About those cell phones. I don't have one. I'm the last person alive that doesn't have one. I'm young and somehow survive without a phone pestering, festering, and twitching in my pocket, or glowing in dark places.
I've found it nice not having a cell phone because I don't have to politely record the numbers of everyone I meet in a database, and it is nice to see the repulsed reactions when others can't have my number. For some odd reason they no longer want my number when I tell them it's a land line and I can't drag it around with me everywhere I go, thus preventing people from "following" me like digital balls and chains as I travel along my daily path.
Anyway, about those cell phones. When I see how imprisoned, addicted, inconsiderate and impolite they make people I become even more staunchly anti-cell phone.
The other night, while out and about on the town, catching a couple of traveling bands I encountered another dazed and inconsiderate cell phone user. It was a fairly slow night, as the smoking ban has destroyed life and the ability to shake a leg. I was doing my best to show some appreciation, standing/dancing up near the front of the stage. I turned around and right behind me was the glow of an unhinged phone, mesmerizing its owner. I couldn't believe it. I was as shocked as a non smoker in a non-smoking venue would have been if someone had lit up a cigarette, disregarding everyone else and their health. I wanted to swat that phone to the ground and tell them to stare at their cell phone somewhere else where they didn't infringe on others.
One does NOT stand near the front of the stage when a band has traveled all day to play for them. The only time that cell phone should come out is to take pictures of the event. But no, this person was standing there staring at their phone while the band could see them. It was a blatant insult, as if to say to the band, "You're so boring and terrible that I'd rather stand here and stare at my phone right in front of your face." Truly, I couldn't believe how inconsiderate and unappreciative this behavior appeared.
If a call must be taken or made, one really needs to treat their cell phone the exact same way a tobacco user treats tobacco use in certain environments. One should remove themselves to a polite location and use their cell phone where it will not appear rude, demean others, ignore them, or infringe on them.
Truly, the cell phone has become a kind of harassment device and mini prison, and people seem to enjoy this. One person I know met a girl last week-end. They don't even know each other, having spent only one evening out with friends. The girl has called and texted every single day since this meeting even though a date is scheduled for this next week-end. I asked my friend if they actually like this and think it normal, and doesn't it appear a bit desperate on the girl's part?
It never occurred to my friend that this was abnormal since everyone does it. I can't imagine what kind of girl thinks it's normal to text and call a guy every day, especially when they've only just met and there's nothing to fear, since a date is already a sure thing. And who wants to be with someone that harasses them every day after having met once? What kind of relationship would that be? It would be more akin to ownership, or possession, having a person constantly reminding another that they're checking on them because they "care" and are so obsessed, insecure, and boring that they have nothing better to do.
The cell phone is basically a monitoring device, a palm prison. It's an insecurity device. People use to go smoke a cigarette when they got nervous and insecure thoughts about another person that they couldn't be with at the moment. Now, people text and call to remind everyone else that they exist and can't stop thinking about them. How nice. People call to remind others of their existence, and they check their phones to remind themselves that someone cared enough about them to harass them that day. How nice and kind.
Parents use the cell phone to keep tabs on their kids and to make themselves feel safer about their kids because the kids will have a list of numbers to call and harass for help all day. It's a digital umbilical cord. The kids won't cut it because they're addicted and don't know any better. Mom and Dad use the cell phone as a tool of punishment, taking it away when the kid has misused it or gotten into trouble. And the kid is an addict, goes through withdrawal, can't live without knowing who has thought of them that day, what mindless gossip they've been left out of, etc. and begs for its return so that they can get their fix.
The cell phone is like any other addictive thing and should be used responsibly, not as a crutch for insecurity or to bother others. It's not a brain, it's not a soul, although people treat it this way. When lighting up your cell phone, please be considerate of those around you, lest you contaminate the air around you, souring people on your social inability. If smoke-free air is a right, then so is cell-phone free air. Take it outside and pace.
There are non-cell phone users like me that would like to take your cell phone and break in half like a cigarette.
Oh, and by the by, while you're staring at the glow of your security crutch, not socializing with anyone near you, we tobacco smokers are out in the rain socializing and meeting real physical people that we can touch and see. You can have your virtual love, we've got the real thing--even in the rain or in 40 degrees below zero. You've got your phone on a cold night while the tobacco users have each other.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) IS Eugenics
Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) is eugenics, plain and simple. The anti-tobacco movement is not grass roots or organic, but backed by individuals and corporations that seek to rid the earth of those with so-called "restrictive markers" upon their DNA.
Tobacco prohibition has nothing to do with saving the economy or health of the average citizen.
The anti-tobacco movement is a eugenic movement because it proffers deathly drugs that act as a person's own private gas chamber to the brain, and doles out nicotine gums, candies, and patches that are pesticides. To these people, tobacco users are nothing but vermin, insects to be killed. The advertising is racist, depicting tobacco users as locusts and interestingly, camels, a Middle Eastern animal.
Instructions for use of a particular popular nicotine gum tells users not to ingest acidic foods or drinks before use. This is strange. The entire point of ingesting nicotine is to oxidise it either by acid or smoke, converting it into non-toxic nicotinic acid. The tobacco user does not get nicotine, they get nicotinic acid.
Nicotine not exposed to acid is still nicotine, a toxic substance used as pesticide. Varenicline is used like a personal gas chamber, leaving a person reborn as the living dead after use. And the NRT products don't want the nicotine oxidized. This may explain why most tobacco users get so ill, losing their hair and vomiting, or dying of heart attack when using NRT gums, candies, and patches. They are literally being poisoned like insects.
The scientific research of the genetic predisposition towards tobacco use consistently points towards the same groups of people targeted time and again for extermination: Middle Eastern, American Indian, Black, Native populations, low income, low income pregnant women, diseased, military veterans, prison populations, mental institutions.....everyone not of Anglo-Saxon, upper socioeconomic status. Even our President, of black heritage, has been put on the nicotine gum by his Big Pharma handlers, unaware of what it's doing to him! Could this be why his health report isn't as good as it should be for such a young and fit man?
This happened in Germany, with the Jews and others with "restrictive markers" on their DNA; also blamed for the health and economic troubles of the 1930s. These groups of people were gassed in groups, rather than alone with a varenicline pill, or slowly with a pesticide gum, candy, or patch. They died in groups. Now, the victims drop one here, one there, in ignorant and sad "isolation."
Do you love yourself, do you love your smoker? Save them from eugenic NRT pesticide. Fill your heart with love, your frig with niacin-rich foods, get a bottle of quick-release niacin from your health food store, don't drink alcohol (it depletes nicotinic acid/niacin). And love them, don't blame. Tobacco is safer than NRT. Stop Nicotine Replacement "Therapy." The doctor, the anti-tobacco activists are ignorant of the dangers of these products and their purpose, as many good people in Germany were ignorant of the dangers of destroying and banning certain groups of people. Please DON'T take NRT ever.
Tobacco prohibition has nothing to do with saving the economy or health of the average citizen.
The anti-tobacco movement is a eugenic movement because it proffers deathly drugs that act as a person's own private gas chamber to the brain, and doles out nicotine gums, candies, and patches that are pesticides. To these people, tobacco users are nothing but vermin, insects to be killed. The advertising is racist, depicting tobacco users as locusts and interestingly, camels, a Middle Eastern animal.
Instructions for use of a particular popular nicotine gum tells users not to ingest acidic foods or drinks before use. This is strange. The entire point of ingesting nicotine is to oxidise it either by acid or smoke, converting it into non-toxic nicotinic acid. The tobacco user does not get nicotine, they get nicotinic acid.
Nicotine not exposed to acid is still nicotine, a toxic substance used as pesticide. Varenicline is used like a personal gas chamber, leaving a person reborn as the living dead after use. And the NRT products don't want the nicotine oxidized. This may explain why most tobacco users get so ill, losing their hair and vomiting, or dying of heart attack when using NRT gums, candies, and patches. They are literally being poisoned like insects.
The scientific research of the genetic predisposition towards tobacco use consistently points towards the same groups of people targeted time and again for extermination: Middle Eastern, American Indian, Black, Native populations, low income, low income pregnant women, diseased, military veterans, prison populations, mental institutions.....everyone not of Anglo-Saxon, upper socioeconomic status. Even our President, of black heritage, has been put on the nicotine gum by his Big Pharma handlers, unaware of what it's doing to him! Could this be why his health report isn't as good as it should be for such a young and fit man?
This happened in Germany, with the Jews and others with "restrictive markers" on their DNA; also blamed for the health and economic troubles of the 1930s. These groups of people were gassed in groups, rather than alone with a varenicline pill, or slowly with a pesticide gum, candy, or patch. They died in groups. Now, the victims drop one here, one there, in ignorant and sad "isolation."
Do you love yourself, do you love your smoker? Save them from eugenic NRT pesticide. Fill your heart with love, your frig with niacin-rich foods, get a bottle of quick-release niacin from your health food store, don't drink alcohol (it depletes nicotinic acid/niacin). And love them, don't blame. Tobacco is safer than NRT. Stop Nicotine Replacement "Therapy." The doctor, the anti-tobacco activists are ignorant of the dangers of these products and their purpose, as many good people in Germany were ignorant of the dangers of destroying and banning certain groups of people. Please DON'T take NRT ever.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Philip Morris' "Avalanche" Scenario Predicted Current Economic Woes In 1999
In the 1990s Philip Morris set up a very interesting program of forecasts called Project Sunrise. Contrary to the common media depiction, there is nothing evil or insidious about Project Sunrise. In fact, these forecasts of America's possible future 10 to 20 years out from the 1990s is fascinating. Project Sunrise set up four possible future scenarios for the United States, naming them "Mostly Sunny," "Avalanche," "New Game," and "Blade Runner."
I have one document with each of the four scenarios side by side. This one is interesting because it covers everything that is part of our daily life from economy, health, socialization, technology, politics, and even a pharmaceutical nicotine monopoly. From a literary standpoint it's fascinating to see how there are so many paths we can choose and the predictable results of them.
Avalanche is the worst possible scenario envisioned for the country with freedoms limited, privacy eroded, hatred high, and a national healthcare program. The only hope is the younger generation who may, with persistence and wisdom beyond our years, throw off the yoke of bondage placed upon us by the self-obsessed Baby Boomers, thieves of our livelihood and freedoms.
The following is from a presentation on the "Avalanche" scenario of the future by Tim Beane for Philip Morris in 1999. Of course, some of the predictions were off, such as predicting Al Gore would win the presidency after Clinton's time was up. But generally, speaking it is still fairly accurate:
I have one document with each of the four scenarios side by side. This one is interesting because it covers everything that is part of our daily life from economy, health, socialization, technology, politics, and even a pharmaceutical nicotine monopoly. From a literary standpoint it's fascinating to see how there are so many paths we can choose and the predictable results of them.
Avalanche is the worst possible scenario envisioned for the country with freedoms limited, privacy eroded, hatred high, and a national healthcare program. The only hope is the younger generation who may, with persistence and wisdom beyond our years, throw off the yoke of bondage placed upon us by the self-obsessed Baby Boomers, thieves of our livelihood and freedoms.
The following is from a presentation on the "Avalanche" scenario of the future by Tim Beane for Philip Morris in 1999. Of course, some of the predictions were off, such as predicting Al Gore would win the presidency after Clinton's time was up. But generally, speaking it is still fairly accurate:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vex75c00/pdf
"It is now October 2006 and, in contrast to Mostly Sunny and New Game, these are the images which have shaped the world for smokers in the U.S. over the past ten years. In Avalanche, a victimization ethos and an increasingly polarized society have created an environment where smokers, smoking and tobacco companies experience losses on many fronts. Smoker discrimination, restrictive legislation, litigation setbacks, negative media coverage, powerful enemies [Big Pharmaceutical Nicotine, Johnson & Johnson, Robert Wood Johnson (Synthetic Toxic Nicotine)Foundation, Corrupt States] and ally erosion define our world.
"How did our environment deteriorate to this point? Well, in retrospect, the seeds of our current situation were sown in late 1996 when, following Clinton's re-election, the U.S. economy entered a deep and protracted recession. Unemployment grew rapidly, the budget deficit ballooned and the combination of a Democratic President and a Republican Congress was unable to deal with the economic situation.
"An angry national mood, fueled by the paralysis in Washington, led to a broad based desire for an interventionist government. In the 1998 mid-term elections, Democrats took control of the House and Senate. This resulted in a more liberal government and one which conveniently blamed smokers and tobacco companies for many of society's financial and health care problems.
"By playing on the prejudices of a public looking for scapegoats and easy answers, it soon became a relatively simple task for the newly empowered government to implement strong-arm social policies targeting smokers, smoking, and tobacco companies.
"The boomers populating the second Clinton administration, and later, Gore's first, eagerly did what they felt was best for society. A single payer healthcare system was established. New environmental, health and safety requirements were passed. A tougher FDA evolved, one with undisputed control over cigarettes.
"This environment resulted in an ever increasing erosion of smoker rights. The social acceptability of smokers and smoking reached new lows as the very act of smoking came to be seen by many as impinging on everyone else's privacy. Although the importance of privacy was highly valued, events occurred which in effect compromised individual privacy.
"For instance, in an effort to allocate societal costs on those who were deemed responsible, legislation passed which made selected information about a person's health and personal habits available to employers, landlords, and insurance companies. This information could be used in making employment decisions and in determining insurance premiums. As you might expect, smokers did not fare well in these situations.
"When and where a person could smoke became more and more constrained. The rights of non-smokers began taking legal precedence whenever smokers and non-smokers were together. Depending on who they were with, smokers could even be prevented from smoking in their own homes or cars.
"Even outdoors, smokers are now harassed and marginalized because society views smoking as a costly vice. Costly for the smoker yes, but more importantly, the prevailing attitude is that smoking is costly for society as a whole. Simply put, the attitude now is your smoking costs me money so stop doing it.
"The cumulative impact of all of this is that smoking has become almost devoid of pleasure. Almost everyone, including some smokers, views smoking as a dirty habit, one not worthy of a respectable person. Smoker's are angry at themselves, the government, the anti's and even the tobacco companies. They are also ashamed of themselves and of how they are now defined by this new society--'the nicotine dependant weaklings.'
"Tobacco companies are severely limited in their ability to improve the situation for smokers. The anti movement is strong, well-funded [by Big Pharma Nicotine companies and "philanthropies" such as Nicorette and Robert Wood Johnson (Synthetic Nicotine) Foundation] and emboldened by its successes...."
"This media frenzy is epitomized by Smoke Out, a popular new TV show which follows law enforcement officers as they conduct sting operations, intercept cigarette smugglers and track down smokers as they light up in restricted areas."
"Smokers were singled out to help ease the country's economic problems through large and repeated excise tax increases...."
"So in summary, what does our world look like in 2006 [or 2010]? We see angry and alienated smokers who are segregated and subjected to discrimination in very real ways. We see smoking as ever more restricted both legislatively and by an intolerant society. We see government controlled by people who think they know what's best for everyone and are given the mandate to act on this knowledge. We see tobacco companies without allies and who are hamstrung in their ability to defend themselves and to compete [against Big State & Pharma Nicotine]. In short, we see a set of individuals and an industry frozen in an onrushing avalanche[of Big Pharma Nicotine candy, gums; and suicide, cancer, and diabetes-inducing drugs marketed variously as Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Breathing Cessation, Life Replacement Therapy, or simply Uncle Sam Wants You(th Dead)].
"If there is hope, it is in the fact that young adults resent the controls of big government and the pious morality of the aging boomer generation [yes, we do!]. They believe strongly in personal choice and as their rebellion begins to translate into political and economic power [if the boomers don't suck out our life blood first], opportunities may occur to reshape the debate. The boomers will not go quietly [oh, they may, since they're addicted to toxic Big Pharma dope in their bottles] however and it may be a long time before the avalanche recedes and a more open society emerges" ("Avalanche" scenario, Tim Beane, Philip Morris Tobacco, 1999; emphasis and brackets, mine).
"It is now October 2006 and, in contrast to Mostly Sunny and New Game, these are the images which have shaped the world for smokers in the U.S. over the past ten years. In Avalanche, a victimization ethos and an increasingly polarized society have created an environment where smokers, smoking and tobacco companies experience losses on many fronts. Smoker discrimination, restrictive legislation, litigation setbacks, negative media coverage, powerful enemies [Big Pharmaceutical Nicotine, Johnson & Johnson, Robert Wood Johnson (Synthetic Toxic Nicotine)Foundation, Corrupt States] and ally erosion define our world.
"How did our environment deteriorate to this point? Well, in retrospect, the seeds of our current situation were sown in late 1996 when, following Clinton's re-election, the U.S. economy entered a deep and protracted recession. Unemployment grew rapidly, the budget deficit ballooned and the combination of a Democratic President and a Republican Congress was unable to deal with the economic situation.
"An angry national mood, fueled by the paralysis in Washington, led to a broad based desire for an interventionist government. In the 1998 mid-term elections, Democrats took control of the House and Senate. This resulted in a more liberal government and one which conveniently blamed smokers and tobacco companies for many of society's financial and health care problems.
"By playing on the prejudices of a public looking for scapegoats and easy answers, it soon became a relatively simple task for the newly empowered government to implement strong-arm social policies targeting smokers, smoking, and tobacco companies.
"The boomers populating the second Clinton administration, and later, Gore's first, eagerly did what they felt was best for society. A single payer healthcare system was established. New environmental, health and safety requirements were passed. A tougher FDA evolved, one with undisputed control over cigarettes.
"This environment resulted in an ever increasing erosion of smoker rights. The social acceptability of smokers and smoking reached new lows as the very act of smoking came to be seen by many as impinging on everyone else's privacy. Although the importance of privacy was highly valued, events occurred which in effect compromised individual privacy.
"For instance, in an effort to allocate societal costs on those who were deemed responsible, legislation passed which made selected information about a person's health and personal habits available to employers, landlords, and insurance companies. This information could be used in making employment decisions and in determining insurance premiums. As you might expect, smokers did not fare well in these situations.
"When and where a person could smoke became more and more constrained. The rights of non-smokers began taking legal precedence whenever smokers and non-smokers were together. Depending on who they were with, smokers could even be prevented from smoking in their own homes or cars.
"Even outdoors, smokers are now harassed and marginalized because society views smoking as a costly vice. Costly for the smoker yes, but more importantly, the prevailing attitude is that smoking is costly for society as a whole. Simply put, the attitude now is your smoking costs me money so stop doing it.
"The cumulative impact of all of this is that smoking has become almost devoid of pleasure. Almost everyone, including some smokers, views smoking as a dirty habit, one not worthy of a respectable person. Smoker's are angry at themselves, the government, the anti's and even the tobacco companies. They are also ashamed of themselves and of how they are now defined by this new society--'the nicotine dependant weaklings.'
"Tobacco companies are severely limited in their ability to improve the situation for smokers. The anti movement is strong, well-funded [by Big Pharma Nicotine companies and "philanthropies" such as Nicorette and Robert Wood Johnson (Synthetic Nicotine) Foundation] and emboldened by its successes...."
"This media frenzy is epitomized by Smoke Out, a popular new TV show which follows law enforcement officers as they conduct sting operations, intercept cigarette smugglers and track down smokers as they light up in restricted areas."
"Smokers were singled out to help ease the country's economic problems through large and repeated excise tax increases...."
"So in summary, what does our world look like in 2006 [or 2010]? We see angry and alienated smokers who are segregated and subjected to discrimination in very real ways. We see smoking as ever more restricted both legislatively and by an intolerant society. We see government controlled by people who think they know what's best for everyone and are given the mandate to act on this knowledge. We see tobacco companies without allies and who are hamstrung in their ability to defend themselves and to compete [against Big State & Pharma Nicotine]. In short, we see a set of individuals and an industry frozen in an onrushing avalanche[of Big Pharma Nicotine candy, gums; and suicide, cancer, and diabetes-inducing drugs marketed variously as Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Breathing Cessation, Life Replacement Therapy, or simply Uncle Sam Wants You(th Dead)].
"If there is hope, it is in the fact that young adults resent the controls of big government and the pious morality of the aging boomer generation [yes, we do!]. They believe strongly in personal choice and as their rebellion begins to translate into political and economic power [if the boomers don't suck out our life blood first], opportunities may occur to reshape the debate. The boomers will not go quietly [oh, they may, since they're addicted to toxic Big Pharma dope in their bottles] however and it may be a long time before the avalanche recedes and a more open society emerges" ("Avalanche" scenario, Tim Beane, Philip Morris Tobacco, 1999; emphasis and brackets, mine).
My Town Is Dying
My town is dying. It looks alive, but I can feel it, as if its spirit is drowsy, blurry, and apathetic. My town puts on more makeup and visits the plastic surgeon, but beneath the surface the bones are cracking.
The big houses are standing empty, and all of the big plans for eco friendly green show neighborhoods where everyone lives a sterile and clean life of health, vanity, micro fleece, shiny biking costumes with butt pads and Birkenstocks and beany caps are empty fields on the edge of town. A big scam. Someone sold the idea and got paid for it.
Hundreds of people were made to move from a very nice, green trailer court with mature pines and willows and large lots and good families. Now it's a haven for transients and needle pushers. Many of the mobile homes still remain with their doors and windows hanging loose, the stairs tilting off to the side, the grass tall. And next door is a neighborhood of palaces with moats and giant windows. They probably believed that they would soon be next door to one of the trendiest neighborhoods in the nation with shops, nature trails, and the old flour refinery turned into a microbrewery.
But no. The refinery is still a middle of the night haunt for kids with cans of spray paint and a knowledge of satanic symbolism. It still smells of skunks and the owls still fly out in the dark night. It's still as spooky and dark as when I was a kid.
I knew the eco dreams were false. How could forcing hundreds of people to leave a nice affordable and quiet trailer park work? I knew it was a scam because it was all about vanity and impressing the nation with a first of its kind facade. Really, do people live above their businesses anymore and hang tomatoes out to prove they're sustainable? People want that early 1900's dream, but without the reality and nitty gritty that goes with it. The real living was in the trailer court, but those people didn't matter. And I was right. Rather than making life; these fake, greedy, vain, and self-righteous people created a black hole -- death.
And others are complaining about the old brewery building with its chain link fence around it to protect from falling brick. Half the building is demolished. I used to spend quite a bit of time in that building, as several businesses I had contact with were located there. The neighborhood is upset that the building sits there rotting, neither being torn down or restored. They wish the city would force the owners to follow through with their plans of a big restaurant and new brewery. Hmm. Who would the customers be if it was finished? My town is dying, and a dead entity doesn't go out to sip foamy beers or eat fresh ravioli.
Main Street looks nice with its boutiques and hanging flower baskets. But it has a big hole blown in it where a gas explosion took out part of a block. The owner of one of the bars, now a black hole, was a prime supporter of the smoking ban. At the time he was taking his bar from a famous dive that was so packed patrons stood shoulder to shoulder; changing it into one of those granite-tiled artsy-fartsy places where the doctors and boring people go. He knew his new and trendy bar would not be able to compete any longer if it was the only non-smoking bar on the street. And it didn't. No one went after the remodel and the shiny granite bar with napkins was installed. He destroyed a landmark.
The same bar owner wanted the town to put up millions to build his kid a hockey rink too. This same bar owner has another bar across town where the older and wealthier gather to swing. It looks clean and "safe," but it's not. It's the only bar in town where I've seen a paid cameraman on a regular basis filming the girls. It's the only bar in town with wet t-shirt contests, foam baths, bikini contests with the bikinis supplied by the bar. Meanwhile that cameraman is rolling, and so is every football player's camera phone.
Has anyone ever asked if the bar owner is selling the images of those girls? And it's the only bar in town where it's common for married people to get with married people as if it's nothing. But it's clean and decent and serves pink drinks. All of this goes on below the surface and one has to watch very closely, but if one knows what to look for it's the most immoral place in town. I knew my town was dying when this became a popular location. A few years ago, people had to keep it secret that they went to a phony place. Now, that bar owner, a good upstanding citizen, wants the city to "loan" him money to rebuild his black hole on Main Street. He'll never pay it back.
My town is dying. It has a big new parking garage with business space attached. It was built with Hurricane Katrina relief money although we're nowhere near hurricane country. But it's empty and quiet.
My town is dying. The frat house, a former resident's mansion sits on an entire city block, looking pretty and wasting money since the city bought and refurbished it with tax payer money, rather than selling it to a law firm that would have made it into a property that benefited the community by paying taxes. This historic mansion eats up federal tax dollars. Somehow it managed to get tens of thousands of that Economic Stimulus money for an energy-saving remodel, which will save the taxpayer's on energy costs. Wouldn't it have saved the tax payers to have let a private business own and maintain it? How does it save money to spend taxpayer money? The government is the only entity that can say it's saving money by spending other people's money. When the rest of us spend other people's money we're called trust funders, irresponsible, greedy, and wasteful.
My town is dying. Last October the smoking ban went into effect. Now, on a Friday night the doors of the formerly crowded and bustling bars stand open and silently sad. The pool tables have sticks laying across them rather than in the hands of patrons. It used to be that one had to lay their quarters down and fight for a pool table. No longer. It use to be that one had to jostle and muscle their way to the front of the bar for a drink. It use to be loud and boisterous by 11 o'clock when the drinks began sinking in and the work week wore off. No longer. Now, there is a silent and wary group of tobacco smokers lurking outside the doors, wondering if they should even bother going back in.
Now, the bars are trying to lure people back in for a good time with live bands. But it's still dead most nights, with only a handful of people searching for other people. I use to think it was the music that drew the people, but now, I wonder if the music is the people. Without people there is no music, no laughing, no drunkenness, no joy, no sin, no money. Who do you play for when there is no audience or when the audience keeps walking out for a cigarette in the middle of the song?
My town is dying and people are looking for life. The people think they're going out for drinks and music, but really they are going out to be with others. Now, when a big band comes to town it sells out because everyone knows that everyone else will also be there. Now, the few people out all gather at one location, leaving every other establishment nearly empty. It didn't use to be this way, before the smoking ban. Even when a large event was occurring somewhere else, the crowd was evenly and generously distributed amongst the bars. People knew that even if they didn't go to the big show, they'd still have a good time in a large crowd somewhere else. In fact, it was even nice because certain crowds of people would clear out for the show, leaving an opportunity to meet an entirely new set of people.
I live in a college town famous for selling more beer than any other town west of the Mississippi. I wonder how that statistic is faring these days? Do dead people drink? My state lost about $40 million in tax revenues the first two months of the smoking ban. But of, course, it's saving lives to have a pharmaceutical Nicorette (sucks) monopoly. How is it that when the government says it's saving lives and money it's actually destroying lives and ability to make money? Is that how the rest of us save money, by finding ways of preventing our businesses from having customers and by preventing customers from patronizing favorite business. What an excellent way to cut costs -- get rid of customers and steady revenue. How novel. It's like Nazi eugenics applied to the economy. They saved a lot of money getting rid of millions of business owners and customers. They killed them. My town is dying.
The police force is doubled and the new Taj MaJail is nearly finished. Who will they lock up if the tobacco smokers aren't out drinking? Who will they lock up if no one has money to leave their homes? Someone has to pay the gigantic bill, and this town doesn't have enough crime to foot the bill. They will have to make criminals out of the tax payers and property owners one way or another. Maybe, all red cars will be targeted, or redheads, or people wearing red... Thank goodness, the legislature thought ahead last session and banned those red light cameras. My town had them everywhere and could hardly wait to start fining those sliding across the line on winter roads, or making right hand turns. They're still there, but illegal and can't be used until a special interest pays someone off to repeal the anti-red light camera law.
My town is dying. I can hear it. It's a silent sound and no one wants to hear it. The talk is how our local economy is impervious and strong. Whatever. How can one single town stand alone? It's like saying someone's hand is strong while the rest of the body is dying. Will the hand live without the body? A body can live without the hand, but not vice versa. My town is not the body. It is arrogant and blind. It is Californicated and a pretty little whore. It used to be a rather natural kind of girl with stray hair, cut-off shorts, a fun smile, and old cars; but somewhere she got the idea that guys like ultra-plucked eyebrows, big shiny dangles, and four-inch heels and a snotty attitude. It's not the free and easy place it was only a few years ago. My town is uptight and vain. It's dying and soon won't have a night spot to go to and be seen in. Nor will it have a day spot.
My town is dying. A town is the people. Why are the people so lethargic and unable to exercise their simple constitutional rights? Why are the parts of the body attacking, banning, and regulating the other parts? Isn't each part essential? Are we like a 90 year old body, slowly shutting down? Are we too old? My town is dying.
But somewhere in the night, in the corners are others like me, seeking out the flames, the lit matches, lighters, the spark of life and the scent of a familiar aroma--the sweet smell of recognition. Somewhere others seek communion with like-minded souls, and we will know each other when we meet as long lost family members. The reunion will bring joy and we will take each other's hand and rise above the old and dead parts, although mournful of a time and place now only a memory. My town may be dying, but I am not.
image: Rembrandt, Blinding of Samson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)