Smoking Bans and the FCC

There is a debate here in Kansas City, MO whether to implement a law that bans smoking in eating establishments and bars. Let me be clear; I hate smoking! I always have, and I always will. I am also dubious of the social Darwinian promise that the market is a cure for everything. This being said, I think that the market is the best solution for the issue of smoking in eating establishments and bars. I am opposed to passing legislation that would require eating establishments and bars to ban smoking (though on a personal level, I would enjoy my bar experience much more!) Let bars that want to allow smoking operate however they want to, as long as smoking remains legal. Consumers really do have a choice of attending smoking establishments. They can choose not to attend these establishments, and if enough consumers take this route, the bars and eating establishments will change policy on their own--without legal involvement. I'll be the first one to admit that I hate coming home after a night at a bar, the casino or a smoky restaurant with my clothes and hair smelling like I just spent the night in a chimney. This is part of the reason that I don't go to these establishments very often. I choose to go to restaurants that are well ventilated, or completely free from smoke. Paint me libertarian, but I just don't think legislation is the answer for this issue.

As for the FCC, fuck them! Yesterday, I heard that certain ABC affiliates were not going to air the movie Saving Private Ryan because they feared reprisals from the FCC over obscene language in the movie. What's obscene here is the FCC itself, and the cowering ABC affiliates. This is moving towards pure and simple censorship. Let me get this straight; because of Janet Jackson's boob, millions of Americans are denied access to an Oscar winning, critically acclaimed, semi-documentary about the heroes of WWII on Veteran's Day? Prime time notwithstanding, individuals still have the option of turning the channel or turning off the TV. I am not a big user of profanity, but I am certainly in favor of people being allowed to say whatever they want to say, expressing themselves in whatever language they choose. It's language! Words! I can't believe people get so bent out of shape over words. There are a lot more words that are not considered obscene by the FCC that do society much more harm. At least people can still curse on the Internet, and over the phone. Will this freedom be targeted next?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome...
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the...
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An...
Read more