After reading today's comments, especially Jon's ( at long last, recognition), I've come to an epiphany.
I realize that it isn't a perfect analogy, but in large measure, the smoking ban ordinance debate has been to me what the Scopes Monkey Trial was to H. L. Mencken.
It may be good, and it may be bad, but it is what it is. I plan on speaking tomorrow night, something I haven't done since Dan Coffey attacked reading and education back in '05.
You'll see a list to the right of matters crucial to the city of New Albany. You'll note that workplace smoking is not among these topics. Readers, if you will, please let me know what I've missed on this list. I'll read the list aloud ... and see if maybe -- just maybe -- council president Gahan blushes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
After an evening's ounces, I concur with the response at this blog.
While I agree with the ordinance, as written (and oppose threatened amendments [and can't imagine why a mayoral veto would be considered]), I also heartily agree that this issue wouldn't rate the top ten among issues of concern to the people of New Albany.
I'll also predict that none of those top issues will be tackled by the Gahan Council in 2008.
dont forget workforce development, perhaps that would fall into education but it surely has never been addressed by any mayoral administration, also more deployment of broadband as an econ development imperative and lastly business retention and expansion not just new development
I used to occasionally eat at Cafe Lou Lou prior to Louisville's smoking ban.
Lou Lou moved, as did our friends who lived near their former location. As a result, I haven't been back since.
If I don't eat there today, the anti-ban crowd will count me as statistical proof that smoking bans hurt business.
If I don't have a heart attack today, the pro-ban constituency will count me among those who were saved from such because of the Louisville ban.
Our local leadership will listen to both sides, allow their own biases to dictate which is more believable, and vote either way based on the notion that statistical data as provided by the Lou Lou situation above supplies definitive answers, if their votes even have anything to do with the evidence as presented at all.
Dissent from either side, no matter if it's completely reasonable or patently discombobulated, will be summarily dismissed as irrelevant bunk and responded to as an act of treason.
Personal grudges born of ignorance will ensue.
Council members on both sides will seek political credit for their mighty struggle and hope citizens won't notice when they eschew, with later votes, the very principles upon which they justified this one.
Most citizens won't notice.
Hooray.
Post a Comment