Friday, August 22, 2008

After the loving: Long live the once and future King, and pity those bar owners who know so very little.

To fully and accurately document the reason why Jeff Gahan officiously ordained the removal of my considerable bulk from last evening’s shambolic city council proceedings, one would be compelled to chronicle at length Gahan’s recent inexplicable descent into legislative incoherence and his growing, almost medieval personal animus toward anyone with the temerity to note publicly that this particular successor to King Larry seems to be wearing ever fewer articles of clothing when appearing on the street.

Or, as I observed even as I was being removed, precisely how and why Gahan has traversed the territory between onetime relevance (now been there, done that, and swapped the t-shirt with Dr. Harris) and the vicinity of the dark side – where his political mail is now delivered and presumably going unread.

At any rate, it is a task that would require far more than a minute, which after a grand spanking total of one (1) public hearing on the matter of smoking within the New Albany was all the time accorded to the numerous sincere and cooperative residents crowding into a meeting room impossibly tiny in the best of times, and utterly unsuited to the three ring circus that Gahan knowingly permitted to devolve (and deprecate) on Thursday night.

If Gahan genuinely cared about the public, which convened to oppose the city's chihuahuan smoking ban (later approved by identical 5-4 votes) to the tune of around 40 speakers to 13 (by the council’s own past standards of selectivity, far more than the minimum needed to defeat the most rock solid of rezoning proposals), the meeting would have been held in a larger room on another continent, but then it would have been necessary to actually listen.

How unspeakably tedious that would have proven, hence proceedings as usual.

What struck me was that those in attendance opposed to the smoking ban for the most part graciously accepted Gahan’s one minute solution, when they really should have asked why an issue second only in vitriol to abortion and the sad history of Southern slaveholding deserved such short shrift, but nonetheless, good natured compliance was the norm.

Unfortunately, the same could not be said of the professional lobbyists in the room, those for-pay consultants that the flip-flopping ban proponent Dan Coffey formerly accused of being unreliable when comapred to his own vast reserve of knowledge on matters ranging from tobacco to kitchen utensils. Perhaps for this very reason, Coffey sat stoically and mostly silently last night, gently nuzzling his Bazooka Joe divinity degree and playing championship notepad dots while the paid pros droned far past Gahan’s purely random time length meter to the council president’s purely calculated obliviousness.

Yes, but wait. Who am I -- who are we -- to question any of Jeff Gahan’s strategies and tactics? Didn’t we get the council mantra memo, which decrees that freedom of speech in New Albany is dependent on running for office and being elected? Perhaps NAC’s loyal readers should share the frequent joy experienced by this blog’s editorial team, wherein elected officials berate us and dismiss criticism both from ourselves and the electorate in the same terms that most people denigrate houseflies or maggots, under the curious dictum that we’re mere annoyances and couldn’t possibly understand what it’s like to actually perform before the public for pay … or, as one of them recently put it, if a citizen has not run for office, said citizen should know enough to stay quiet, and barring that, ask for de facto permission before speaking aloud to the world.

Strange, isn’t it, how writing skill and the inability to respond in kind unnerves elected officials ... but, as always, I digress.

Meanwhile, understand that the straw finally breaking this camel’s/voter’s back was a five minute (at least) display of condescension from one of the paid lobbyists, who refrained from using science to illustrate the threat to workers posed by second hand smoke (award yourself a Gahan for Mayor '11 button if you dimly recall the time when SHS was the ostensible purpose of the ordinance, if entirely obscured by last evening’s theatrics), but instead aggressively attacked the pub owners present for knowing far less about the nature of their businesses than he and his statistics do.

Still wondering why I don’t blush when using terms like “health fascist”? Wonder no more.

I concede that this angered me. It still does. Had Gahan the simple courage to enforce his own rules (or, for that matter, the city’s), the lobbyist would have spoken far fewer words in a minute than in the five he was accorded, although to be honest, the words were tantamount to inadmissible, but then again, this is an illegally elected council that can’t or won’t redistrict itself in a city that can’t or won’t enforce its own laws, so what the hell: Consistency? That’s something they do over in them socialist countries after using the toilet, right?

There has been no eagerness to discuss the reality that those bar owners who stand to be hurt the most by the smoking ban are those who cater to a lower personal income strata, which itself is populated by more smokers than higher income levels. In short, the same people in need of protection from carnivorous slumlords are being told by Gahan and Co. that it’s more important to save them from themselves (save them from smoking in a bar) first and foremost, and then the rest of the public health issues will be addressed later – hey, trust us; we can’t pave the streets or resolve centuries-old sewer disputes, but we can publicly scoff at your vice even if it requires in excess of a minute … and, by the way, bar owners who have remained in business by knowing what their customers want mustn’t forget that an out-of-town dude in a bad suit always knows far more about the needs of their clienteles than they do.

One of our readers (I believe it was Ruthanne, but I may be mistaken) previously supplied the answer to the final piece of this bizarre puzzle in a blog comment. Bar owners, did you know that after this particular rug has been pulled from beneath your feet by the Ga-hanannies in local government, and should the unthinkable occur and your business actually close as a result of your no longer being able to cater to your customers, that when all is said and done, it was your own fault?

That’s right, guys and gals. According to the stats lovingly compiled by the suits from Indy, Atlanta and Tirana, you failed for one of two reasons. Either you were incompetent to begin with, or you were ready to retire, anyway. Get it? Before last evening, how many bar owners understood how very little they’ve ever comprehended about their own business matters? It’s a wonder you ever remained open in the first place, seeing how little you know. Must have been the conspiratorial nicotine in those butts, eh?

Don’t you feel better about yourselves now?

Sorry, but it’s all bullshit, plain and simple, and probably even Jeff Gahan and John Gonder – for that matter, even the saintly Jamey Aebersold -- know it, but in the end, science played next to no part in the smoking spectacle, which was about little more than creative sociological condescension and Gahan’s pathological eagerness to hang his political hat on it.

So, I snapped my fingers, King Jeff glared, and the animus was on. Rest assured, it will remain. I’ll let All4Word tell the rest of the story. His account is trustworthy. I was too busy trying to fathom the irony of the council president's empty seat to document the ejaculation.

----

For the early a.m. record: I suspect that Mr. Baylor knew he would be "ejaculated" from the meeting, but proceeded with his protest nonetheless.

A gentleman who is paid to advocate for public health (prohibitions of smoking in enclosed public spaces) attempted to squeeze in an encyclopedia-full presentation into the mandated ONE MINUTE limit imposed.

While almost no one complied, and while President Gahan wasn't particularly vigorous in enforcing his limit, this lobbyist not only presented much information quickly, but read aloud a letter from Lexington, Ky.'s vice-mayor - a man who owns 86 non-smoking franchise restaurants.

At long last, Mr. Baylor objected vocally to the filibuster. (I wanted to hear what he had to say, but I'll admit he went very long past the time limit.)

RAB, at first, politely inquired as to why this particular gentleman was being allowed to go on and on. Once Mr. Gahan identified the source of the outburst, the die was cast.

Roger escalated his complaint with each of Gahan's shoutdowns, accusing the council president of bias and favoritism and ultimately demanding of the speaker an answer to "Did you PAY for this (preferential treatment)?"

Perhaps the tipping point was when the speaker said, in effect, that the restaurateurs and tavernkeepers were gullible doofuses who were not just expressing their fears and honest opinions, but were rather the dupes of a cabal of their industrial lobbies and the tobacco companies, parroting cooked data sets as facts.

In fact, many were citing cooked or nonexistent data and expressing earnest fears and opinions.

IMHO, the speaker's accusations were permissible argumentative rhetoric - rhetoric similar to that often employed even here and more often at the trog blogs.

But to even imply that Roger was the dupe of a corporatist conspiracy (and though he was not named like other publicans, the implication/accusation was pointedly aimed a business owners opposed to the ban) was undoubtedly the last straw.

In effect, NAC's senior editor changed his game plan when the opportunity was presented. A more important point needed to be made, and he made it.

Roger dared Gahan to "ejaculate" him, and while it was unfortunate that it happened in the presence of Mrs. NAC, and more unfortunate that it meant the Publican would miss the official debate, it was Roger's choice.

Rest assured, our hero extracted every second of possible drama from the moment. The expulsion held the pomp and circumstance of a royal procession, with appropriate barbs disseminated throughout the recessional.

Roger was even accorded the honor of expulsion through the NORTH doorway, the hallowed ground of the privileged class.

I've always maintained that there is no shame in civil disobedience if you are willing to pay the price for it - arrest.

Fortunately, the disobedience was civil, so detention was not required, although I fingered my wallet for bail money, just in case.

18 comments:

Iamhoosier said...

"... or, as one of them recently put it, if a citizen has not run for office, said citizen should know enough to stay quiet, and barring that, ask for de facto permission before speaking aloud to the world"

With all that happened last night, I did not want this to get lost in the shuffle. Yes, an actual member of the New Albany City Council, said that running for office was the qualifier for the right to express opinions. Otherwise, just shut up. Stated in front of several witnesses.

That attitude explains a lot, doesn't it?

Food Server said...

No one cares about us, if they did they would have listened to us.

Ruthanne said...

A majority of New Albany people support the ban. We have received many more calls and e-mails in support than in opposition (subtracting the many missives sent by Virgil Kleinhelter, whose credibility was severely damaged when he claimed data that showed second-hand smoke to be beneficial). The fear that the bars will now have to close borders on paranoia and has people whipped into a frenzy. Tell me how Dublin, Ireland has managed to go smoke-free in the pubs, yet Ireland's economy is booming. Have the Irish stopped drinking? People are NOT going to stop drinking because they have to step outside for a smoke. They will gripe, but they will gather together and gripe over their beer. The sky will not fall.

In my humble opinion, (and I'm sure you are already aiming your rhetorical guns)this could be an opportunity for the downtown bars to upgrade their business to attract a new customer base to capture all the people who will be coming downtown to Scribner Place. After their swim or workouts, many of them will want to relax with a drink and a bite in an environment that doesn't undo the benefits of their exercise. I grew up in a family-owned restaurant and bar business in Pennsylvania and worked in nearly every capacity of that business. I remember the hand-wringing and dread when a new highway pretty much killed our regular tourist business. But my parents didn't close. They adapted. They learned how to handle large banquets and wedding receptions and grew their business so it became profitable all seasons. (And they were certainly not MBA's) And when we had a terrible fire - due to a smoldering cigarette overlooked at closing - 10 days before Christmas with many parties scheduled, it was very, very tough. My parents had spent thousands of dollars on remodeling and, foolishly, did not insure the contents of the building, as they were leveraged to the hilt. But they dried their tears, and at 55 years old they started over and rebuilt their business, which eventually provided them a nice, long retirement.
You know the moral of this story. Adapt! We've been discussing smoking bans in New Albany for years. If it didn't pass now, it would pass another time. It is inevitable.
Roger, I was embarrassed by your ejection from the meeting. I'm sorry that happened. Several people spoke over the loosely imposed limit. I think Jeff was wound quite tightly by the pressure of this controversy and possibly overreacted. However, it is his meeting to run and he may have feared an escalation after your outburst. I am sorry for the incident.

Randy said...

Reporter's Notebook:

Distraction and haste were the hallmark of the evening. All suspected and some knew that the public comment portion of the evening was theater, not substance. The council majority was going to hold no matter what might or might not be said by those testifying.

How do we know there was distraction and haste at the head of the council table? For the first time in memory, Mr. Gahan failed to call for the legislated "prayer and pledge" and proceeded to regular business. Much murmuring and head turning ensued before someone reminded the chair that the meeting was being conducted out of order.

Gahan called for the "Lord's Prayer followed by the Pledge of Allegiance." Of course, the ordinance says nothing about the "Lord's Prayer," but never mind.

Read into that slip, Freudian or otherwise, what you want.

ecology warrior said...

sam anderson will make gahan an ex councilman in 2011

Christopher D said...

Gandhi once said "Be the change you wish to see in the world"
My eyes are now focused on an unseating or two. Supporters are there, encouragement to do so has been there for a 6 years now.
When we have councilmen issuing orders to the plebeian masses that unless they are royalty such as they are they need to shut up, its time to clean house.

Bayernfan said...

None of this answers the question of what the hell is this council doing wasting time on something like this? Did the council ever consider that revitalization might be hurt by the large areas of slum housing? Crime? Drugs? The fact that there are people who are afraid to walk in the historic district at night?

None of that matters to this council apparently.

Retiree said...

What I witnessed last night was a disgrace of the democratic process of government. As I stated, it was a complete waste of our time to go before this dictatorial group, and it is obvious which five wannabe's this is directed towards! These five individuals need to look up the definition of a republic and democracy (the prin- ciple of)in the dictionary.

It was also obvious that common sense did not prevail. Instead we heard the rhetoric of a group of paid lobbyists for the Nicotine Nazi's. If the wannabe's had researched the issue of SHS, as they should have before voting, they would have found that a claim from either side of the fence can be countered from the other, to date there has not been a definitive study completed on the effects of SHS. School is still out on the issue. We do not question the claims of the hazards of smoking. But, to establish a new form of prohibition was not the intent, supposedly, of the ordinance, it was to protect the patron's and employees from the dangers of SHS. We should have known we were being duped just by the name of the Prohibition Ordinance, "City of New Albany Smoke Free Air Act".

In closing I would like to quote Dr. Jerome Arnett,Jr as he makes my point so eloquently,"The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty 'scientific' outcomes (thru the use of pseudo- science) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money. Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers." Dr. Arnett is a pulmonologist.

Come on Elections!!!!!

Iamhoosier said...

I could be misreading a couple of comments here, but I find it interesting(and amusing)that some just ASSUME the council member referenced above was pro ordinance.

John Sodrel said...

Well, that's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back. :(

This has to be the biggest bunch of grandiose nonsense I've ever had the misfortune of reading. There are actually people with nothing better to do than regularly read this farce...er, blog?

Whine all you want about the supposed evils of the smoking ban; lob infantile personal attacks all you want against Jeff Gahan, Dan Coffey, and anyone else who doesn't kowtow before you; pontificate all you want about arbitrarily deciding yourself what issues are more important than others; spew bile all you want against professionals/experts who make their living studying health matters and doing research; confuse the issue all you want with your convoluted, verbose writing style; continue to inject falsehoods and conjecture all you want into the debate; go right ahead, it's your blog.

But none of that will ever change the facts/truth: secondhand smoke is a lethal carcinogen, the majority of people support a public smoking ban, government already regulates business in many ways, and smoking bans don't hurt business (in fact, evidence indicates they actually promote economic development).

Thank you Ruthanne for having the only cogent comment on here, and the rest of you can go on preaching your arcane nonsense to your tiny choir.

Randy said...

John Sodrel: Presumably you won't return to see this, but you've assumed that everyone posting here was of one accord on the merits of the instant ordinance.

You would be incorrect on that point. But this is a place for engagement. Read carefully both the text and the subtext.

No matter whether council member A voted aye or nay, the way they conducted themselves is fair game for comment in a free society. And to the extent that the free society is being diminished by arrogance on the part of our elected representatives, they will be called out.

Who you or I like isn't the question. Regulars here value intelligent reasoning over black and white votes.

I know you a little bit. You would fit right in. Don't let the fact that you disagree with the blogger cloud your appraisal.

Peace.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Mr. Sodrel has yet to posit a pro-ban argument that meets his own self-described standards while ably demonstrating the many transgressions of which he accuses.

As one who occasionally attempts to utilize humor and irony as expository tools, I readily admit to being out dueled here in those particular endeavors.

I still remember the first time I saw an American tourist speaking English really loudly in a foreign market and swearing to myself that I'd always at least make an attempt to know better.

Now I remember why.

William Lang said...

I know of folks who do not go to Mr. Baylor's pub because it's too smoky (even though he's restricted smoking to the inner bar and Red Room); they go to certain bars down in Louisville instead. So if the smoking ban is enforced in New Albany, I reckon that Mr. Baylor will not lose business. He might lose some clientele but he will gain some as well.

I find it very distressing that people here are so willing to disregard the science behind SHS: It is unhealthy and dangerous, and a large amount of research makes this very clear. (Please see the recent Surgeon General's report on second hand smoke for details.) It pains me when I see people accuse the medical and scientific communities of dishonesty or incompetence. It's like reading creationist anti-evolution literature.

The New Albanian said...

On the pub side, there has been more non-smoking seating than smoking for quite some time now. This has been in response to consumer demand.

I repeat: I've never questioned the science. It has been my observation, true in New Albany as elsewhere, that once public officials introduce the science as rationale for a ban, they step aside and watch as the "debate" shifts from protecting workers (science) to attacking smokers (vendetta). I find that loathesome.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

On the pub side, I don't know where more people would fit, in either smoking or non-smoking seating arrangements.

It's too bad you don't understand your market.

The New Albanian said...

At CM Gonder's blog, Mr. Sodrel noted that his personal condescension is merited by being in absolute possession of the truth to the exclusion of any other daring to disagree.

Someone asked me to explain what I meant by health fascism.

(Reread the first paragraph above)

But seriously, folks. I'm curious as to which other issues upon which Mr. Sodrel has differed with NAC in the past.

He has been reading, right?

(Unlike the Studio's customer the other night who took issue with the bad things we say, then conceded that he's never actually read the blog)

vincent1 said...

As this blog came through my google alerts (smoking related) I feel I have to respond to this blogger - Ruthanne, you are wrong about the closures, the smoke haters do not flood the pubs and other smoke free venues, the UK is losing 27 pubs a WEEK since the smoking ban was forced onto them.

This is Ireland, just so the lies do not keep going around, also the smoking rate has gone up, so much for the health fascist ehh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7376279.stm

Smoking ban 'has closed 100 pubs'
More than 100 bars in Northern Ireland have closed since the introduction of the smoking ban, it has been claimed.
The Federation of Retail Licensed Trade said that 7% of Northern Ireland's pubs and bars had gone out of business since the ban's introduction a year ago.
Its chief executive Stephen Kelly said: "The much-promoted view that non-smokers would be rushing to premises has not materialised.
"We expect another 100 to close next year."

Look to forces.org
smokersclubinc
bantheban winconson
and many many more to find out exactly where these unwanted bans are going, the smoke haters were never banned from investing their own money for smoke-free venues, so why didn't they?
mandyv from the UK
freedom2choose.info fighting for the truth and choice, please check us out, because, intolerance creates hatred, that is not healthy for child nor Country.

William Lang said...

I should say that I do appreciate the New Albanian's accommodation of non-smokers—I am a loyal patron and have been for many years.

While I'm glad that you don't question the science, The New Albanian, I'm afraid to say that some people here do. See Retiree above, who claims no definitive study has been done on the matter. And Vincent1 links to forces.org, which is a pro-smoking group that questions the science on smoking itself (not just SHS). That website most definitely reads like creationist websites. Contrary to Vincent1's claim, there's good evidence that smoking bans in this country have not had the adverse economic impact on bars that the tobacco industry (and its front groups) claim: Tobacco Scam (follow the links Fake Economics -> Cooking the Books).