A Lifestyle So Good, Its Mandatory - brilliant takedown of CA anti-vaping lunacy
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
While I may seriously disagree with CA govt. attitudes about vaping (as well as those of other state govts.), I was struck by fact that the report seemed much more an attack on liberal, progressive and CA politics (as characterized by a conservative writer), than it was a defense of vaping.
In this case, it seems to me that vaping was little more than a vehicle for political, partisan framing of the opposition.
In this case, it seems to me that vaping was little more than a vehicle for political, partisan framing of the opposition.
And they did it quite well.
"Progressivism, especially in its well-heeled coastal expressions, is not a philosophy — it’s a lifestyle. Specifically, it is a brand of conspicuous consumption, which in a land of plenty such as ours as often as not takes the form of conspicuous non-consumption: no gluten, no bleached flour, no Budweiser, no Walmart, no SUVs, no Toby Keith, etc. The people who set the cultural tone in places such as Berkeley, Seattle, or Austin would no more be caught vaping than they would slurping down a Shamrock Shake at McDonald’s — and they conclude without thinking that, therefore, neither should anybody else. The wise man understands that there’s a reason that Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors; the lifestyle progressive in Park Slope shudders in horror at the refined sugar in all of them, and seeks to have them restricted."
While you may look at it as an attack on liberal/progressivism, progressivism leads the attack on ecigs and it should be so pointed out as it gets to the why of it, rather than the how. Stopping the 'why' stops the 'how'. Trying to stop the 'how' in every state, locality and federally is a continual job of defending... it still should be done, but attacking the source of it, imo, is more important or at least bringing the source of our problems to light, so more can see what's happening and why, rather than being outraged and baffled at every attempt to demonize and then regulate vaping out of business.
No.
The only thing they did quite well with is hyperbolic expression serving their extreme partisan agenda of vilification of all things and people "liberal" and further propagandizing the characterization of all that fails to meet their definition of "proper conservatism."
As said, vaping was merely a convenient vehicle for the writer and magazine's purpose.
How many states whose legislative bodies are Republican and conservative controlled have enacted and proposed uninformed, politically motivated and ridiculously harsh regulations and bans on vaping? More than enough to belie the suggestion of liberal and/or progressive exclusivity in the active opposition of vaping.
This article is simply an obvious salvo in a bitter political battle to win support away from the opposition by presenting themselves as more for the "People" than the other side.
The only thing this article has to do with vapers is to use us as easily employed pawns for purposes other than our benefit.
Response offered with respect.
I'm inclined to agree with you, Augmented Dog. However, it is the greedy, nanny-statist, progressivist agenda that lead to ALL the anti-vaping movement, so I'll happily watch it being ridiculed by any means necessary.
blah blah blah blah blah.....
Well written article about the "Nanny State" of mind.
It takes a Village to raise an idiot.
Well written article about the "Nanny State" of mind.
It takes a Village to raise an idiot.
I think it's more than that but you get the same characterizing of conservatives in New Republic - that's expected. As far as the Republicans at the state and local levels - few if any at the federal level - the ones at state/local are what some call the 'establishment-type' Republicans and are not the conservatives or esp. not the libertarian or libertarian leaning types. These are 'the body is a temple' traditionalist where anything other than breathing air is offensive to their sensibilities. They didn't like rock and roll either and they are strains of them in both major parties, but mainly Republicans. They're akin to their 'progressives' counterparts in that they both 'know what's best for us' but from different viewpoints which would be an outside matter to discuss.
That said, the majority who are pushing for regulations beyond sale to minors and safety caps (many of the local statutes pushed by Republicans are in that category - and it was Democrats at the state and local level who wanted 'more' than that), are liberal/progressive types - all the Senators of the famed 'letter' to the FDA were and all the Senators at the hearings we've seen, along with Represenatives Waxman, Markey at the time and other Dems pushing for the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in 2009 (8 dems voting 'no', 104 republicans voting 'no') with a progressive president signing it - all asking for much more than minor sales regulations.
Look, I'm as liberal as they come, and I'm sold on vaping. But, you will never sell my progressive friends by trashing progressives.
Telling who, mainly, esp. at the federal level, is pushing the anti-ecig legislation and regulation isn't trashing anyone. It's just a fact. And it isn't a 'sale' either. People should be able to buy what they want. If progressives like ecigs, I don't have a problem with that. If they want to stop the sale of ecigs, that's where the problem lies.
It's not the who, it's the general tone of anyone who believes stretching is good for you(yoga) and SUV's aren't necessary for single people who never transport anything bigger than a briefcase, is a progressive wacko that makes the article less than ideal.
It's the who as far as legislation/regulation goes and like I said, there are some Republicans in there as well, but a fraction of the majority. I don't really care what people think about those other things, as long as they don't try to make laws about them
It's the who as far as legislation/regulation goes and like I said, there are some Republicans in there as well, but a fraction of the majority. I don't really care what people think about those other things, as long as they don't try to make laws about them
My point was, alienating readers before you actually make your point is ineffectual, unless you only want to "preach to the choir."
I would be more inclined to share an article about nanny state politicians if it weren't likely to offend at least half of the people I would be sharing it with.
Well, National Review is a 'conservative' mag, like New Republic, a liberal mag, Reason, libertarian so they are all 'preaching to the choir' mostly. Although at one point I had subscriptions to all of them and a few more 'Guardian', 'Nation', 'Liberty' - that's quite an 'education' in itself. I found some of the best counter arguments WITHIN those mags lol. Some New Republic writers crucified Clinton, same with National Review on Bush. So they aren't so concerned as some media outlets would be on 'offending' half their readers since those who would be offended are not really half their readership.
That aside, pointing out who are the ANTZ and their cohorts is valuable information.
I like reading the first three publications you mentioned, and I agree that the point/counter point on many of the topics are great reading. Lately, my favorite thing to do is wait about a day after a story breaks on Reason, then go read the 100 or so comments and the debates within them. Some really good points are brought up, and mostly in a civil and intelligent manner. Good stuff.
I do not argue the "nanny-statist" influence on anti-vaping agendas. I do, however, also argue that the term "progressive" has been redefined and perverted to something antithetical to its original socio-political and philosophical roots and meaning.
Politicians are not the keepers of any faith, but the thieves who co-opt legitimate ideals and bend them to serve their own self-interests.
This is true of all political parties.
Isn't it?!!
Those closest know how best to hit 
Plus they know the in-fighting better than the 'other side'. It was one thing that stood out and surprised me at first. I figured you for going deeper than Media Matters. Liberty mag and Reason came down hard on Harry Browne when he was the Libertarian candidate a while back. I saw Nick Gillespie (who wrote the piece for Reason) at a party in LA and chided him a bit on it. lol. Free Republic tears down Republican candidates on a daily basis.... then votes for them at election 
The 'socio-political' and philosophical roots' to progressivism are quite clear to anyone who has studied history. If anything, Hillary, attempting to distance herself from the 'liberal' tag, preferring 'progressive' in the primaries, did progressivism a disservice, by bringing it's roots into the open. What hurt progressivism was people reading what Woodrow Wilson wrote about the Constitution and what other progressives wrote on eugenics, gov't schools, anti-market and socialist policies, etc. etc. Won't go further than that but if progressivism is 'misunderstood', it's by the people that call themselves progressives today without knowing the full history.
Sometimes I do, and and sometimes I don't.
However, I always find the exchange of ideas appealing, especially if I don't always understand the nuances of the topic, because that's how I learn. Ideas, not idealism, but that's just me.- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
