Friday, 11 January 2008

The Imperial Abramson and the Cowardly Republicans

The smoking ban is back in place in Louisville. Once again people using a legal product are being discriminated against. The sad thing is there was an actual attempt at compromise on this issue. One that would have accommodated both sides on the issue.

The compromise allowed for a establishments to have a separate smoking room as long as they had a separate ventilation system. This is a good compromise. Any room with a good ventilation system will dissipate lingering smoke. The separation of the ventilation would keep smoke from making its way to the non-smoking side of the place.

Heck I used to go the cigar bar in Lexington when I lived there and before they banned smoking. They had a ventilation system that was fantastic. There would be a dozen other people in their including myself smoking cigars and there was zero smoke in the air. There was not a lingering smoke smell. The reality is a good ventilation system and a separate room would solve the problem.

Unfortunately, dictator for life Abramson said he would veto the common sense compromise. His toadies in the council relented and passed what he wanted.

What really irks me is that only two Republicans voted against the measure. How could they be so cowardly to not stand against the anti-smoking bigots. What about the freedoms of their constituents and small business owners. The best quote came from Cheri Bryant Hamilton, D-5th, who voted "present".

"This is a difficult issue, but there should have been some attempt at compromise," Hamilton said. "It gets to the point that people are not just trying to protect nonsmokers, they're trying to protect anti-smokers."

I want to thank Peden and Hawkins for voting against the ban. At least we have a couple of Republicans on the council with a spine.

The most hypocritical quote in the debate came from Rev Charles Kirby.

The Rev. Charles Kirby, pastor of the Southern Star Missionary Baptist Church on Algonquin Parkway and a former smoker, told the council that he lost half of his left lung in 2006 to cancer.

"My question is: Are we more concerned about money or life?" Kirby asked, referring to business owners' claims that they lost between 12 percent and 50 percent of their profits during the six months the ban was in effect.

"I'm hoping the council will be more concerned about saving lives."

Give me a break. It isn't his money that is being effected by the law. I bet if the metro council passed a law that caused his church's collections to drop 50 percent, he would be the first one calling the council anti-religious zealots.

Posted by brians at 6:36 PM in Louisville Politics

Voter ID Laws In Indiana

Our neighbors to the north of us passed a state law back in 1995 that required voters to show a picture ID before they could pull the lever in an election. Of course the Democrats freaked out and filed a lawsuit to throw out the law. The judge in the case did the sensible thing and ruled that the law was constitutional.

The Democrats have appealed the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court which heard arguments in the case yesterday. Fortunately by the types of questions asked it looks like the Supreme Court will uphold the law.

But I am trying to figure out why the Dems are so panicked about this law in the first place.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, thinks so.

"This case underscores the lengths to which Republicans will go to manufacture a problem based on fear, not facts," he said in a statement after the arguments. "Undemocratic voter ID laws are just another part of a broad Republican effort to undermine our fundamental right to vote."

Undemocratic voter id laws? What the hell is he talking about. They claim the law adversely effects indigent people and the poor. I am at a complete loss how that is. Let me get this straight. These "disenfranchised" voters went somewhere to register to vote. They know what day to vote, where there polling location is, and have means to travel to the polls. But they can't on any of the other 364 days of the year go to a local government agency and get a photo ID.

I am hard pressed to believe the requirement is a horrible burden to place on a citizen. Especially when we are talking about the sanctity of elections. The only reason I can think that the Democrats want to refuse identification requirements is so they can cheat. How else can you get illegal aliens and dead people to vote in elections? It is considerably more difficult to stuff the ballot box if you have to produce a photo ID for everyone that votes.

Posted by brians at 3:59 PM in National Politics