As the returns roll in, post your thoughts on them, if you’re not at one of the parties with us.
Results should show up here even before the News reports them.
As the returns roll in, post your thoughts on them, if you’re not at one of the parties with us.
Results should show up here even before the News reports them.
Too bad for anne, she and her volunteers worked very hard. I was surprised that the voter turnout was only 13.5 percent so far with 98% of precincts in. Thats ridiculous, I wonder why so many people dont go to the polls?
May I answer?
A fair guess for the low turnout would be the thought of “If others are going to vote, why should I?”
Either that, the weather, family, or just people forgot the date. (I almost did.)
Oh, and congratulations on Fahey’s vicory. (Friend just conceeded.)
I’m glad to see that she lost honestly…when she pulls a stunt like accusing Jim of sending the flyers out himself, I think that actually hurt her…
Another punishing blow to the democrats. Ah I love it
Who says it was a blow? Just because Boyle didnt win doesnt mean it was a blow. Fahey won which is great. Thompson won his district over cavanaugh which is good. I was personally rooting for Suttle, so I am glad he won. Gernandt and Brown won basically unopposed. All in all I think it was a great day. Also, dont just come on the blog to talk trash, have something to contribute. Seriously, you are doing no good for either side.
You guys were for Thompson
I do contribute and you people dont know how to respond other than try and make me look like a bad person.
Mike I am not trying to talk trash Im sorry I shouldnt of done that but when I do come on here people just trash me here and that is why I get mad and have a come back. But your right it does no good to just talk trash.
Will you guys get rid of “Joe” already? I understand your commitment to First Ammendment rights and all the rest of it, but he has solely ruined the integrity of this blog. When someone abuses their privileges — even after being warned and asked to behave — that someone should lose his privileges. Joe lurked around the Chamber of Commerce board for two years until he finally drove off anyone who had thoughtful conversation to offer. Recently, the Chamber closed its discussion boards — almost soley because of “Joe.”
Please, people who run this blog, consider banning “Joe” from posting here, not because he disagrees with Democrats, but because he is simply amusing himself by “stirring the pot,” while contributing absolutely nothing to intelligent discussion.
Now, if someone has thoughts about the election — even if I don’t agree — I would love to hear them…
Depressing…that’s all I have to say (with the exception of the Mayor’s race.) Kraft, who was actually willing to take stands on issues, lost. Boyle lost. Lonergan lost. (And I was actually rooting for Cavinaugh in 6 due to his support for a new precinct, smoking ban, and against Keystone-type developments out this way.) Needless to say, he also lost.
This type of offshoot discussion should probably be held in another thread, but why the smoking ban? What about this actually appeals to people? Because I honestly don’t understand what is so wrong about smoking in public places (meaning places considered public, but are privately owned).
I had a discussion like this with a friend of mine, and he said so long as legislators argue their point from the perspective of workers, they will get their ban. But what trends/polls actually give them any evidence that any overwhelming amount of workers really want or even care for a smoking ban? The only obvious advantage I see this offering anyone is “cleaner lungs;” well, at least until the person walks outside and breathes in our “fresh,” Omaha air… and maybe an eventual decrease in lung cancer, maybe. I guess I just don’t understand what the problem is with smoking in restaraunts, when most, if not all, places have separate smoking and non-smoking sections… Please, help me understand.
The sum of the argumentfor the smoking ban is the labor issue. It’s the only angle able to supercede public choice and the rights of private business owners. Since smoking and second-hand smoke are deadly, they create an unsafe work environment, even if only in the long-term. It is comparable (though not as extreme) to an employer surrounding his workers with asbestos.
Yes, there is the argument that most employees don’t care and the ones that do don’t have to work there, but just such arguments have been made against every labor health standard ever imposed. Employment is not abundant or fluid enough to give this defense weight. Otherwise, the state (i.e. OSHA) would have little grounds to make demands of meat-packing plants and chemical factories because employers could justify almost anything as an implicit or explicit risk. Thinking along these lines, the minimum wage also becomes increasingly more difficult to defend. Either the state has this right and responsiblity to impose standards for the good of workers and the community or it does not.
Minus the criminalization of smoking all together, I’d go so far as to say the smoking ban is ONLY justifiable as a labor issue. That’s why the full ban is the only one that makes sense. Customers benefit from choice in a way that employees do not. This is an all or nothing situation or else it becomes a matter of discrimination affording more protections to a waitress at a restaurant than one at a bar. Sure, such a gesture panders nicely to yuppies and their families, but it’s morally indefensible. This is either a labor/public health issue that demands universal government intervention or else government should just “butt out” and let these poor bastards slowly kill themselves (and each other).
Tony Costello wrote:
But what trends/polls actually give them any evidence that any overwhelming amount of workers really want or even care for a smoking ban?
Trends: smoking bans (to varying degrees) have passed in several states, including half a dozen that have banned smoking in all public venues outright. Numerous municipalities have also passed bans. Polls: Google for yourself, or look at citizen initiatives (even people from conservative towns like Lincoln, NE voted overwhelmingly in support of a ban recently, mirroring opinions found in more liberal places like California.)
Tony also mentioned: “I guess I just don’t understand what the problem is with smoking in restaraunts, when most, if not all, places have separate smoking and non-smoking sections… Please, help me understand.”
Most “sections” are separated by nothing more than a sign…thus, the carcinogenic fumes are passed throughout the establishment, which can pose a health hazard to patrons and employees. (Cite Montana’s ban as evidenced by the immediate and sustained drop in heart attacks following implementation and subsequent rise after repeal…even secondhand smoke constricts arteries after a very short exposure.)
Also, on a personal note, I have a couple friends who were finally able to kick the habit after implementation of a smoking ban where they live (Minneapolis) because they no longer were surrounded by temptation (cigarettes) every time they frequented their favorite watering hole.
And, as Kyle writes, the only “fair” ban is a total ban. If you really want to see what a total ban looks like - look at Bloomington, MN (where you are not only unable to light up in any public venue, but also within 25 feet of public places (i.e. front doors of bars/restaurants/hospitals, etc.)
OK… I get it, lots of other cities, townships, etc, have done it, there are many polls from other areas, alright…. I get that. I still ask, “Why a smoking ban???”
You haven’t answered my original question. I guess I should rephrase it: “Why a ban when many other alternatives are available?”
Let me give you an example of what I’m trying to get at. I don’t want to hear about how other places have implemented this type of legislation, I know that… that information is everywhere. I want to know if there are any other alternatives to the problem. Say… instead of banning smoking, how about we ban the selling of tobacco… or at least cigars/cigarettes. Same effect, right? Or maybe, we should implement some law that forces employers to pay it’s workers more for working in a restaraunt that allows smoking…. or maybe the city could necessitate the holding of a tobacco liscense… or possibly a special tax… You see, there are many, many alternatives to this issue. Many of which seem more productive. I don’t understand why a total smoking ban is the best issue. Now, please tell me, and please tell me why all other options are deficient.
Can we please kill the smoking ban issue? (No pun intended)
Seriously. It’s lame. I hate smoke and how it smells. I hate worse, however, these people who constantly talk about it.
Don’t we actually have some important issues to discuss? What about all the homeless people in Omaha who were displaced by Reagan’s cuts to mental health services? What about the kids in Omaha who go to bed at night hungry, and will go to bed hungry tomorrow night too? Would you like to be that seven year old boy? What about the young people who are in gangs who can’t leave because it’s their only way to survive? What about the mothers who want better jobs, but can’t break the cycle of poverty?
Seriously, is the smoking ban all that important?
Let’s quit playing political games and start finding real solutions to problems that don’t necessarily directly affect those of us sitting in nice warm houses typing on our computers.
Chris, I couldn’t agree with you more: There are indeed many issues that should be given priority over some “smoking ban” issue. But please don’t tell me that this is a non-issue and/or discourage people from addressing it. Smoking and second-hand smoke affect people everyday in ways that are hazardous and even deadly to one’s health; this is as much an issue as Social Security, Medicaid, etc. People are constantly affected; I’d say people are far more often affected by smoking than, say, homelessness. However, this is not to belittle the monster of poverty and hunger; I am simply defending the significance of such issues as the smoking ban. Thank you for your insight, but we also must be honest with ourselves. Politics can do very little to solve the problem of hunger, homelessness, and poverty… politics and politicians may help, but let’s be honest, these are issues that must be addressed personally and by everyone. While I am an adamant supporter of political solutions, I do realize that politics can only do so much.
So… about that smoking ban….??
And in case we were wondering what could be more important than a smoking ban at this time. Well here is your assignment if you so choose.
Give Senator Voinovich a call at (202) 224-3353 and help him make the right decision this afternoon: “No” on Bolton.
The committee has decided to resume hearings on his nomination and recommend Bolton have a full senate vote. Shameful just shameful
Tony Costello Says: “I’d say people are far more often affected by smoking than, say, homelessness.”
HA! Not if you’re the homeless guy!
It’s too bad you don’t see that politicians can help reduce the amount of homeless Americans. Reagan increased the number - that’s a fact. Are you saying that politicians can only make that issue worse? Please. I sensible public/private plan to help American’s who are homeless would help.
Tony, it’s all about me, me, me, isn’t it? Smoking affects you. But, when you’re asleep at night, homelessness isn’t really an issue to you, because you’re in your warm bed.
Have you ever gone hungry? Slept on the streets for a few nights?
Who cares about a stupid smoking ban if we live in a society that basically ignores those who hurt.
How dare you say “politics can do very little to solve a problem like hunger…” What good is our political system if we cannot help people?
This is the kind of attitude that is very damaging to our society. Do you even wonder why 20% of the people voted in the election on Tuesday?
So…about that smoking ban…??? I think I’m going to take up smoking.
Chris, let me explain what I’m saying in clear words that you might understand: POLITICS/POLITICIANS/POLITICKING WILL NOT SOLVE POVERTY, HUNGER, OR HOMELESSNESS. However, it CAN HELP. can HELP. If you really want to do something to help the poor, then, yes, your right, get up off your ass and do it. Hey and give me a call, I’d be more than happy to help. In fact, I’m sure there are more than enough people, right here on this board that’ll help us solve poverty… oh wait… no there won’t be because poverty is going to last as long as you, or I, or any of our childrens’ childrens’ childrens’ etc, children live. It’s not going away for a long, long time. It sounds harsh, and it’s a horrible realization, but it’s true. All we can do is help. So please, set up a forum… hell, I’ll do it for you, and we can discuss these types of issues, and we can get out there and volunteer and empower these people… but let me tell you now, we MIGHT only make a dimple of a difference. Now, if YOU are still dedicated to this (well regardless, because I’ve already decided to make this my life’s devotion), then I’m in. My one stipulation is that you become a multi-faceted individual and realize that while monster issues loom over our shoulders everyday, we can still address the smaller, “insignificant” ones as well. Thanks.
And I’m sorry if I came off harsh, Chris… it’s simply my belief, a belief grounding in an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence, that poverty is more of a social problem than it is an economic or political problem.
A quick quip: A smoking ban is viable because it keeps the smoke away from the public while still allowing smokers the “right” to light up in their homes or cars where it doesn’t affect the public at large. Banning tobacco would force thousands of farmers out of business, and cause a significant revenue shortfall for the government which collects taxes on such products. It would also force the product underground, where it could not be regulated and thus, less safe. (Similar arguements can be made for the legalization of marijuhana.)
Sure, there are other viable alternatives such as permits, increased fees, etc., but they are less politically expedient and still wouldn’t solve the problem that the health hazard poses to the general public. A ban, for the aforementioned reasons above, is the best solution, and fairest compromise (smokers can still smoke while the public can breathe clean air.)