Category: Politics

Defending Tobacco

I have set out to write in defense of tobacco.  I do it for the challenge.  There are other things that would be almost equally challenging, but I don’t know enough about them: I’ve never committed  pedophilia or sent out spam emails or run for congress, so  tobacco seems the only remaining choice.

I know very well the cards are stacked against me.  The only people who love the big tobacco companies are those who own the big tobacco companies.  In this way tobacco is not unlike oil.  A difference between them is that, in the last twenty years at least, no country has been invaded for its tobacco crop.  To me, this is a point in favor of tobacco, but no doubt others differ.

Now, I am aware that tobacco is not good for me.  I have been assured of this by, not only the medical profession, but by other good-hearted folk who, I am certain, have been earnestly told by their doctors and clergymen that they should seek me out and inform me.  I have had kindly people travel a thousand miles merely to tell me that tobacco is bad for me.  Sometimes they bring friends and distant relations and remain for weeks to be certain I have this information.  Such evidence of good will cannot be ignored, and I do not ignore it.  I am convinced that they are right and tobacco is not good for me, that I will live longer if I refrain.  And, as has been said before, even if I do not live longer, it will feel longer, which is the same thing.

I am also aware that tobacco is not good for the fellow next to me.  There have been studies indicating that spending forty hours a week for twenty years in smoke-filled rooms may be harmful; it seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that if a chance whiff of my smoke should infiltrate the air of someone next to me he will drop dead on the spot, and therefore I accept this as a fact.  I know that if it should happen I would feel bad.

Another thing that makes it hard to defend tobacco is the recent increase in Federal tax on tobacco.  The tax on loose (roll-your-own) tobacco just increased by a factor of ten.  What makes this especially praiseworthy is that such an increase, like all taxes on goods and services, hits especially hard on the poor.  This will encourage the poor to quit smoking, because as we all know raising the price of something at once causes those addicted or habituated to it to quit; anyone pretending that our government cares little for the poor should be convinced by this statistic.  And it need hardly be said that this tax has the additional benefit of providing much needed funds for bailing out billionaire bankers and invading countries for their tobacco, or whichever resource that was.

With all of this working against me, how can I even consider defending tobacco?

Suddenly I am at a loss.  Let me light a cigarette.  Ah, yes, now I remember.  My defense is as follows: I like it.

Rant: Obama, Reverend Warren, and my friends list

Apparently a number of my friends are hurt, puzzled, angered, offended, or some combination because known gay-bashing Reverend Richard Warren was asked by Obama to give the inuagural invocation.

I don’t know whether to be hurt, puzzled, angered, offended, or some combination by how they’re reacting.

Some of Obama’s appointments include: Ken Salazar for Secretary of the Interior.  He’s a supporter of the Iraq War.  He is a supporter of offshore oil drilling.  He backed continued tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile.  He is generally considered to the right of every Democrat except Lieberman.

Tom Vilsack is Secretary of Agriculture.  His credentials include backing everything that helps major agribusiness corporations at the expense of individual farmers–in particular, favoring ethanol subsidies for major corporations, which has the added bonus of driving up food prices.

The Secretary of Education is Arne Duncan, a proponent of the hated “No Child Left Behind” act, and a booster of privatizing schools, breaking teachers unions, and shutting down “underperforming” schools in low-income areas.

For Defense Secretary we have Robert Gates, the first Pentagon chief in US history to be retained in office when a new party took the White House.  The person leading the charge against personal freedom on behalf of the most hated president in recent history is being retained in office so he can–change, and become someone different?  I doubt it.  A supporter of the Surge, of continuing the Iraq war, and someone who has repeatedly refused to commit to withdrawing troops.  The national security team has been praised by Dick Chaney.  What does that tell us?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq War and against gay marriage.

And then there are his financial appointments: a Who’s Who of Goldman-Sachs.

So then: Obama’s agenda, judging from his appointments, seems to be: Continue the attacks on education, drive food prices up while destroying the small farmer, continue the war, continue the attacks on our personal freedom, and continue raping the environment so long as it is in the interest of Wall Street.

And now, NOW, you are upset because a gay-basher is saying a prayer at the inauguration?

Look: if you want to include that in the long list of either What We Can Expect From Obama, or How Obama Betrayed Me, then fine.  But to single out that one item, it feels like I’m being told, “I don’t mind if you take away my freedom, continue invading and torturing around the world, destroy the lives of individuals and the environment so the rich can stay rich, but don’t you DARE mess with the right of affectional preference!”

Someone has priorities screwed up and I don’t think it’s me.

On the bailout of the US auto makers

Damn, they sure do sound noble, don’t they? “We can’t bail out the auto makers unless they gave us a plan.” Lovely. “They shouldn’t ask the tax payers to pay for their mistakes.” Uh huh. “Look at those executives flying to meet with us in private jets.” Ducky.

Am I missing something? Didn’t they just give a bunch of Wall Street tycoons a trillion bucks? With no plan for how they were to spend it? With no oversight over what happens to it? With nothing to discourage the bankers who caused the problems from keeping–or even raising–their own saleries, with this money coming from taxpayers?

So, what’s the difference (aside from the obvious: Wall Street got a whole lot more than the auto companies are asking for).

OHHHH! I get it. It’s CODE! They’re telling the automakers, and especially the UAW: Get back everything from those damned workers that might give them the illusion they can have a reasonable living standard. They have the nerve to be earning a living wage! Some of them have a form of health care (poor, if you examine it, but still something). And, you know, there are even a few of them whose homes still aren’t in foreclosure, in spite of the best efforts of Wall Street and their own union.

So, yeah, everything Wall Street wants, but if big auto wants help, it damned well better shove those auto workers back down to the level they were at before they were unionized!

I feel all warm and fuzzy about President-elect Obama. Yeah. Right.

Steve

Revisiting an old and whacky theory

Many years ago at Fourth Street, a bunch of us sat around for too many hours and came up with the following theory: From the perspective of society, the function of art* and the function of science are identical; the difference is that the final product of science is a theory, the final product of art is an artifact.

Whenever it comes up, this theory seems to produce interesting discussion, so I am running it up the mixed metaphor to see if the cliche licks it up.

*A somewhat restrictive definition of art; excluding, for example, the performing arts.

–Steve