My Photo


Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad


Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« Wisconsin Manufacturing Jobs Up On Gov. Doyle's Watch; While Peddling Mark Green, GOP, WMC Prefer States Where Jobs Fell | Main | Wisconsin Sports Heroes Make Political Endorsements »

October 24, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jim McGuigan

Whoa... slow down. Sykes made the argument that it's a pity that Air America went bust because his one sided skew may be in jeopardy.

Crediting him for what sounds like balance, albeit twisted, isn't the best approach.

If anything, dems should be saying "yes" we do think balance is needed but on a local level just like conservative talk radio started. Start at the local level and you'll see success.

Fairness, despite Sykes' position, isn't a bad thing. For a good example of fairness, tune into Irish Public Radio and watch those guys go at it. Wow... talk about entertaining. You don't have to be a republican or a democrat to appreciate it but if you are, you'll likely still appreciate it.

Irish public radio is also available via live streaming on the web.

Dan Sebald

Smoking is an unhealthy drug addiction. Doctors often recommend not smoking. Secondhand smoke is sometimes annoying to people who do not smoke, and I often wonder whose rights are being impinged. (Why should non-smokers have to breath cigarette smoke whenever walking around the city? Why should people have to work in smoke filled bar rooms?) From the Isthmus Annual Manual:

Best addition to Madison in the last year:

1. Smoking ban
2. Pool
3. Madison Museum of Contemporary Art

The state government used tobacco lawsuit money to balance its budget rather than putting it toward smoking abatement programs. The state and federal governments do not disallow cigarette company TV advertising about smoking--the guise is a public service announcement suggesting to visit the company's web site. They like to word things as smoking being the norm and want to encourage parents to have a thoughtful discussion about their teenager's smoking habits. Sounds nice, in a brainwash sort of way.

What level of government cares about this issue?


That is SO true.
And furthermore, if the government has "no knowledge" of aliens, then why does Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with extraterrestrials or their vehicles?

And as if that wasn't enough -
23% of all photocopier faults worldwide
are caused by people sitting on them
and photocopying their butts.

I defy you to find a branch of government that will come clean on either of those two issues. It's an outrage, I tell you. The system is broken beyond repair.

Dan Sebald

I'm guessing Jody's first paragraph is suggesting my previous post implied there is a conspiratorial quid-pro-quo between tobacco companies, courts and state politics. The second paragraph appears to suggest that smoking is too much a frivolous problem to be addressed by government. As funny as these non sequiturs are, allow me to answer my own rhetorical question to make a point.

Which level of government currently cares about smoking abatement? The city level. Once the state "borrowed" the class action lawsuit money, they stopped caring, as far as I know. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I seem to recall the state doing at least some PSAs and billboards before the lawsuit and I see little now. (Air time controlled by the corporation isn't what I'd consider PSA.)

So, Paul's point about the city wanting local control of a smoking ban (make that "fresh air ordinance") is more along the lines of the following: Wanting the state to control smoking bans is ostensibly asking for no smoking bans.

I've seen the state nix the public intervenor and not bring it back. I've seen their watered down environmental legislation. I can identify the trend.

If I am a citizen or politician interested in my own health, citizens' health and costs on the health care system, I'll go to the local government, not the current state legislature. I guess that is being opportunistic, but how else does one get change in today's political climate of two-party rule and lobbying excess?


This is precisely the point: Assuming one day, progressives have control of the legislature and are prepared to adopt a real smoking ban, one as tough as Madison's, then what happens? Does the left now say it is OK for the state government to regulate this area? We did not mean it before when we told the state to stay away?

There was a time when the state was the leader on every level, from the creation of the public intervenor to setting health standards. And I happen to believe that the state is an excellent level to adopt tough health laws, better than the city or county.
I am afraid we, the left, are going to get in trouble on the question of hypocrisy.

The solution is not say 'the state is the bad place to do it', but to get control of the state government ,which Dems had for much of the 1970s and 1980s until the Dems blew it!
The Republicans did not win, the Dems lost.

Dan Sebald

I see what you mean now, yeah... Well, not much I can do in my district to change the legislature right now, unfortunately.

The comments to this entry are closed.