Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Nov. 29, 2006 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
126 Comments
Do smoking bans make sense? Should the state pass a state-wide smoking ban as other states have? Should there be any exemptions?
I like my personal freedoms.However living in a state that has a ban on smoking indoors in all public places, it is actually nice to leave a bar or restaurant and not have your clothes stink like smoke.
Nanny State, is that what we want? How does one justify turning personal preferences (Don’t like my clothes to stink), into some kind of right to impose on someone elses freedom? If you don’t like smoke in a bar/restaruant DON’T GO TO PLACES THAT ALLOW IT! If enough people feel as you do, all business owners will adjust to meet the demand.I don’t like old women who wear to much perfume (makes my clothes stink), I think they should be banned from public places.
I think your idea makes sense only if smoking is the main attraction. For instance, if a bar wanted to call itself a “smoking bar,” where you’re free to smoke, that’s fine.
The trouble with your characterization of “the nanny state” is that we don’t live in a vacuum. Our actions have impact on others and vice versa.
Let’s say your company wants to have a Christmas party at a nearby bar and you have asthma. You won’t be able to go.
Or let’s say you want a job as a flight attendant and smoking is allowed on airplanes. You’re going to be smoking a pack a day whether you want to or not.
It’s not a “nanny state” to protect people from harm.
Sanford,Perfectly said. I agree 100%. And I’m a militant non-smoker.
I do NOT believe the government should tell us how to operate our businesses. That includes who to hire, how much to pay, how much to charge, etc.
Let the market equilibrium dictate those issues.
I will mis-spell the name but it is Felipe’s Jr. I love the food and to me it is the best Mexican restaurant in the area. I live east of Wichita and it is the closest of the two restaurant for me. Some years ago and I did not realize till I went there again. Jr. went smoke free, now because my wife does not smoke and prefers to set in the non-smoking section. I would hold off smoking till after I had eaten. Going outside and away from the doors. But once they went smoke free I quit going and waited till we had to go to West Wichita to go to one of my favorite Mexican restaurant on principal. A public place of business should cater to all the public not just a select few.
Then a couple of months back we were hungry and both agreed that Felipe’s sounded good. I learned that Jr’s is now allowing smoking in their restaurant. I am not sure who was more surprised the waiter or the couple setting next to us. When I said I had quit coming to their restaurant when they choose to ban smoking! Yes I do see it as a personal rights issue, though I had not been smoking in the restaurant for some time. It was still the principal of the thing that was worth standing up for, they had a fine smoking area and was well ventilated. Cowing down to a select few that wish to impose their will on the many is wrong.
Dog,I completely disagree.
The owner of any business has the right to operate his business any way he sees fit. It has ZERO to do with “cowing down” to anyone and even LESS than zero to do with personal rights.
He OWNS the place. If he wishes to choose not to serve you because you look goofy, or you’re sloppy, or you smell bad – that’s his right. Same thing with smoking.
Now, maybe Felipe tested the market and decided that he lost customers because of the no smoking policy – and then decided to change. GREAT! It’s his business (read again: HE OWNS THE PLACE). He can operate his restaurant any way he wants.
If you don’t like it – then exercise your freedom of choice and go elsewhere – as you did.
Besides, Chico’s is better than Felipe’s anyway.
Hank
KSGolf–
For instance, if your name is say Ian and you hate non-whites, you should be able to keep “those people” out of your business, right?
Discrimination against others is an American “right” according to CONservatives.
Or let’s say an employee comes to work with a Kerry sticker on her car bumper.
It’s your parking lot. You OWN it.
You tell her to take the bumper sticker off or she’s fired.
Freedom of speech belongs to the man who OWNS it, right, GolfNut?
I’m “moving” this particular responsive post from the Spirit thread, as it is, IMHO, not related to the thread topic.
CapnAmerica points out that many of the country’s high level educational institutions do not have well-known athletic programs. I would point out that the institutions he names, by and large, compete in NCAA Division III. Simply stated, D-3 schools do not offer, under NCAA rules, athletic scholarships; rather, the students who participate in athletics at these institutions are those who are otherwise academically qualified for admission (as a generality) and choose to play as an extracurricular activity.
One example he cites is the University of Chicago. Its situation is interesting; in the early days of college football, Chicago was a true powerhouse, ranking up there with Notre Dame, etc. However, at some point in the 1930s, the University determined that athletics was detracting from the mission of the University; and, IIRC, totally dropped its football program. It (U Chicago) only recently restarted football, this time at the D-3 level.
As Capn says, a matter of priorities.
Why would I hire anyone so stupid as to put a ‘Kerry’ sticker on their car in the first place?
Hank
Don’t worry, Hank. Nobody with a Kerry sticker would be stupid enough to work for you.
An interesting comparison of Bushism and Nazism.
http://www.slate.com/id/2154567/nav/tap1/
People with Kerry stickers are in the line where they are handing out free stuff. Like welfare checks.
If a vagrant came into your favorite restaurant while you were dining, smelling of stale beer and old farts, would you welcome him to your table? If he sat next to you and shared his aroma with your table, would you leave?
As a business owner, my #1 goal is to make money – money that can sustain me as the owner, money that can allow me to continue the business (and the jobs of my employees), and money that can enable me to grow the business as I see fit.
It makes very little sense to make decisions or implement strategy that runs counter to the above goal of making money. I want to facilitate and accommodate as many customers as possible. I also want to retain and develop good employees while reducing poor employees.
If I decide to serve only white folks in my restaurant, I’m only hurting myself and my business – and I’m implementing strategy that conflicts my goal. No smart businessman will do that.
In fact, any business owner that DOES implement strategy that compromises the goal – will eventually be no longer in business. It’s very Darwinian. And that’s just exactly how it should be. No governement action necessary.
Market forces are incredibly powerful.
sol-One would have to go to the management first to get the (chances are) Democrat thrown out. If management refused, then one would have to leave and not go back. If enough people don’t go back to a place, that place closes. The market rules.
fleetwood,would te manager have the right to remove the vagrant? Isn’t it his “right” to be there if he can afford te bill? Even if he is offensive to others?
“This establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone”
Its not anyone’s right to enter any public building they wish. I work for a company that uses key card access. Is that infringing on someone’s rights that they not be afforded the chance to enter?
Isn’t it infringing on rights to have a dress code?
Damn it this is America. If you own a business you should run it as you see fit. If you have an employee you just don’t like, you should be able to fire him/her. Be it for a Bush OR Kerry sticker.
No one has a “right” to something that belongs to someone else. The job is mine, as a business owner. It is not yours because I hired you. While you are working fr me, I own your time, not the other way around.
Don’t tell that to the folks at Denny’s that got sued for throwing out a couple of black guys.
Eww somebody turned over a rock. Fleeetlick and GOlfnuts crawled out.
Don’t worry boys I imagine folks lose their appetites around you.
How about Unions? I just love to talk about unions. anyone?
But Sol, the Denny’s matter involved an alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
What a good littel TOADIE you are sol.
“While you are working for me I own your time.”
Not hardly.
I think it was called Sambo’s before it was called Denny’s.
jr-That is the way it is. If you don’t like it, go commission or contract.
Further amplification on response to Capn from a post on the Spirit thread:
Other Universities identified are members of the Ivy League, which has a rule that no athletic scholarships be given. This obviously impacts the Ivy League’s ability to compete at the Division I level (but maybe not as much as it might appear).
Stanford, also identified by Capn, does offer athletic scholarships; and, over time and from time to time, has had successful basketball (IIRC, won the first NCAA tournament) and football programs; Stanford’s “strength”, however, has been in the so-called minor sports, e.g., tennis, golf; their women’s bball program has been very successful, not to mention in volleyball.
Capn didn’t mention Duke; again, not successful across the board; but very successful, at least recently, in men’s basketball; their football program isn’t too good, although there have been isolated years; I think KU ought to look to scheduling Duke for football (along with N. Carolina, not a football power).
JR,Lets assume you work for Mr. R. If Mr. R tells you to accomplish “x” and you don’t, you stand to be fired. While you are working for Mr. R, he (or his subordinates) dictates how you spend your day. If you don’t adhere, you are subject to termination.
How is that not owning your time while you are at work?
Vaughn,
Thanks for the informative posts about sports vs academics.
I have to part company with you on Duke though. Duke is not an Ivy as you are no doubt aware, but strangly a lot of people think it is.
It has this strangely high academic reputation — seems like everybody wants to get their kid into Duke.
It’s just a big state school, really. A top-drawer state school like the U of Michigan is probably more academically rigorous.
And do THEY have a football machine or what!
Ben Huie
FYI
http://energy.seekingalpha.com/article/20136
http://energy.seekingalpha.com/article/19548
It’s a darned good thing Chicago dropped football when it did, because if they hadn’t, either Enrico Fermi wouldn’t have been able to discover chain reactions, or else the football players and male fans would have gotten toasted testicles.
Capn, if I said Duke was an Ivy, I misspoke; Duke is a relatively small, private university in North Carolina, founded by the Methodist Church; it gives athletic schollies, too, but seems to insist that its scholarship athletes meet its academic requirements. Its admission “requirements” make it one of the most difficult schools for admission going (although this comment will likely draw a great deal of “flack” from alums and current students of other fine institutions).
Now, UM; great school, great football.
Is there any legal activity that a person is entitled to engage in whenever and wherever he pleases? I can’t think of one. Why should smoking be any different?
Every activity has restrictions. The nature of those restrictions depends on the nature of the activity. For smokers to claim victimhood for having their hobby regulated is bogus.
Looks like Frist won’t be running for President in 2008. One idiot down and many more to go.
“Is there any legal activity that a person is entitled to engage in whenever and wherever he pleases?”
Mark,
You’re talking about what’s done in public. If I want to stand on my head, naked, in my own home, while watching Rush and O’Reilly, that’s my right. I can’t be banned from restaurants or fired from my job, as long as I’m not doing it in public places.
I usually don’t post whole editorials, but this one, about the Kramer fiasco, is great:
“So, are we good? I assume race relations are back on track in this country now that a seemingly remorseful Michael Richards has embarked on his mea culpa tour. I’m sorry, but the “Seinfeld” co-star needs to stop saying he’s sorry.
First, there was Richards’ lame appearance on the “Late Show with David Letterman,” a relatively friendly venue where the actor-comedian bungled his first attempt to apologize to “Afro-Americans” for his vile and racist Nov. 17 meltdown at a Los Angeles comedy club.
Now, Richards has apologized to the nearly 40 million African-Americans in the United States by offering his regrets to the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
What a surprise. You just knew these two grievance brokers would find a way to profit from Richards’ misfortune. That’s become part of the deal whenever these racial or ethnic incidents happen in America. You step in it, and some self-serving organization or self-appointed leader will be there to help you out of it ‚Äì for a price or a little cheap publicity.
It’s bad enough that Richards stepped over the line by peppering African-American audience members with machine-gun rounds of ugly, condescending, N-word-filled expletives that just happened to be recorded by someone with a video cell phone.
But now the racial opportunists have rushed in to milk this episode for all it’s worth. The first to cash in was Jackson, who made a grab for ratings when he quickly invited Richards onto his radio show. Once on the air, Richards assured Jackson’s listeners that he was just “shattered” by the whole ugly episode.
Jackson, who had previously said that Richards was “dangerous” and in need of “psychiatric help,” then seized on the incident to advance one of his pet causes ‚Äì increasing the number of minority-themed (read: black) shows and minority (read: black) media talent to the airwaves that, Jackson claims, are “all day, all night, all white.”
I’m not about to argue that media companies and television networks couldn’t do a better job of putting forth images that more accurately reflect America. But what in the world does that have to do with Richards’ outburst? Are we expected to believe that the reason Richards exploded on stage was because he hasn’t been exposed to enough African-Americans in the media? Or that putting more African-Americans and Latinos on television would put an end to racism?
And, of course, Jackson and Co. aren’t the only ones trying to get mileage out of the meltdown. The two men who were insulted ‚Äì Frank McBride and Kyle Doss ‚Äì want a personal apology from Richards, and possibly a cash settlement.
Another surprise. I heard the “cha-ching” of the cash register the minute I saw that McBride and Doss had retained headline-grabbing Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred, who has built a franchise out of profiting from scandal. Allred wants Richards to meet with McBride and Doss in front of a neutral mediator, perhaps a retired judge, who could then decide whether any financial compensation was in order for pain and suffering.
You want pain and suffering? What about the rest of us who have had to suffer through this story day after day – along with the unflattering portrait it paints of elements of our society?
There’s only one silver lining to it all, and it is that African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities have been vindicated in their claims that racism and ethnocentrism are alive and well in America. We weren’t imagining it, or being overly sensitive, or peddling political correctness.
I can’t speak for African-Americans. But I’d bet that what they’d consider more valuable than an apology is a simple acknowledgment that racism is real and that race relations in this country are not always as sunny and optimistic as some would like to believe.
What Richards did was unprofessional and unforgivable, and his career – such that it was – ought to be over. But, meanwhile, a larger debate about free speech is just beginning.
Jackson and other African-American leaders say they’re going to pressure the entertainment industry ‚Äì including black rappers ‚Äì to quit using the ugly racial epithet.
Already, Jaime Masada, the owner of the comedy club where Richards launched into his rant, says he plans to ban the N-word from future acts that perform there.
Imagine that. What would the late Richard Pryor say about the new policy? And could we even print it in a family newspaper.”
Navarrette can be reached via e-mail atruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.
VT,
Stanford DOES NOT offer athletic scholarships. My hs senior class president played football there. He was runner-up for the PAC-8 freshman player of the year, back when Division I schools had freshman teams. Unfortunately he sustained a football-ending injury in sophomore year. But he went on to graduate, because all Stanford scholarships are academic/need-based, and he did not lose his scholarship because he was able to get through difficult Stanford classes.
In contrast, my wife’s cousin DID HAVE an athletic scholarship at CU-Boulder. He too suffered a career-ending injury. Goodbye athletic scholarship. Goodbye university degree dreams.
Stanford is doing poorly in football this year, because it still has an academic/need-based scholarship program for athletes, but the scholarship-eligibility standards have been raised, and Stanford can no longer offer scholarships to superb athletes who don’t have the intellectual ability, even with intensive personal tutoring, to succeed in the classroom.
I think I read that academic/need-based scholarships are also used in the Ivy League– Dartmouth v. KU last night would suggest this to be the likely case.
Yeah, banning the “n” word. Heard about that. If they truly do want it banned, they need to start with the most prolific source ‚Äì rap music. Let’s see if they fall in line. Take any bets?
heart, the Ivies do offer need-based financial aid; no question, there; in fact, traditionally, that is the only kind of financial aid offered by the Ivies. I am aware of a big debate within Ivy League institutions about offering other than need-based aid; I believe either Yale or Princeton is forcing the issue.
As to Stanford: there is a young man of my acquaintance attending there on a “golf” scholarship; there is no doubt that he is also academically qualified as well, but according to his mother, the schollie is “athletic”. Maybe she’s confused?
As to your comments about athletic scholarships (CU example): many folks are not aware that an athletic scholarship is annual, renewable by the coach. It can be withdrawn for any reason; ask some of the “jocks for hire” during the Randy Smithson era at WSU. The rationale for this, I am told, is that all college scholarships are annually renewable, that is, the recipient must attain/keep a certain GPA, e.g; thus, athletic schollies are no different. Of course, the major difference is the lack of objective criteria for athletic schollies, while recipients of academic schollies know what is needed to have their’s renewed. Need based aid also is annual in its determination, based upon family income for the prior year plus projected income for the upcoming year. As may be apparent, I have a bit of experience with the whole area, given our two daughters and their choices of colleges; the FAFSA and I are friends.
A city-wide or state-wide smoking ban is patently ridiculous. I smoke. I know it’s not good for me. It’s a matter of choice. On a business by business basis, each establishment has the right to allow or disallow smoking in some or all areas. I, on the other hand, have the right to patronize or not patronize these businesses. I do think, however, the local hospitals that have gone smoke free anywhere on the property have overstepped the guidelines of reasonable sanity. If you have to go to the hospital, you have to go to the hospital, period. Their ventilated isolated smoking areas worked just fine in the past. I’m not advocating smoking “carte blanche” as was once the case in hospitals.
Smoking is still a perfectly legal activity. The Liberals like the tax income, which is huge, from the sale of tobacco products, and the Gore family has been sustained personally for generations from tobacco production, so I probably don’t have that much to worry about. Who knows, maybe abating all of the tobacco taxes and the Gore family divesting themselves of all tobacco interests would be a real wake-up call for those of us who do and know, healthwise, we shouldn’t, to quit. Or maybe peace on earth and hitting the lottery would do it for me … the latter is more likely!
After living in a town that banned smoking in all public places about three years ago it is wonderful.Lawrence,Kansas.
Business is booming as always. A couple of non smoking lady friends who opposed the idea have since changed their minds. They love dancing all night in a smoke free environment. Smokers hang around outside where provided and others step outside for a smoke break. Many rental properties have gone smoke free and tenants step outside.
Face it cancer is a long,painful and expensive ordeal even for the loved ones who watch and care.
OK, I would like to comment on the non-smoking issue. As a cancer survivor who lived with a smoker for 22 years I feel that he contributed to my cancer. He was my father so I didn’t really have a choice in the matter. If you want to kill yourself with those nasty things go ahead but don’t put me, my children and grandchildren in a situation that could harm them. It’s not a matter of where I don’t want my clothes to stink I want my lungs to be pink. Smoking is an addiction that will probably kill you but don’t take me with you.
VT,
A student one year ahead of me was recruited for his golf talent–he was a student body officer, and had a decent SAT and GPA, but without his golf skills, he wouldn’t have been admitted. Tiger Woods got a Stanford scholarship because he was a phenomenal high school golfer. But if he had become physically disabled, say in an auto accident, or if he had said, “My back is killing me, I really can’t play anymore,” his scholarship wouldn’t have been cancelled, and this is because Stanford has never offered athletic scholarships per se, i.e. you have to perform in the sport for which you were recruited to receive ongoing scholarship support. A lot of high school students recruited to play sports by Stanford don’t pan out.
For example more basketball players are recruited than eventually make the 11-man roster. This statistical actuality is known by Stanford coaches and the admissions office. The admits don’t lose their scholarships when they are cut from the team. Stanford takes a chance on them in recruitment, and if some recruits don’t pan out on the court, they still get an education at the university’s expense, as long as they can hold up their end in the classroom, and they get continuing help to make it possible for them to graduate.
OK, there are politicians who would like to ban smoking for one reason or another. I don’t smoke and don’t appreciate those who smoke around me. Don’t make a federal case out of it though.
There is a sin tax; the tax on tobacco and alcohol. How about a tax incentive to make your establishment smoke free? If you allow smoking in your establishment, your property taxes go up by x%. That would kind of tie in with the sin tax already in place.
Now, no one’s rights have been infringed upon any more than paying the extra 3 or 4 dollars for a pack of smokes. That would increase tax revenue and get the “Get Healthy” message out for the politicians. Everybody happy?
As all of you know, I have a son with autism. Because of his disability, he often acts out in public. His behavior is a LOT better as he gets older, at one time we couldn’t even step foot into a restaurant.
But alas, it’s a journey, one where he has to be in a situation to learn how to deal with it. So occasionally we would end up taking him to restaurants anyway, usually for special family events.
Since it’s the restaurant owner’s right to do what he wants, would it be ok to kick out my son for acting up and disturbing other guests? Assuming my son has the right to be anywhere, and if others don’t like it, too bad. I live with it 24-7, I think others can deal with it for one 30 minute meal.
———————–
The whole anti-smoking thing has become just a big bandwagon to treat smokers as if they’re aliens on this planet. I don’t care if I have to go to a special room to smoke. I respect that, but these ordinances don’t even allow for that to happen in many cases. Non smokers are being overly aggressive in their efforts. If it were deemed more fair, I think there would be more cooperation. There are PLENTY of non smoking restaurants to choose from. So give it a rest already.
heart, sounds like Stanford uses the D-III model, which I believe ought to be the rule totally within all NCAA athletics.
Sol — Smoking is a “sin”? Right up there alongside “breast feeding in public”, I suppose.
Cigarettes are already $4-$5/pack. Tax abatement incentives? Now there’s a new oxymoron. Believe me, the pols have little incentive for tax abatements. Their only incentive is to take as much of our money as they can, and then decide to do what’s “best” for us … say, build an arena.
On banning smoking in restaurants, the “free enterprise” argument doesn’t hold. Restaurants are already required to meet public-health standards to protect patrons. Employee hand-washing after using the lu is required. Refrigeration of meat and other pathogenic-bacterial-growth-supporting food is required. Cockroach, fly and rodent infestation is not allowed.
Smoking by some patrons affects the health of workers–whose ultimate healthcare costs are often born by others than the restaurateurs.
Are SolDevVB and KSgolfnut saying, “We don’t need no stinkin county inspectors. If we want cockroaches in the food (which I had the disgusting opportunity to experience in another state) or rats munching on the food, or sh*ting in it, let the free market decide?”
Secondhand smoke has been so blown out of proportion- even John Stossel says “give me a break”. The only people it TRULY affects are those with severe asthma and cystic fibrosis. The rest of the population can get over themselves. You’ll likely die of heart disease if you eat a big mac everyday too. But once in awhile, being exposed isn’t going to hurt you at all. If you live with it, ok maybe, but I doubt it.
I was always a very conscientious smoker anyway but this is just getting ridiculous enough to cause me to get un-conscientious about it.
Amazing how it takes usually about 40 years for a smoker to really get sick from it, but all these others are just DYING from secondhand smoke. Remember a smoker ALSO breathes in secondhand smoke on TOP of what he’s directly smoking.
My favorite before going into those non-smoking restaurants now. I make sure to smoke a lot, in cold weather that smell really sticks to ya good. SO when I come in and park it in the booth next to you, I don’t wanna hear any complaints, because would rather be sitting in a smoking section anyway.
I grew up in a smoking family. My observation was, the vast majority of smokers smoke before and after, but not during dining. So how about having sequestered (effective smoke-removal systems areas) bar and cocktail areas, and smoke-free dining areas?
Rm,I didn’t coin the phrase sin tax nor did I assign it to smoking or drinking. Go bark up someone else’s tree on that one. The taxes already exist. No one seems to mind as there is no movement on ballads to remove it and smokers and drinkers keep paying it.
Heart,No where did I post that restaurants should not follow safety and health guidelines. I said that the owners should be free to hire and fire at will and serve reject service at will.
Y’all get your stuff straight before you jump on someone.
*Ballots
Vaughn, the thing is a lot of D-I programs are actually pro programs, except the athletes can’t be paid. It’s mass entertainment, and it generates big, big bucks. Heck, I watched the USC-Notre Dame game, and the Ohio State-Michigan game the week before, and I didn’t even attend any of those schools. I watched the KU-Florida basketball nail-biter, and I’m not an alumnus of either of those schools. My school will assuredly go to a bowl game, with a 9-3 record (probably the Magic Bowl ;-) ) and I’ll watch that, but I’ll also watch the BCS games, as will tens of millions of Americans. Do we care if half the contending athletes don’t graduate? Do we care if most Div IA players never make a living playing as professionals? No, we Americans don’t.
I think that scholarships for athletes are reasonable, as long as colleges/universities provide full support to enable all recruits to graduate and for the great majority to become able to pursue productive careers as non-pro-athletes. These athletes have a drive to excel, and if it isn’t quite good enough to make it into the NFL, NBA or MLB, it’s still an attribute that warrants channeling and rewards.
Sol — Thank God you made that correction. I thought you were going to start singing next! (:
I do take requests !!!
HAHAAHHAHA
heart, while one might quibble with your “the athletes can’t be paid” remark in light of the extent of a “full ride” athletic scholarship. you are quite correct. I, too, enjoy watching Div IA football, and Div I basketball. I wonder, however, if the games wouldn’t be as exciting, if not at such a high level, if the whole athletic scholarship thing just went away. For example, two (?) years ago, ESPN showed a D-III basketball game that was as enjoyable to watch as many D-I games as entertainment.
The money generated from the top-level programs actually accrues to the Athletic Corporations at most schools that operate the programs themselves. While there is “folklore” that a successful athletic program indirectly benefits the school itself through larger donations by alums, there was, IIRC, a study published ca. 5 years ago that showed this was, by and large, not true.
I agree that the schools should do something to change the rules on athletic scholarships, should they be allowed to continue, so the ~99% of “student athletes” who don’t make it in the big time have a reasonable opportunity to obtain a degree. As an aside, academically, the NCAA requires only a 1.6 GPA to remain eligible; most schools require something higher to retain financial aid (non-athletic). Of course, the individual institutions may impose stiffer requirements for eligibility; most do not.
I recommend that the number of scholarships be tied directly to the number of student athletes who graduate. Sure, there are a thousand ways to tamper with the program, but at least the schools would give more that just lip service to education.
I detest Bobby Knight, but a high percentage of his players graduate.
Dennis, the NCAA has instituted a scholarship reduction program tied into graduation rates. The details are not at hand, but I am aware this was an issue when KSU hired Bob Huggins, given the low to no graduation rate at Cincinnati.
Cool. Hope it works. The kids are getting screwed the way it is now.
Smokers are the minority and the smoke travels which is annoying and not healthy. Non smoking sections are a joke. Why should smokers rule vs non smokers? Should consumers with respiratoty problems be forced to stay home rather than socialize?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm
Sol — Thanks for taking that in exactly the way it was intended.
Dennis — Post WWII, smokers were in the majority. Thanks to the multitude of people with not enough to do but protect us from ourselves, and the government grants that fund their idiosyncracies, the numbers changed. Neither group should rule. Both groups have rights. Both should be respected. There are plenty of places already where smoking is totally banned. Your friends with respiratory problems can enjoy those places. Don’t we have the right to places where we can socialize with our friends who smoke or don’t have respiratory problems, too? Or shouldn’t we have friends? If I don’t want to socialize with any group for whatever reason, nobody is holding a gun to my head making me do it…not yet, anyway
PeeMom,”Since it’s the restaurant owner’s right to do what he wants, would it be ok to kick out my son for acting up and disturbing other guests? Assuming my son has the right to be anywhere, and if others don’t like it, too bad. I live with it 24-7, I think others can deal with it for one 30 minute meal.”
Yes, it is the right of the restaurant owner to refuse service to anyone – and to require that you leave. No reason needed. It’s not a violation of your civil rights. You (and your son) honestly have no “right” to be in his establishment.
Uh, Golf, while the owner has the right to ask PMom and son to leave, he/she better be careful if the refusal of service is based upon the racial status of the prospective diner, without more, given the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Golf: also see Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
Well said, Vaughn. Those signs, if they were required to comply with any “Truth in Advertising” statutes, should read, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone … well, sorta’, kinda’, anyway !” :)
Vaughn,Agreed completely. If the owner refuses service based on race – bad deal.
However, the facts presented above indicated that the sole issue was the disruptive child.
Discrimination against a disabled child? Making noise. Let’s see: customers don’t want to hear noise, but they can suck in noisome, toxic fumes into their lungs. That’s one of the reasons why Kansas is not attracting people, is losing House representation, and is holding onto two constitutionally prescribed senators who are bonzos. Most Kansans aren’t smokers. But they’re allowing bonzos to control them.
But, Golf, what if the child is disruptive and black? Now the restaurant owner better have damned fine and expensive counsel, because the courts are reluctant to look past the black part. He also needs to have a well documented journal, complete with available witnesses, of the many, many times in the past he has asked whites with disruptive children to leave. If not, he’s just pretty much screwed. The “black excuse”, lame as it may be, has cost a lot of people and corporations a lot of money.
Heart – PMom’s son is autistic. Can you glance across a restaurant and immediately determine whether a child is autistic? Autism is a “hidden disability” much of the time. Most disruptive kids are disruptive because their parents have poor parenting skills and refuse to disipline them.
Hate to tell you but my disabled child is also protected under that act. So you kick him out for that, you’re gonna see me in court.
But I will grant you this this…if there’s a better word than Bonzo to decribe them, I don’t know it!
rm, I’m so glad to know that SOMEONE realizes that.
You cannot look at my son and tell he has autism. Sometimes he flaps his hands and rocks, but other than that, there really is no way to tell. Most people wouldn’t be able to know. This used to be a bigger problem when he was younger, when he looked like a young child having a tantrum. Now that he’s almost 7, people get it fairly quick that something isn’t right.
PMom: I have personal experience with an autistic child. My heart goes out to you. And I appluad your acknowledgement of your son’s disease. In my case, the biological mother, a medical professional and college professor, refused to admit that he was autistic, and consequently, many opportunities for intervention were missed and gone forever. He was 11, when she finally ran out of excuses.
Incidentally, her older son, now 24 or 25, is and has been on Ritalin since he was 3. He is still living at home, doesn’t work, has a poor education, is violent, and is beyond hope. He’s a textbook sociopath. And she’s still making excuses for him.
Bless you.
pm, you’re learning really hard lessons. But love always means something, and you love your baby.
You can bring him over to our house for Christmas dinner.
Thanks rm, I have seen it over and over again. I think all parents go through some denial for awhile. We sure did…it was more back and forth. Sometimes even after diagnosis, one parent or both will refuse to acknowledge a problem. It’s actually HARDER on them, because not only do they not know how to help a child like that, they blame themselves for the behavior of the child.
But that’s not the topic at hand here.
I was saying that people should be accepting to allow a smoking room, enclosed, with good outside ventilation if that is what the owner wants to provide.
Totally agreed.
That was really sweet heartlander, thanks.
I do love my baby, like I said he’s doing much much much better. The sacrifices I made to stay home with him were all so worth it! I really didn’t know if we were going to survive those first 5 years, but things are really looking up for all of us.
We’ll be going to grandma’s for Xmas this year, but thank you very much for your generous offer. I was blessed with a good family myself and inlaws who are all very understanding and supportive.
So. Rumor has it that Pat Roberts is going to take his ball and go home from the Senate Intelligence Committee.
http://kcbuzzblog.typepad.com/kcbuzzblog/2006/11/roberts_off_int.html
Good. Even in the minority, I wouldn’t put obstructionism past him.
CF I bet the shredders are running round the clock.
KSgoofball
Wow you are some piece of work. Bashing on someone about their kids disablility? It makes me wonder if you are not behind some of the vile trolls that occasionally pop up. My kid has issues too. You wanna take a shot at me little man?
Pol mom
I know you said you are use to handling this bozo. But I’ve been with this forum a long time and so far the goofball ranks about 3rd or 4th of all the posters I’ve encountered for sheer lack of class. Save me a piece of him now and again.
PM, I remember going go Grandma’s for Christmas. Love is what matters. Email me if you want to come over some other time. God bless you, and Merry Christmas.
Nah, I wasn’t bashing anyone. The bottom line is this: any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. Doing so on the basis of race would be a big mistake.
However, if a child is being disruptive for any reason – it’s perfectly reasonable and legal for the owner to refuse service.
Yeah just like that if a business can’t accomodate a wheelchair, they get off scott free?
GNutz:
And you went to law school ….. where? If you did, you must be realllllly realllllly old by now, and foregone CLE for at least four decades.
Lots of businesses can’t accommodate wheelchairs. It’s not material to this debate.
I didn’t go to law school, rm.
Like hell it isn’t material!!! Do the letters A-D-A mean anything to you. Very slowly now, A —– D——–A ? Anything coming into mind? Any mind there?
rm, the ADA doesn’t apply to all businesses.
GNutz:
That’s fairly obvious, even to the most distracted viewer.
Besides, we’re talking about a child being disruptive in a restaurant – not wheelchairs.
Goofball clearly didn’t go to “class” anywhere.
I saw a manager ask a couple with kids to leave a restaurant once. I got up and left as well.
No, it doesn’t. Just those that have public access to anything more than a handful of people, like, say, restaurants, grocery stores — you know, places where kids can be “disruptive”??
being “disruptive” is not a disability.
Obviously we lost you quite a while ago. Being “disruptive” may very well be a significant diagnostic tool to a disability, which is covered under the A.D.A. Moreover, “disruptive” is a very subjective term. What may be “disruptive” to you, for example, may not be “disruptive” to me.
My mother is blind. Would you ban her from your business because you found blind people “disruptive” if they bumped into someone or something, or might fall and sue you because your aisles weren’t wide enough. My late father was a paraplegic. Would you ban him because he was in a wheelchair and might “disrupt” your sensibilities ? Stop playing lawyer….you lost your case some time ago, and now, you’re just “Looking up a dead horse’s ass”.
rm,I doubt I would ‘ban’ any of these people from my business. See my posts on the Spirit thread about making money.
You’re confusing what I would do vs. the law.
Are you talking the “civil disobedience” defense? You don’t agree with the law, so you don’t have to follow it. It’s only for everybody else. Hmmmm. I’m not sure but I think a continued pattern of sociopathic behavior denotes a diagnosis under HMI-5 which would be considered disabling under A.D.A. Anybody out there know for sure?
GNutz:
If you are referring to your posts in the Spirit thread a couple of days ago, regarding the bonuses, I just re-read them. I fail to see any connection between those and today’s subject. If it’s “making money is good…not making money is not so good”, then at least we have one thing we can agree on. If not, I don’t see any points of comparison. Sorry.
ehh, maybe it was another thread.
The point is, one is in business to make money. That’s the goal. Everything else is secondary.
Making money sustains the owner and ensures continued employment for the workers.
Smart (and long-term) business owners make decisions that facilitate accomplishing the goal. Only a dumb owner implement strategy that runs counter to the goal – like discriminating against anyone unless without just cause and unless it fostered the satisfaction of the goal.
And, if achieving those ends is contrary to the law, the end justifies the means ? Machievelli lives ? Surely, you’re not saying that. If a liqour store owner bootlegs out of his house on Sunday, but declares the additional income, all else is forgiven ?
Forget trying to find golf nuts’s ethics rm. He doesn’t have any. The guy is about as deep as his pocket.
If you HAVE a business golfnuts can you name it? My email is live. I’d like to make sure I never darken your door.
Yeah, JR, it’s just that I find it amazing that people who think like that could stay in business for long enough to even be a blip on the radar. If, as you suggest, there is a business ? If he doesn’t run off the customers with his attitude, then he can break the law because he doesn’t agree with it? Unless, maybe he runs an S&M parlor and doesn’t kill anybody. Maybe that’s it! :)
Maybe on South Broadway?
No, not there. The police patrols and neighborhood watch group would be too “disruptive”.
I’ve been fighting this battle with Goofytesticles for a long time before this board. The only thing that matters to him is making a buck. And don’t tell him you’ve got anything wrong with any of your families, or you’ll be ‘playing a victim’ that he’ll perpetuate till the end of time.
Just let him go rot.
PMom:
Like JR, I was hoping he would divulge his business, if there is one, so I would never mistakenly darken his doorway, too. If I had a business, and I was proud of it, I’d sure like the free advertising. And, it certainly would play right into his “making a buck no matter what” philosophy.
But, all in all, you’re right. Ignoring him is probably the only way to really piss him off.
BTW, since my cats don’t find my smoking “disruptive”, I smoke in my home. When I run out of cigarettes, I go to the store and fetch more. And, damn, it’s COLD out there.
The fact that you don’t believe the goal and don’t strive to achieve the goal…
…is why you’ll forever be an employee and never a successful business owner.
And, you people aren’t anywhere near my target market. Advertising in here would be completely non-productive.
I haven’t been an employee since summers in college. And never advertised. And haven’t starved. That was 40 years ago.
Pmom I’ve shared that I grew up with a cousin (close as siblings) that has autism.He is now in his later 40’s.He doesn’t “look” like there is anything wrong with him either.About once a year he will be in a store and the police end up being called because he is acting “strangely”.It sucks. I’m not wanting to scare you with that story, just share.
Mr. KIA:
You bet it sucks, but, thank God, for the most part, we have dedicated, educated law enforcement that recognize their duty to ensure that a person does no harm to others or him or herself. Indirectly, the people who found him acting “strangely” did precisely as they should. In many places, he could have been “shot first and questions asked later”. I’m glad he’s safe and pray no one reacts inappropriately and it leads to tragedy. Does he wear a “Med-Alert” dogtag, or whatever they call it now? If not, it would be a great holiday gift … and could save his life.
I’m not a professional…….anything. But I do consider myself a good judge of character.
My observation of those who flaunt their own wealth while pointing out the shortcomings of others(GOlfnuts) falls this way.
1 They are pretenders who have no real value of their own (they may have money but would rather not divulge how they have it) and make themselves feel better by demeaning others.
2 They are genuine assoles.
I suspect golfnuts is a bit of a mix of both.
I note how on this thread and others he gets defensive and even appeals for civility. The mark of someone cornered.
That’s a good thought RM. I don’t think he does.Luckily he lives in a pretty small community in the Bay Area where he is pretty well known these days.
Kia, I’m scared to death of him being tasered or shot. Luckily we live in a very very tiny town, and our cops know him, so at least here it’s not likely to happen.
There is supposed to be a training for police officers to help them spot a potential disability like autism instead of thinking they’re just not following orders. But the training is not a requirement, and is often not even brought up unless someone specifically asks them to.
It is also a good idea to let dispatch/fire departments know as well.
JR: A pretty damned good judge of character, I would add. A lot of drug dealers have a lot of money, and don’t want to divulge its source. (Not insinuating anything, in this case, but…?) And they are all assholes. That’s sure bet.
I see the golfnut scurried down his hole.
He’ll be back. He can’t help himself.
Good thoughts on educating folks about the disabled.
I remember a news feature some time ago. It was a “shoot or don’t shoot” police training course.
In it, one guy walks frantically toward the perspective of the responding officer. At the last second, he reaches into his back pocket…..
At this point, the reporter doing the simulation….and in fact most cops…fired their weapon.
The man was reaching for his wallet. He flashes a card that says “I am deaf and dumb.”
PMom: If it’s not a requirement, it damned sure ought to be … especially for a criminal justice degree. And this could be a reality by the time your baby is old enough to go “out on his own”. And, on your situation, time and common sense are both on our side. But, we can’t sit around on our duffs for 10 or 15 years and wait for somebody else to do it. Besides, I doubt if I’ve got 10 or 15 years. I have no illusions it will be a cake-walk, but every “movement” has got to start with two or three people. Maybe Kansas could get behind something that truly could be a model for the whole country. Where do we start ?
My employer established a new thing today–smoking and non-smoking coat racks.
Many years ago I used to tease the owner of the little bar where I played pool in a league. I asked her where the non-smoking section was – “through that door” was her reply – the door to the back where the dumpster was. In my view, of course, she was well within her rights running her business.
One night I was shooting pool with another guy and she noticed that neither of us would go past the side pockets to shoot – leaning way across the table instead. She asked why – “well, that is the smoking end of the table and this is the non-smoking end!”
She nearly killed me!
LOL, Ben. But the operative phrase there is “Many years ago,”. Times, and laws, have changed … in many, many cases, certainly not for the better. I actually believe that there should be no “legislative riders” allowed. Each bill should rise or fall on its own merits, and secondly, for every new piece of legislation enacted, two out-of-date ones should be repealed. And, at the risk of redunancy, quit electing attorneys to the legislature. They’re human beings who are not going to legislate themselves out of a profession. Drastically reduce and simplify the statutes, so lay persons can, at the very least, recognize whether they need a lawyer at all. And eliminate any attorney charging a prospective client for an initial interview defining if the person truly needs a lawyer, if the lawyer is well-qualified in the potential litigation, or if the lawyer chooses to not take the case, because he knows he cannot help the client, for whatever reason. You don’t have to pay a car dealer to test drive a car to decide if it is right for you. Makes you wonder why the public opinion of lawyers is lower than used-car dealers…..or does it?
I’d love to see that happen.
As far as smoking/non-smoking coat racks…I totally see that. I often move everyone’s coat to one side of the rack before putting my ’smelly’ one up there.
PMom: Love to see what happen? The requirement or the legislative reconstruction…or both? They’re both possible … neither easy, but every successful “grass roots movement” has got to start an idea somewhere and with a definite plan. We have one idea that I can’t imagine too much resistance to, and the other, that would be confronted with monumental resistance because if the “status quo” works for the “in-crowd”, they’ll pertray us as the Fred Phelps of “democratic procedure”, and it’s definitely could not be a reality in my lifetime. But, realistically, perhaps in yours, and definitely in my grandsons’. But, hell, I’ve been called worse.
No I meant I’d love to see it happen that police get mandated to provide that training lol.
Well, like I said, that’s the easier one, for sure. Let’s get a plan — that’s where we start, and, just thinking out loud; mental health providers and educators, mental health organiztions, police departments, local legislators,and, perhaps most of all, the general public. No extended family that I know of, does not have a member who is loved and cared about, and is mentally challanged, for one reason or another. And the beauty of it is that, in the overall scheme of things, it wouldn’t cost anything. The educators are employed and in place already. All that has to be done is reverse one class from a reuirement to an elective, and replace that class with ours as a requirement. Even the Grinch could bless us on that. It’s a win-win situation, if I ever heard one.
I hate to leave such great company, but I’ve got to get to bed … hoping like hell I’m not iced or snowed in by morning. I’ve got a doctor’s appointment 100 miles away at 9:30 Friday morning, and really hoping I can get there and back. God noght and God bless.