Ford supports, and then do the opposite.
posted by jr at 08:43 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
I'd say Toledo bars and small businesses would be competing with the Michigan bars and small business who don't have the threat of issue 5.
posted by MikeyA at 09:01 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
Okay, I guess it was primarily The Convict who did most of the tap-dancing, but I sure seem to recall Ludeman making excuses on tv , especially when it got close to re-election. At any rate, I still stand by everything else I said. He's a gutless RHINO liberal with an "R" before his name, he's a worthless prick (like Taft), and I hope everybody in his party gets hosed across the state next week.
posted by Darkseid at 09:20 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
Say, does ANYBODY know what the polls are recently for 4 & 5? NOBODY in the media will report it.
posted by Darkseid at 09:22 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
Everyone I've talked to about this says Issue 4 is leading in the polls...but I don't know what info they base this on. Maybe its because most of the people I've talked to say they're going to vote for Issue 4.
posted by McCaskey at 09:51 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
IMO, "smoking is healthier than fascism". i saw this on a tshirt some time ago and i find it to be very true.
this is just another example of the increasing intrusion of govt into the lives of citizenry.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 06:30 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
I'd say Toledo bars and small businesses would be competing with the Michigan bars and small business who don't have the threat of issue 5.
Detroit is already cashing in on Windsor's smoking ban concerning the casinos, so yes, that would happen if Issue 5 passes for certain.
posted by Musician at 09:28 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
"Say, does ANYBODY know what the polls are recently for 4 & 5? NOBODY in the media will report it.
Ouch!!! posted by Darkseid at 10:22 A.M. EDT on Mon Oct 30, 2006"
In Toledo this usually means that the Nanny initiative is really lagging behind.
I'd take that to be good news for the Smokeless campaign.
posted by katie82640 at 10:19 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 30, 2006 #
Well, issue five may garner more total votes than four....but if four passes-the point is moot. But it REALLY pisses me of that NOT ONE media outlet in this town will report it. I couldn't even find anything on the net.
posted by Darkseid at 03:41 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 31, 2006 #
Brian Wilson talked about it last week but I don't exactly care for his show so I listened for about 20 mins and turned it off. That's the extent I've seen in the local media.
I'm sure if Frantz were still here in town he'd be all over it. This was a big issue for his show.
posted by MikeyA at 08:59 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 31, 2006 #
I'm waiting for the Tol. Free Press tomorrow.....I think we would see something in that....but I predict that all available indicators point to Issue 5 going down in flames. And they spent alot of money on that too. Going to be a hard thing to explain.......
posted by katie82640 at 11:40 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 31, 2006 #
Every night I google for polls on the two issues and the most recent I've seen are from almost 3 weeks ago, before the advertising started. Hard to guess the effects of the ad campaigns.
As Katie mentioned above, the Blade did not release the results of the Zogby poll on the issue. Very similar to the way they kept the poll results secret two years ago when we got the Toledo law amended. Surely if the poll showed Issue 4 losing, it would have inspired a front page, above the fold newsatorial.
posted by jimavolt at 12:21 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 31, 2006 #
Oh, that's VERY true, Jim. 8^D
posted by Darkseid at 01:07 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 31, 2006 #
It's funny - I received an email from a journalism/english professor from years past. Seems he'd happened onto this site :-)
He reiterated that first and foremost lesson that journalists learn in training.
When you finish a piece you need to review your product as objectively as it is possible to. IF you can determine your policital leanings or a desired outcome of any nature in the piece it is an opinion piece. Or an editorial. But under no circumstances is it 'news'.
posted by katie82640 at 01:30 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 31, 2006 #
Here's some easy math:
I have included the opening paragraphs here.
The rest of the article can be found here.
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?jrl=405614&story=dispatch%2f2006%2f11%2f03%2f20061103-A1-03.html&rfr=nwsl&clk=51416
Of course, we can never expect The Dispatch to tell the entire truth concerning a lack of interest in people going to this new night life area.
And what, may I ask happened in 2004 in Columbus?
You got it.
FINANCIAL REPORT
South Campus project hasn’t met estimates
Friday, November 03, 2006
Debbie Gebolys
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
The South Campus Gateway and surrounding neighborhood aren’t making the money that consultants predicted for Ohio State University’s nonprofit development group.
In fact, Campus Partners for Community Urban Redevelopment is losing $400,000 a year on a collection of run-down rental properties on E. 8 th and E. 9 th avenues, many of them uninhabitable and boarded up.
South Campus Gateway, the $153 million shopping-entertainment-residential complex at 11 th Avenue and High Street, is projected to bring in $1.2 million from its opening in August 2005 through December 2006. That’s $7.6 million less than forecast in a 2004 business plan.
posted by Musician at 08:18 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
Musician said: “And what, may I ask happened in 2004 in Columbus?”
Er, let me guess:
1. Some filthy smokers went into the restaurants, bars and bowling alleys and drove all the good people out with their disgusting smoke?
2. There was a sudden mortality spike in the population?
3. Something Biblical, involving falling frogs, flaming swords and fattened calves?
4. "Liberals! Liberals! Liberals!" ?
5. A mysterious disease called the "Columbus Cooties" made people sick and has kept most of them home?
6. A smoking ban was implemented?
Naah! There's NO WAY that #6 is a valid choice! It must be one of the others.
posted by GuestZero at 03:34 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
You win the prize, Guest Zero.
Sorry you had to type all that, though ;-)
posted by Musician at 11:14 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
I sure liked seeing the shilling bar in the Dispatch this AM.
One that readily rips off musicians with huge PA fees, long guest lists that come out of "the door" takes.... etc..
And one place I will not consider booking anymore for those reasons alone, but the point is moot as it has gone to a mostly DJ format.
Canned music for canned lemmings.
posted by Musician at 11:17 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
Anyone get a call from Issue 4 (SmokeLESS Ohio) that was to this effect?
No?
Thought so......
Issue 5 is "desperate about the separate", no doubt.
from the nanny Issue 5 site
"Myths Versus Facts
Issue 4 has been airing ads that contain deceptive statements about what their law would do. They have also been sending automated phone calls lying to voters about Issue 5 creating "smoking police." Read our myths versus facts fact sheet to find out the truth."
posted by Musician at 11:51 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
Well, well more Kalifornia "wisdom" at work...
Can you say nanny and Jim Crow ALL IN THE SAME SENTENCE?
I knew you could.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-kebab4nov04,1,5774423.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&ctrack=1&cset=true
Your future under Issue 5
Vote YES on Issue 4, NO on Issue 5
posted by Musician at 01:44 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
Well...THIS ABSOLUTELY doesn't look good....from the Columbus Dogpatch. Looks like the unending nonstop media blitz has done its job. Notice the way they word it, too, which is how they've all done it all along.
"State Issue 3, which would expand gambling in the Buckeye State, trails by 16 points. Also behind is state Issue 4, a tobacco-industry-backed smoking proposal that would wipe out local nonsmoking ordinances. State Issue 5, the measure pushed by the American Cancer Society that would ban smoking in most public places across the state, is ahead".
posted by Darkseid at 08:54 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
Anyone that makes a decision on polls....... or on a newspaper's endorsements trying bully their own agendas.......rather than researching the issues.... is not a very bright bulb.
We have lemmings, but we also have people who research and make up their own minds.
Keep in mind Columbus wants to appear "progressive", like a NYC/LA Midwest while holding onto the worst parts of recent Republican agendas with religious right ties.
It makes for a very strange mix of the population ranging from religious right nuts to "progressive" liberal nut jobs. These groups are the ones who tend to be the most vocal....for the most part.
I find it strange in a city with this mix, that a topless female walking down the street is an OK thing on the local law books, but catching a smoke in a bar with your beer currently is not.
There are also plenty of moderates who don't take the time to answer these polls and are just living their lives day to day making ends meet.
Frankly, I was not aware of this poll and I am a Dispatch subscriber, so I am not sure who might have been targeted.
I only read the Dispatch because.......
..... It is always good to know your enemy, especially those in need of an enema.
posted by Musician at 10:31 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
Keep in mind this is 11th hour bullshit concerning the Dispatch poll.
posted by Musician at 10:49 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
From Siegel's most recent entry.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
------
IN MY VIEW: Discussion of Secondhand Smoke Health Effects Not Possible in Tobacco Control Movement
That is the lesson that I have learned this week. You simply cannot challenge statements made about the health effects of secondhand smoke. Even if you are speaking from within the movement and have contributed a fair amount to that science. Even if advocates and groups continue to cite your own work widely, side by side with the alleged inaccurate or misleading claims.
Several months ago, a number of readers asked why I chose to write publicly about the misleading claims that anti-smoking groups are making, rather than keeping the information internal and confronting the organizations directly. Now you can see why the latter approach is of no use. The groups are simply not interested in hearing about it. They are not interested in discussing it. They are not interested in the strength of the documentation behind their claims.
You see - anything that interferes with the ability of the groups to wage their campaigns is viewed as an unnecessary distraction. Or worse, it is seen as heresy. I get attacked by colleagues every time I do something like this. To dare to challenge the statements that are being made by anti-smoking groups is simply not allowed. It doesn't matter whether there are strong scientific grounds for offering such a challenge. The challenge itself is viewed as inappropriate.
It still surprises me that months and months after having brought these issues to the attention of the tobacco control community, there is essentially no discussion of this issue within the movement. There's no interest in such a discussion and frankly, right now I don't think such a discussion is possible.
So does it make any sense for me to continue bringing these issues to the attention of groups that don't want to hear about it, or is it time to bring this to the public's attention instead?
Moreover, not a single anti-smoking group has corrected its statements in response to my pointing out their scientific inaccuracies. So what's the point of continuing to bang my head against the wall? At this point, I think it makes more sense to make my appeal directly to the public.
If I sound disappointed, it's because I am. If you were wondering why I didn't post for a day and a half, it's because I was distraught. It is not easy to continue pushing for scientific integrity in a movement that seems to have no interest in that. And to sustain personal attacks from colleagues every time I do speak out.
I've never seen anything like this. Even those who I would have considered "enemies" have always treated me with greater respect than many of my colleagues have over the past few months.
The funny thing is that if I were to put out a commentary tomorrow stating that the scientific evidence supports the contention that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke increases heart attack risk, it would make the rounds and would be disseminated widely throughout the movement by the end of the day. I've learned that it's not the quality of the science you produce that gains respect in this movement, it's how favorable your research is to the cause.
I'm not disappointed because I think I'm right in my questioning of these fallacious or misleading claims. I'm actually disappointed because I haven't been shown to be wrong. It's the silence on the substance of my scientific arguments that I find unacceptable. I'd love to be shown wrong in my arguments. At this point, I'd settle for any discussion of the scientific issues.
It's clear, however, that it will not happen. It isn't about the science, I've found out. It's about allegiance to the cause, in spite of the science.
posted by Musician at 11:23 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
Darkseid,
Here's another survey I saw this morning:
http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/10/30/daily35.html
I'll bet it's possible to do a survey and get 90% in favor is Issue 4, simply by steering the contacts to a specific group.
posted by jimavolt at 04:26 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
Thanks much, Jim. Oh, well-I'm beginning to think ALL these polls are rigged , because it's impossible to have this much fluctuation from one to the other. I did always feel it was going to be a thin margin either way, due to the month of assassination by the media. Could anyone provide info as to ANY OTHER ISSUE(or candidate, for that matter) in the history of the state where they all took such a vocal , lengthy, and one-sided stance?
posted by Darkseid at 05:31 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
On another board, a fellow Ohioan with the handle 'Jeep God' supplied this link, and said this should be required reading in every school in the country. He's right.
http://www.davehitt.com/2005/americarip.html
.
posted by Darkseid at 06:34 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
Well, given how far partisanship has gotten, I may as well just go all the way.
{holds up puppy}
Vote for #4 or I'll kill this puppy.
{soulfully deep puppy eyes turn your way}
posted by GuestZero at 11:52 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
oh that's horrible gz. And funny.
posted by katie82640 at 12:17 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
Musician - Poor old Mike . . .Isn't there a term for those that think they are right and everyone else is wrong?
posted by stukerr at 02:34 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
Yeah. Rabid Anti-Smoker. I like elitist better.
posted by Darkseid at 03:49 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
"Everyone else".....yeah right.
Try again.
posted by Musician at 06:04 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
November 7, 2006
State Issue 4
Lucas Co For 55,679
Against 84,169
Ohio For 1,305,722
Against 2,349,590
State Issue 5
Lucas Co For 83,085
Against 56,915
Ohio For 2,135,508
Against 1,528,045
posted by stukerr at 04:15 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
You're really a piece of work, Nazi. Maybe one of these days, we'll meet in person. Who knows? I guarantee you if we ever do, you're not going to have that eternal smug smirk on your ugly ancient,mottled face very long.
posted by Darkseid at 06:33 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Congrats Stu. Looks like you fooled most of the people most of the time.
posted by jimavolt at 07:01 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
It'll be quite interesting to see how this dialogue changes over the next few years. Stu - I hope your weight, your relgious decisions (whether freedom FROM or freedom TO religion) and your property ownership decisions all fall in line with the State.
Because when people realize the door that this initiative has opened, they might want to talk to you :-)
Thought for the day....
posted by katie82640 at 01:17 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
Thanks Jim.
I think the majority of the people are now no longer fooled by the tobacco industry's same old lies is a more accurate statement.
It's just too bad the OLBA and its local officers have advised you to listen to the wrong people for so long. What a shame.
People will always enjoy going out to socialize and eat and drink.
Katie - Hope your paranoia gets better.
posted by stukerr at 04:04 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
No worries, Stuart. Paranoia in your definition is just another prospective.
You'll probably be dead by the time "The State" is a reality.
But you and your ilk have opened that door.
Do something productive before you die and feed, clothe and fund some of these homeless and poverty-stricken citizens. You have, after all, have the best interests of your fellow man in mind, right?
posted by BrianInFlorida at 06:09 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
If Stu was a man, he would not have to gloat about his little "win" that did not add a couple inches where he is most likely lacking.
We read it in the rags.
And we'll be back.
posted by Musician at 12:05 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
New Prohibitionist stukerr said: “People will always enjoy going out to socialize and eat and drink.”
Considering how many people are killed each year to alcohol-related auto accidents, and as well how many 911 calls are performed as a result of criminal behavior related to drunkenness, then once again you're playing dumb and are only feeding us PR lines. All smoking bans in voluntary places are based upon the (note: false) idea of public safety trumping individual liberty, so it's no stretch whatsoever to demonize drinking in the same fashion. The New Prohibitionists (which include yourself) are having a terrible success at making smoking effectively illegal. All Prohibition-esque activity in America feeds vampirically off its own successes. Alcohol can only be next on the "short list" (which apparently includes guns, tobacco, alcohol and fatty foods).
Bar owners in Toledo (and Ohio in general) had better start making plans for alternate careers.
P.S. I spoke to a TPD cop on the day of the vote, and he asserted that smoking is not a right listed in the US Constitution. Sometimes, I despair.
posted by GuestZero at 04:36 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
GuestZero - “In the early 1920’s, consumption of beverage alcohol was about 30 per cent of the pre-prohibition level.”
www.history.ohio-state.edu/projects/prohibition/whyprohibition.htm
posted by stukerr at 09:30 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
posted by Darkseid at 12:16 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
Darkseid - Truth got you down?
posted by stukerr at 03:02 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
posted by Darkseid at 03:54 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
I really can't believe that Stu Kerr is still on a forum gloating about this shit.
A fine example of a "model citizen" representing all these "upright" SmokeFREE Ohio people "concerned for Ohio's health"
Maybe they'll kick your ass to the curb, too if they knew about it.
Don't see soccer mama Tracy Sabetta on these things.
Gloating about the private service clubs having to ban smoking on top of it.
The only thing you have ever served is yourself.
I dare you to walk into an American Legion this weekend.
posted by Musician at 06:37 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
Guess Stu didn't go to that American Legion.
Frankly, I wouldn't either if I were him.
Might be a little......dicey....shall we say?
posted by Musician at 06:07 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 21, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
