Smoking is a bad habit. I can say that because I am a smoker. To be completely honest I am addicted to smoking. And have been for nearly 2 decades now.

That said, I am also an American citizen. Cigarettes are legal and available for purchase across the nation, if you are of legal age. Which I am. I pay corporate taxes, state, local, and extra taxes on my cigarettes that goes to who knows where the politicians use it.

What's the big deal? California. Specifically their obsession, seemingly, with trying to mandate how every citizen will live. It seems like the entire state is trying to force a diet and lifestyle a vastly smaller portion of the population lives.

California lead the rally-cry to ban smoking. In effect they removed the ability for adults to make a choice about their lifestyle. Then they used that rally to spread their ideals across the nation. Now we have multiple states that have banned smoking in most public places.

I can understand restaurants, the subway, and probably the workplace. Not everyone smokes. Some are allergic. Fine. But I still disagree with it.

Financially I know of dozens of businesses, in fact every bar or restaurant that had a bar and smoking area, that have NEVER recovered from the smoking ban. The initial hit was a 30% drop, or more, from the ban in New York State. Add in the loss in revenue from the additional tax placed on cigarettes forcing people to buy from out of state and its a huge revenue hit. And then there is the social aspect.

The problem is that the Government decided that it knew what was socially best for the citizens. The Government NEVER knows what's socially best for anyone. Every social experiment I can recall has failed and wrought worse problems than existed before. Especially in California, a state that leads in social experimentation.

So what has happened? After a failed attempt in some California towns to regulate what people do in their own homes - a ban on smoking in your home - L.A. is now considering banning smoking outdoors.

What is wrong with these people.

"When you get into the government telling you what to do outdoors, I worry about that," said Montes, a 43-year-old computer systems technician. "I understand the health reasons for it. . . . But for me it's about Big Brother. How far is it going to go?"

This in a city where the very air is toxic and more of a health hazard to the populace than all the crime combined. If they really wanted to help the people, why not install (actually re-install) a massive, effective, mass transit system. That would make the lives of people far better there. But this is an easy target, and it asserts the control they want.

'Don't worry about the smog, don't think about the massive carbon footprint made everyday. We will ban smoking outdoors and you will live better. And next week we will decide what color clothes you can wear, what clothes you can buy, the home you can live in and what shows to watch on television. Because we are the Government and we are smarter than you.'

Tell me how we don't get to that point. That the Government isn't slowly saying these things. I mentioned years ago that an outdoor ban was coming. That soon cigarettes will be illegal, like prohibition. That Government never gets smaller and once it interferes with your daily life it only wants more control. And mark my words, in at least parts of California they will start banning various types of food en masse.

Hell, in New York State the Government is considering a tax on the foods we eat. Tell me how that is not an attempt to exert control over our private daily lives? What happens when they start to tax or otherwise influence the lives of those overweight, or with an illness, or that they just don't like.

Yes, children should not smoke. It's a horrible habit, with questionable health ramifications. But it is legal and adults make choices. Just like with food, or sex, or driving, or parenting. Until the day the Government says you don't have a choice in that too.

L.A. cannot stand up and make a case in how they are protecting anyone. They are just being bullies. And other states will follow as they always do. But it's not just smokers that are getting screwed. We may be the first on the list, but we won't be alone.

Labels: California, Los Angeles, New York, smoking ban

Recently I saw a headline that I just could not help but stop to read. It stated Obama says he won't be smoking in White House

Why does that matter? Because President Obama is a smoker. Just like millions of other Americans. And it was kept so quiet you would have thought it was a national secret. You would be amazed by the number of people I have spoken to during the Democratic Primaries and since that have no idea President Obama smokes.

Not that it should be a big deal. He is in good health, exercises, eats well and is relatively young. He has been smoking for 20 years now. And it's political ramifications are really meaningless.

Yet it seems to be a big deal somehow. And I feel that is because these days smokers are treated as if they are second-class citizens.

We have all heard the horror story figures and stats that are proclaimed by anti-smoking groups. Some might even know that many of these stats are made up or based on false figures from the Government. That does not make smoking something worth doing, but it makes it far from the plague some would like others to think.

President Obama smoking does not mean the nation will fail to operate properly. He would not be the first, and very likely not the last, President that smokes.

But think about this. The White house is the home of the President. And in his own home, the President is not free to make a decision on how to live his own life. He can have a bowling alley installed, or a movie theater. he could get a pool or virtually anything he wishes in the White House, but he can't have a cigarette without breaking the law.

The President is not free enough to do as he pleases behind his own closed doors. Some in California love that though. Notably those that would ban smoking in your own home, as was attempted earlier this year. But I find it a terrible insult to personal freedom.

Just as smoking has been banned in bars and other public places across the nation, it is banned in the private residence of the symbol of American freedom. That's not a positive statement. Nor is the fact that he has had to hide his smoking from the public.

Smoking is not the healthiest habit. Neither is eating McDonald's every day. But as adults and consumers we have the freedom to make that choice. And nothing should prevent anyone from such a choice in their own home. To do so is tantamount to restricting the television you can see, the movies that are made, the books that can be in a library and so on.

Freedom is only free if it allows choice, not Government mandate. If President Obama chooses to quit smoking it should not be a political mandate, nor based on public polling and political gain. And if he chooses not to quit, he should be free to do that as well. A restriction on his personal freedom, in an act that is legal and enjoyed by tens of millions of Americans, is a restriction on freedom in America.

Health nuts may not like that, but that is their freedom to express that thought. But if we can restrict the symbol of freedom personified in the Office of the President, the act of freedom can be restricted on anyone. It's just a thought you might want to consider.

Labels: California, President Barack Obama, smoking ban, White House

The Presidential election was not the only thing that was decided in the elections on November 4th. Across the nation several states debated one of the more controversial issues in America since at least the 1970’s. Abortion.

The issue at hand in Colorado, South Dakota, and California essentially was the banning of abortion in all forms. As of 12pm I can say that in Colorado and South Dakota the ballot initiatives were soundly defeated. But California was still up in the air.

In Colorado the question for voters was

Defining “person” as at the moment of fertilization

This was defeated with a resounding 73% of no votes. So in Colorado, and as a legal example for the moment in the nation, life still begins at birth.

In South Dakota the question to voters was

Ban abortion except in the case of rape and/or the endangerment of the health of the mother [ie she will die otherwise]

Voters in this less dense than average state also rallied together for a 55% no vote. Obviously voters there feel that there are other reasons and circumstances that need to be included in any consideration of abortion.

But in California one of the most debated issues was on the ballot

Waiting period and notify parents of a minor prior to an abortion

As I stated that as of midnight this had not been resolved. This does not ban abortions, for minors or anyone else, but it is felt by some to overly restrict access to abortions. Effectively it achieves the same end as a ban. Considering how liberal California is on many issues this could go in any direction.

But overall no real headway has been made in the debate on abortion. It is still legal, and many find fault with the degree – or existence – that this medical procedure is used to.

With the election of a Democratic Congress, and an extremely liberal Democratic President who will likely replace at least 1 or 3 Supreme Court Justices there seems no question that nationally abortion will be here to stay. At least for 1 more year on a state by state level.

Do you agree with those votes? How would you voted on the California ballot?

Labels: 2008 election, Abortion, California, Colorado, Democratic Congress, South Dakota, Supreme Court Justices

**part ogf the I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign**

So as the political parties work closer to deciding who will be their nominee a renewed call is circulating for a modified system for deciding the winner of the Presidential election. As is too well known, the popular vote in the nation does not decide who is President. The most notable example of this has to be the election of 2000, with Al Gore eventually winning the popular vote and losing the election.

The question of why the general vote does not decide the winner can be summed up in possibly it’s biggest detraction. Were there to be a straightforward vote, candidates would focus the predominance of their attention and campaigning to states with large populations. Thus New York, California and others would be huge targets, while states like Montana and the Dakotas would be virtually ignored. That would take away the importance of these states in the election cycle. Considering the numbers in New York City alone, which the state of Illinois matches in population, the disparity becomes clear.

Thus the electoral college attempts to balance the field, giving more weight to the less populous parts of the nation. Though it fails as well. Many like myself are annoyed with the fact that the popular vote does not directly influence who gets to be President, and that candidates are more concerned with the mathematics of a win versus the public.

But there is a solution proposed that might answer this dilemma. It’s not perfect, and again bigger states take more precedence, but that’s not a new thing. The plan is called the National Popular Vote.

“…the states would begin awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carries each state.

If the candidates tied in the popular vote, each state would give its electoral votes to the candidate who carried that particular state — basically the same system used now.”

Now that plan is far from perfect but doesn’t it sound better than what we have now? Doesn’t it place the candidates more in a direct accountability to the voters? Wouldn’t it reflect the sentiment of the nation more accurately?

Some want to focus on the weaknesses and potential delays of the proposed system. That if there was a need for a recount in an especially close race, it would have to be done nationally and that this is impractical today. Of course if such a system were to be employed we would need far better technology to record each vote, thus making it easy to recount as well. And upgrading the voting system from the sometimes overly archaic punch tab machines that evoke the hi-tech and cutting edge of 1950’s technology.

At least this much is known right now. The current voting system is faulty at every level from the individual voting machines up to the Electoral College. No one likes the system as it exists. And efforts to patch the worst aspects of the system are currently failing miserably.

Something needs to be done, and sadly it will not be in time for the 2008 election. But until it does get fixed, or at least replaced with a system that is closer to an accurate representation of the voice of the people, you at least know what is going on.

No matter the failures remember this, 118,599 total votes decided which way the electoral vote of Ohio would go in 2004. That’s just 1 extra person for every 100 in that state. Just 1. Imagine if just 1 extra person per 100 in the nation made their voice heard.

Now imagine that you are that person stepping up and making sure that America makes the best choice possible. That’s how powerful your vote is. Use it, it’s your Constitutional Right.

Labels: Al Gore, California, electoral college, electoral vote, Montana, National Popular Vote, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota

Recently I was speaking about the endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Senator Ted Kennedy.



I stated that

“The power of the Kennedy family is without question in American politics. They stretch from New England to California. They include Congressmen, Senators, and the Guvernator. Their supporters range in age from the pre-baby boomers to the first time voters that are a force in this election. The name of the family alone has more political clout than most candidates have had.”

A friend of mine brought up the fact that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse Senator John McCain. The question to me was how I could justify saying that the Kennedy family endorsement could apply to Senator Obama in California.

It’s a good question. And I love the fact that my friend pays attention to what I’m writing and brings up what they see as conflicts. I do have an answer and it’s the reason I made the statement in the first place.

While it is a fact that the Guvernator is a Republican, his wife Maria Shriver is a Kennedy. I have no doubt, though I have no fact to base it on, that prior and since the endorsement of Senator Obama there has been conversations among all the Kennedy clan. Included to some degree of that would be the Governor. While I would never have expected him to endorse Senator Obama, there are other things that he can do to help him.

Prior to his involvement in politics, the Governor was an actor of some acclaim. During his time in Hollywood he worked with and I imagine became friends with many that are liberal, Libertarian, and Democratic. Considering that much of Hollywood is dominated with vocal non-Republicans, his 20 year career would demand that he at least know those of such a political affiliation. It is those contacts, from his acting days if not his current position, that is the greatest benefit he can provide to Senator Obama. He could introduce him to many people that could provide him with endorsements and money that he might need to ensure a win over Hillary Clinton in California and possibly other states.

Another question is raised by this supposition that I again state is based solely on my own reasoning. That question is - Why would he do this?

Because as a de facto member of the Kennedy’s, and for all the support that was provided to him, he needs to do it. I say the help he received, and again I base this on my supposition. I believe that it was the influence, via subtly introductions and quiet introductions to like minded Republicans, which helped Governor Schwarzenegger to win California. As much stardom as he might have had, the fact is that he had no political experience or exposure. The polispeak of American politics generally prevents unknowns from attaining high political positions, unless they receive significant backing. Few politicians would risk their political capital on an unknown without a strong belief in an individual. That belief, I think, was gained in some cases by the introduction and nudge from the Kennedy family stating in effect ‘I think you should speak with Arnold. He’s got great ideas, in line with your Party.’

Is that what happened? I have no idea in fact, but I believe it did. And on that basis, which seems logical and probable, he owed the family. Providing Senator Obama with the same type of quiet introductions was his quid pro quo. Not illegal, nor damaging to the Republican Party. In fact I’m sure it happens far more often than the polispeak we hear would indicate.

Thus, Governor Schwarzenegger is free to endorse Senator John McCain publicly and still help the Kennedy family who helped him.

That is my reasoning, I think it is sound. Do you agree?

Labels: California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Hollywood, Libertarian, Maria Shriver, Polispeak, political endorsement, Republican Party, Senator John McCain, Senator Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy