Winds of Change.NET: Foolishness in My Hometown

March 6, 2003

Foolishness in My Hometown

by Armed Liberal at March 6, 2003 3:11 PM

Some blood-pressure-raising letters in today's L.A. Times. In my series about risk, I've been making the point that we often waste resources and attention on small risks, rather than spending it on stuff that could really make a difference.

Here's a textbook example from someone who believes no risk is too small and no inconvenience too great:

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Breathing New Life Into Smoke-Free Living

"Smoking at Home Targeted" (March 2) states that "people irritated by secondhand smoke call [Assemblyman Joe] Nation's bill long overdue." We wish it were as simple as an "irritation."

Those of us who are making the call to action to which Nation, a San Rafael Democrat, has responded have illnesses such as migraines, lupus, heart disease, asthma and other serious lung diseases that are seriously made worse by tobacco smoke. As the American Lung Assn. states, "When you can't breathe, nothing else matters."

To say we must live with secondhand smoke in our homes to accommodate the smokers is absurd. To simply ask that we have the option to live in our apartment or condo smoke-free is not an unreasonable request. No one is saying smokers cannot smoke in their own homes; AB 210 merely protects nonsmokers by separating them from any designated "smoking sections." Most condo associations and apartment landlords have either refused to provide safe, smoke-free homes or are waiting for laws that give them a safety net to do so. Tobacco smoke is dangerous. Far too many adults and children have been made very sick by their neighbor's smoke. Therefore, legislation has become necessary.

Jacque Petterson
Acting Chair
Condo Owners
for Smokefree Living
Santa Clarita

And then this one from a deep moral thinker:

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
No Soldiers, No War; It's as Simple as That

I am a little tired of reading sappy stories about reservists or regular soldiers going off to war ("Reservists Answer Call to Duty," March 2). The popular attitude appears to be "support the soldiers, don't support the war." Well, you cannot do one without the other. Without soldiers even Hitler would have been just another megalomaniacal Austrian. And yes, those soldiers were told that Poland fired the first shots. (Saddam Hussein hasn't even fired any shots yet.)

Whether for economic reasons, or out of conviction, any soldier or reservist makes himself or herself a weapon. The GI Bill might look good if your college funds are low, but consider that you are willing to pay a price in human lives -- yours or Iraqis'. Our weapons are not smart enough to miss children, other civilians or even allies. War without soldiers is not possible. President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice are not going to strap on their six-guns and challenge Hussein to a gunfight at the Exxon corral. No soldiers, no war; it's as simple as that.

Pauli Peter
Los Angeles

Damn, if only I'd realized how simple it is to bring on world peace; just disband the U.S. military, and we'll get the WTC and our 3,000 dead back. It's mindblowingly frustrating for me ly, that as I become increasingly convinced that Bush and his Administration are mendacious and lack the real clarity of moral vision and ability to broaden and sell that vision that is required to deal with the current world situation, I become more convinced that the people who oppose his policy are morons. It doesn't leave me with a lot of places to stand on this.

There are two major studies on secondhand smoke as a health hazard; one by the EPA (a somewhat biased opposition commentary is here)which showed a weak correlation, and one by the WHO which did not. There is some controversy, to put it mildly, over the facts on the issue.

But that won't stop Jacque's group from working hard to pass policies that will be expensive in terms of their impacts and costs - and will cost lives, because other, more productive policies won't make it to the table.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/908

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Foolishness in My Hometown"

Comments

#1 from jesus gil at 4:05 pm on Mar 06, 2003

I still can't get over that in so many bars you can't smoke - in my mind, a bar isn't a bar without the smoke. I blame it all on lawyers and silly lawsuits ("I didn't know smoking was bad," is like saying you didn't know if you stuck you're finger in a light socket you'd get shocked).

#2 from Paul at 4:23 pm on Mar 06, 2003

jesus gil: YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!!!!!!!! I''ve smoked for over 40 yrs, and because of a lung cancer scare I finally quit, but not without help. I told my wife even if I had been diagnosed with lung cancer I'd have never sued the tobacco companies. You're right its all about lawyers and people getting rich on these outrages lawsuits. Nobody put a gun to my head and FORCED me to take that first puff. The tobacco companies should refuse to pay these outrages sums as in 50 mill. Before I enlisted in the military back in 1960 I worked for the Brown and Williamson Factory, and we got all the free cigs we wanted, but do I now turn around and sue B&W for giving me free cigs to get me hooked???It was MY decision to smoke they did not put a gun to my head ready to blow my brains out unless I take that first puff, and I DID "inhale" unless like Clinton :):):) On second thought why are people not suing the alcoholic beverage companies?? After all drunk drivers caused many deaths. If they'd put alcoholic beverages off the shelves oh my god all these big shots out there can't have their cocktails before and after dinner anymore, and all the so called "social drinks". All this is is about money. When these health officials make statements on national TV about how they are warning us about certain illnesses, and we "should get checked" etc. all this is is they want to make sure that we don't get illnesses the health insurance later has to dish out money for the treatments. They don't know us from Adam and Eve why would the give a sh..about us? The lawsuits, nothing but $$$$$ I can understand second hand smoke, some people are offended and therefore restaurants have smoking sections, but to sue because I willingly "inhaled"????? GIVE ME A BREAK!!

#3 from Chrees at 7:06 pm on Mar 06, 2003

Regarding the "simply disband and we will have peace" mentality... I don't know about your comments on Bush & Co.'s lack of moral vision, but I have seen a lot lately from one side of the war argument that bemoans the fact that we have squandered the goodwill generated in other countries' response to 9/11. It took a while for the vapidity and meanness of this comment to sink in.

The only way these people can view 9/11 is that other countries were nicer to us. Ignore the fact that 3,000 people died. Ignore the evil behind the acts themselves. Ignore the implications the people out there that want to do more acts like this (in the U.S. and elsewhere). Ignore the incredibly positive outcomes in Afghanistan. Ignore ALL of this and focus instead on our government refusing to be a victim. Focus on the fact that we are controlling our own destiny, making things better for us and the free world. Focus on other countries' attitudes that we should just roll over and think about how we caused 9/11.

If these people wish us to wallow in victimhood and bask in the goodwill from other countries instead of taking control and determining our future, I can understand their hatred of Bush. This is moral bankruptcy of WorldCom proportions, and worse than simply morons. shrug My two cents and you get change...

#4 from af at 7:44 pm on Mar 06, 2003

Kudos Chrees,
I have had that same gut sentiment for a long time. No, we didn't squander the post 9-11 goodwill, it was, in the main, entirely anamolous and simply dissipated over time. The baseline position that many Europeans operate from is some form anti-Americanism. In the wake of 9-11 they experienced a reflexive sympathy borne of shocked horror, evidencing that are fundamentally decent people and not heartless cretins. Naturally, over time, things revert to how they were. Which is not to argue that Bush has behaved pristinely, but simply that the post 9-11 feelings was a mood swing not a seismic shift.

#5 from JSH at 5:08 am on Mar 07, 2003

"It's mindblowingly frustrating for me personally, that as I become increasingly convinced that Bush and his Administration are mendacious and lack the real clarity of moral vision and ability to broaden and sell that vision that is required to deal with the current world situation, I become more convinced that the people who oppose his policy are morons. It doesn't leave me with a lot of places to stand on this."

Perfect. Just perfect. I'm printing it out and pasting it on the refrigerator.

#6 from SP at 5:39 am on Mar 07, 2003

lack the real clarity of moral vision and ability to broaden and sell that vision that is required to deal with the current world situation,

So, we should just tell the ME that we're going to drag them kicking & screaming 1000 years into the future so they can go thru reformation and reconcile "God's will" in the Koran and the 21st century?

And we're going to kill maybe millions of them in the process???

Japan went to sleep believing Hirohito god, and woke up/with the stroke of a pen, Hirohito was a man. And look at what we had to do to bring that about.

For those who actually paid attention on 9/11 and thereafter, we know what we have to do. Iran's finally wakened up to the fact, look how long it took them. I saw that on World Link TV. A map w/Afghanistan on one side, Iraq on the other and them in the middle.

People who are paying attention get it, we don't want to face what we have to do, but we get it. Sometimes things are just better left unsaid.

And we don't have the muslim issue that Europe does. It's easier here, their cites ring Paris and are well-armed. The police won't go in there unless in an armored vehicle. And Denmark is getting interesting w/the Arab-European League.

#7 from Michael Lonie at 6:05 am on Mar 07, 2003

Actually we came very close to having no soldiers. Under Herbert Hoover the army was about 110,000 men, little more than the authorized strength of the treaty-limited German army (and smaller than its actual size). It was hopelessly ill-equipped, and had no combat-ready formations.

The Navy of the time was large, but considerably below the strength it could have been under the Washington Naval Limitation Treaty. Japan's Navy was supposed to be 60% the size of ours but actually was 80% because we did not finish building up to strength until 1940, three years after the treaty expired.

The result of this lack of military power, of course, was that the Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese marched all over without the US being able to do a damned thing to stop them. The result of US weakness and lack of political will was World War II. Happy dreams to those who think that if you abolish weapons and soldiers by the US you will get peace. Ignorant imbeciles.

#8 from Donovan Janus at 7:47 am on Mar 07, 2003

To SP:

It's not Denmark, it is The Netherlands (and Belgium).

And we are not going to kill millions of people, we are going to safe millions of people.

The elite of the Middle East is already living in the 21st century (I have been to the Middle East several times, including Saudi Arabia). While the Middle Eastern culture is definitely backwards compared to our western cultures, the change will be less than you think it is. Most of the people in the Middle East can not wait for the progress (men and women). And if they decide not to, when they have the choice, so be it. But give them the choice.. there is a reason so many countries in the free world are alike!

In any case, first get your countries in Europe straight (Denmark, The Netherlands... why do people always make that mistake?) and then you may have credibility enough to comment on world issues..

Till then...