Has h-e-double hockeysticks finally frozen over? I finally agree with a decision Gov. Scott Walker made.
In a statement issued regarding the state’s ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, Gov. Walker said, “Although I did not support the original smoking ban, after listening to people across the state, it is clear to me that it works. Therefore I will not support a repeal.”
I’ll give credit where credit is due….I’m glad Gov. Walker chose to keep the state’s smoking ban in place, and he deserves credit for going against the grain on this issue.
Yes, but our work is not over yet. We may have achieved breathable air, but now we must address loud noise. Many bars and restaurants have bands or play loud music, threatening the hearing of those who must work there as well as patrons. To prevent a hearing loss epidemic, please start a petition and contact your legislators to mandate that any music played not exceed decibel levels of a safe range.
Scott Walker and Republicans in the legislature seem fond of sweeping state mandates, so they might actually be receptive.
That’s great news. I imagine Democrats would be on board too, because I can’t imagine anyone being against protecting our hearing. Ipods/headphones are certainly a problem, but we can make great strides against exposure to loud music in public places.
I blame Scott Walker, how about you?
Why blame him? He can’t be your boogeyman for everything. Besides, as far as I know he hasn’t rejected this idea, because I just proposed it. So far only the business owners who refuse to limit the volume are to blame. Sure, some of them turn it down if they can when asked politely, but I find that it usually gets turned right back up as soon as somone ele asks for them to turn up “a good song.” And live bands are just ridiculous.
What do you say Zach, will you join me on this mission? Don’t just sit around blaming people before the push has even begun.
If you feel this strongly about the issue of indoor noise volume, then you should write to your legislator!
As for me, it’s not an issue I’m passionate about.
I may do just that. But I am also trying to rally support. You may not be passionate about it, but would you support as a matter of health and safety for all Wisconsities?
@forgot
Painful sonic weapons used to deter loitering children infringe on their human rights. This is the type of thing I would imagine Democrats would ban.
(I wish I was making up “sonic weapons used to deter loitering”)
Interesting issue. Do you know if this is being used in the U.S.? I notice you phrase it as detering “loitering children” as if they are using it against 8 year olds on their bikes, when the story seems to indiciate it is used to disrupt gang activity. If it truly causes permanent hearing loss, I don’t think I could support it, but it may be preferable in limited crime situations (not just dispersing kids) instead of using tear gas, tasers, or guns. However, the hearing loss we all suffer in bars, restaurants, and some stores is through no fault of our own.
The phrasing came from the article. The phrasing is accurate because its use affects 8 year olds on their bikes and gang activity indiscriminately.
@forgot:
Please provide sources for numerous international studies supporting causal link between hearing loss and cancer.
What does that have to do with anything? The analogy is that smoking leads to cancer, loud noise leads to hearing loss. If you can stop smoking in bars, then you can stop loud music.
Smoking was stopped in bars to prevent the pervasive public presence of a carcinogen.
And now loud music must be stopped to prevent the pervasive public danger of hearing loss.
“Experts say prolonged exposure to noise over 85 decibels will harm hearing over time. Music played in concerts, bars and clubs is often above this level.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7278781.stm
Plus I just want to have a quiet, relaxing drink with my friends and actually be able to hear them converse. Is that so much to ask? I can’t hear myself think with that loud, obnoxious music.
But, will it KILL you? (*wink*)
It shouldn’t just be about life or death, but quality of life. Are you saying you are okay with being subject to high decibel levels that may result in a debilitating condition? Sure, it might not kill me, but I won’t be able to hear! I shouldn’t have to risk hearing loss just because I want to grab a beer or a bite to eat with my friends and family.
@forgot
Where do you stand on the use of sonic weapons against loitering teenagers?
I think that you missed my point.
“Grumpy Old Men 4: I can’t hear myself think with that loud, obnoxious music”, starring Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon, AC-DC, Common, and forgotmyscreenname.
Lighten up, forgotmyscreenname. I love still rock and hip hop. I just don’t like it cranked up anymore. But, if and when I encounter music that is too loud, I just move on. If the music is cranked up, and you want a quiet place to talk, you need to move on, too.
Second-hand smoke kills. Loud music doesn’t. End of story. If you need peace and quiet AND alcohol, find a quiet bar where music isn’t being played. The bonus? The air will be breathable there, too.
“But, if and when I encounter music that is too loud, I just move on. If the music is cranked up, and you want a quiet place to talk, you need to move on, too.”
I shouldn’t HAVE to move on. This is a matter of health. And what about the poor employees who have to work in an enviroment and risk hearing loss just to do their jobs? You are right I am sure there are some loud-free bars, but those concerned about hearing loss for ourselves and others shouldn’t just be restricted to those few places. As a matter of health, ALL places should reduce their decibel level.
I can’t believe your only standard is what may kill you. I am sure there are some chemicals that only cause blindless. Under your argument, they should be legal because they don’t kill you. Second hand smoke wouldn’t necessarily kill you on amount of exposure, just as the amount of exposure of loud music would determine how much hearing loss you would suffer.
I love it when “small government” conservatives like forgotmyscreenname start talking about their pet peeves, and just how imperative it is to address them by way of governmental intervention.
forgotmyscreenname can’t just let the loud music issue go, and his curiously un-conservative viewpoint on the subject says something profoundly revealing about conservatives, just as the Right’s war on women’s health and right to choose does. “Small government” is important, staying out of people’s lives is important, until governmental intervention and oversight is necessary to impose the Right’s sense of what is right and wrong on everyone else.
Moreover, it genuinely appears here that forgotmyscreenname’s fixation on loud music in public places/bars probably has more to do with the kind of music being played, music which he deems “obnoxious”. I suspect that the basic problem for forgotmyscreenname, as I alluded to above, is that there is a little too much hip hop, rock and rhythm and blues “on the jukebox”, and not enough Merle Haggard.
forgotmyscreenname, try to remember your conservative/rightwing/Tea Party roots, and maybe reconsider what your position on loud music should be if you are going to be true to them.
In any event, the subject of this blog post is bans on smoking in public places, and Scott Walker’s decision to embrace them.
The carcinogens in second hand smoke can kill. Loud music will not.
forgotmyscreenname, your personal pet peeves notwithstanding, at bottom, nothing you have said here changes that.
But, that said, thank you for the stark demonstration of self-serving, conservative/rightwing, “I want my cake and eat it, too” hypocrisy on the subject of the proper role of government in our society which you have provided herein.
First, forgot was conflating hearing loss with carcinogens.
Now, forget is conflating “any public establishment” with “place of employment.”
@ forgotmyscreenname
You should start a new organization, “Conservatives FOR Regulation.”
(*laughing*)
I don’t disagree with you regarding regulating the various things which you mention as being worthy of regulation/legislation. BUT, then again, I’m a liberal. You aren’t.
I’ve been having a little fun with you regarding what I see as the pervasive problem of rightwing hypocrisy on the subject of the size of government and the scope of government regulation.
That said, maybe loud music should be regulated. I used to listen to music “cranked up” back in the day. I used to do A LOT of things which weren’t good for me. Like you, I now worry about preserving my hearing, so I avoid loud music, as well as places where the music is loud.
I’ve often found myself in places where not just the background music was loud, but the conversational noise was oppressive. What am I going to do? Tell everybody to shut up? Sometimes, you just can’t impose your sensibilities on everybody else, and you just need to move on.
Look, I think that noise levels, in general, should be monitored and regulated, but, again, I’m a liberal, unafraid of government stepping in, and monitoring and regulating. You aren’t.
Moreover, I think that your reasons for ranting here about loud music are about much more than just hearing loss, and I just can’t shake the feeling that there is something of an “old codger” sensibility underlying what you’ve had to say here. (Before you get upset about that kind of reference, let me just mention that I’m 59 chronologically, but, “culturally speaking”, much younger and hipper that my age might otherwise suggest, so, technically speaking, I’m an “old codger myself.)
In any event, having said that, I’d like to hear what you think about the actual subject under discussion here, Scott Walker continuing the ban on smoking in public places.
You might also want to consider apologizing to your conservative/Republican/wingnut/Tea Party brethren for your seemingly heretical views on governmental regulation. Either that, or accept that you are more progressive than you have been previously willing to admit.
Don’t forget, noise ordinances are a common form of “loud music” regulation universally embraced by old codgers on all sides.
Zuma, I’ve been having a little fun too, demonstrating liberal absurdity. Finally you admit that you would even support such big government regulation, but the only problem was that it ticks you off that a conservative would support regulation too (doesn’t make sense to me, but whatever). I were merely trying to illustrate that if you are going to ban one harm, why not another?
It was classic when you told me that if I don’t like loud noise, just move along to another place. I believe in a private business owner’s right to play loud music or allow people to smoke (still a legal product, no?). So if you don’t like what goes on there, don’t give them your business. Even you said it: “Sometimes, you just can’t impose your sensibilities on everybody else.”
I also appreciated that you took it to a personal level, by assuming my legislative quest had something to do with assuming I like Merle Haggard and was offended by blues, rock, or hip hop (I can assure I am not). I’m not sure how that is valid anyway. I am sure even ol’ Merle can be pretty obnoxious turned up over 90 decibels, but I imagine you were just trying to paint me as some sort of rube. You may be hearing from Merle’s fan club on that one.
@ forgotmyscreenname
FMSN: “Zuma, I’ve been having a little fun too, demonstrating liberal absurdity.”
Well then, initially, let me ask you this, FMSN, exactly what “liberal absurdity” have you been “demonstrating”?
Honestly, dude, I’m liberal. I don’t fear governmental intervention/regulation. To a conservative like you, it’s anathema. One of us is pushing the regulation of loud noise. One of us is saying that they don’t have a problem with that.
“Liberal absurdity”? Where? In the fact that I am willing to say “move on, you can’t regulate everything”?
I think that your problem here is conceptual, FMSN. Liberals, your rightwing misconceptions notwithstanding, don’t advocate for the regulation of everything. We’re just not afraid of it. AND, FMSN, we’re perfectly capable of, and willing to, come to agreement with conservatives, even tunnel-visioned wingnuts (calm down, I’m saying anything about you by using that term), about what should and shouldn’t be regulated.
You, on the other hand, seem perfectly comfortable arguing for the regulation of loud noise while reserving the “right” to criticize me for violating some purported, “straw man”, liberal principle that you’ve identified by agreeing with a conservative regarding such regulation.
FMSN: “Finally you admit that you would even support such big government regulation. . .”
Me: [Quizzically] Well, yeah. Seriously, FMSN, I have absolutely NO idea what you’re driving at here. I’m a liberal. I support the concept of regulation. What points do you think that you are scoring here, much less what point are you making, in saying that I am “[FINALLY]” admitting that I would support one particular kind of regulation?!
Regulation isn’t anathema to people like me. It is supposed to be anathema to people like you. Honestly, FMSN, I think that you need to “parachute” out of this downward spiral of illogic into which you have gotten yourself.
FMSN: “. . .but the only problem was that it ticks you off that a conservative would support regulation too (doesn’t make sense to me, but whatever).”
Me: Didn’t “tick [me] off”. Still doesn’t. I was, and am, only highlighting the hypocrisy of a “regulation-hating” conservative pushing so mightily for a certain kind of, wait for it, regulation [and a regulation based on a pet peeve, at that].
(*wink*)
I was glad for the opportunity to focus the spotlight on that. I’m also quite happy to see a conservative come over to a liberal/progressive point of view with respect to the subject of regulation.
FMSN: “I were [sic] merely trying to illustrate that if you are going to ban one harm, why not another?”
Me: Yeah, FMSN, I understood what you were trying to do.
FMSN: “It was classic when you told me that if I don’t like loud noise, just move along to another place. I believe in a private business owner’s right to play loud music or allow people to smoke (still a legal product, no?). So if you don’t like what goes on there, don’t give them your business. Even you said it: “Sometimes, you just can’t impose your sensibilities on everybody else.”
Me: Honestly, FMSN, it seems like you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
Look, everything isn’t black or white. Just because your rightwing, “take no prisoners” ideological underpinnings suggest otherwise, conservatives and progressives can find middle/common ground.
We’ve actually done that here. Unfortunately, you seem to think that you have done nothing more than lay bare some “liberal absurdity” only you can see, and won the day for the conservative cause.
You haven’t.
Loud noise should be regulated on a systemic level. That, however, doesn’t mean that any given individual, you, for example, when confronted with noise in a bar, shouldn’t just exercise common sense and discretion, and just “move on” at that moment.
We don’t need to fight the “war” every second of every day in our personal lives. You can support the notion of loud noise regulation without having to personally “enforce” your personal sensibilities at any given moment.
FMSN: “I also appreciated that you took it to a personal level, by assuming my legislative quest had something to do with assuming I like Merle Haggard and was offended by blues, rock, or hip hop (I can assure I am not). I’m not sure how that is valid anyway. I am sure even ol’ Merle can be pretty obnoxious turned up over 90 decibels, but I imagine you were just trying to paint me as some sort of rube. You may be hearing from Merle’s fan club on that one.”
Me: Whether or not I think that you are a rube, your concerns about not just “loud” music, but “obnoxious” music suggested that the nature of the subject music mattered just as much as its volume. In any event, I was just messing with you on this point. Let’s just let it go. In the meantime, being a fan of his, I’ll just smooth things over with Merle and the rest of his fans at the next meeting of the fan club.
Now, having seemingly exhausted the [off-]topic of loud noise, how do you actually feel about the topic of the post, Scott Walker’s decision to continue the ban on smoking in public places?
P.S. You were absolutely right about the level of disrespect involved in my using “Snotty Scotty” to refer to Governor Walker.
If you and all of your conservative/rightwing/wingnut brothers and sisters will agree to refrain from disrespectful references to President Obama (by the way, I generally refer to him as such, just as I did to President Bush, so try not to read too much into my referring to him in that way), I will afford the same courtesy to Governor Walker from now on.
Are you in favor of it?
P.P.S. What Rush Limbaugh, etal, have to say regarding liberals notwithstanding, we are not unprincipled, America-hating, assholes. Try to remember that the next time you respond to anything that you might happen to see here at Blogging Blue.
See ya around the blog.
You guys aren’t really equating cancer and hearing loss as an analogy and trying to be taken seriously are you ?
I really don’t see the difference. Are not both health serious health concerns? The relative amount of second hand smoke exposure from going to a bar would not cause cancer, just as loud music would not cause deafness. Would increased exposures over time to both cause harm? Maybe. I don’t see how being subject to one in a bar is different than the other.
This is a democracy. Democracy is “messy”.
The Right believes that nothing should be regulated.
The Left and the Right have to agree on what to regulate before it can be regulated.
Death seems to be one benchmark of what to regulate on which both can agree.
It’s not rocket science, FMSN, why things that cause death are things which may end up being regulated, and why other things which are less fatal may not.
Maybe, at the next “meeting” of the Right, you could explain to everyone else there that regulation “can…be…their…friend”, that it can serve a necessary and important function.
That said, and as you know, I agree with you on the need to regulate loud noise.
Although I can commiserate with forgot about loud music…I have been subjected to it several times too often as well…the smoking ban goes beyond just bars but to any public establishment…can we add a rider to your noise bill to ban elevator style music too as it causes mental numbness as well?
Ed, if we are adding in annoyance and mental numbness, we might have to include a ban on certain songs that can be played on the juke box, rather than just how loudly they can be played!
THERE it is. . .(*laughing*). . .
I’d rather listen to extremely loud music and deal with sonic weapons than listen to vicki Pyzinski talk
LOL.
To be clear, the sonic weapons are designed to only affect youth (due to their superior hearing ability). They are the most painful to babies.
“Listening” to forgotmyscreenname, I am reminded of my father screaming at me to “turn that crap off” whenever he heard me listening to Led Zeppelin, The Who, etc, back in the day because he found it “obnoxious”, even at the lowest of volumes.
It wasn’t about the music being too loud. He just didn’t like the music and what he thought it represented.
I think that forgotmyscreenname is just using this forum/blog topic as an opportunity to vent about one of his pet peeves, one which I suspect also constitutes a proxy for his concerns about larger, “cultural” issues.
He’s off topic, he knows it, but doesn’t seem to care. He’s got a bone to pick, don’t ya know?
Besides, it gives him the chance to dance around the fact that his hero, Snotty Scotty, has embraced a distinctly unconservative policy.
I’m not dancing around the issue, I am taking it head on. My only pet peeve is big government, unnecessarily regulating this issue. I suspect GOVERNOR Walker didn’t want to take on another controversial issue, since it’s already been law for a couple of years and most people are fine with it (doesn’t make it right).
Wasn’t there someone posting here a while back that had a problem with us just saying “Obama” instead of always using the title “PRESIDENT Obama”? I wonder what that person thinks of the use of “Snotty Scotty.” Probably won’t hear a peep. I guess that’s the return to civility. You might not like him, but have a little respect.
I will say I support a smoking ban in truly PUBLIC places, but not private businesses, where people have a choice to work there or do their business there. But Zuma, at least you are principled and finally admitted that if smoking should be banned, then loud music should be regulated too.
Vassal forgotmyscreenname,
U.S. workers’ human rights are protected by law. Employees are entitled to a safe environment, public or private.
That would have been me forgot…and yes, I think that ‘nickname’ is disrespectful…and if you’ll notice I always use the correct title for anyone I post about here on BB and elsewhere.
OTOH: I have given up trying to raise the level of discourse on both sides of the aisle cause nobody but me is interested…in fact they get…well…rather snotty when I bring it up…so from here on out I am only going to set the example and not preach about it. If the rest of you want to look like uneducated disrespectful school children…that’s your problem and only degrades how serious I take your posts.
“I’m not dancing around the issue. . .”
Sure you are. Just read what you had to say next:
I am taking it head on. [Here’s where it gets really good]. My only pet peeve is big government, unnecessarily regulating this issue. I suspect GOVERNOR Walker didn’t want to take on another controversial issue, since it’s already been law for a couple of years and most people are fine with it (doesn’t make it right).
You’re dancing, alright, buddy.
“But Zuma, at least you are principled and finally admitted that if smoking should be banned, then loud music should be regulated too. ”
I never linked the two, FMSN.
“Snotty Scotty. Probably won’t hear a peep. I guess that’s the return to civility. You might not like him, but have a little respect.”
See my comments above regarding this wherein I concede that you were right with respect to the “Snotty Scotty” reference. I’m happy to refrain from such references to Governor Walker if people on the Right reciprocate regarding President Obama.
Apparently, according to forgotmyscreenname, you “should not” have to be sonically subjected to anything which you find “obnoxious”, and are therefore entitled to a government ban on the Vicki Pyzinski radio show, rather be expected to follow conventional conservative “wisdom”/dogma which would dictate that you just switch over to some other station.
Sounds like forgot is of the same Feudal-Conservative bent as Walkeright!
Switching to another station… oh you mean like not going to bar that allowed smoking and going to a place without smoke, if that is what one preferred?
“Switching to another station… oh you mean like not going to bar that allowed smoking and going to a place without smoke, if that is what one preferred? ”
Yep. Point is, while it may prevent FMSN’s friends from hear him expounding on the meaning of life, loud music won’t kill FMSN or his friends.
While avoiding hearing loss is a laudable, perhaps even compelling, goal, the fact remains that government does, indeed, have a vested interest in regulating that which will, in fact, kill you.
Just advocate for the regulation of loud noise/music, FMSN. That we don’t yet regulate it is not the strongest argument that you could have made to suggest that smoking shouldn’t already be subject to such regulation, nor is the fact that a progressive like me believes that on occasion, “just moving on”, is the best solution.
A little 2nd hand smoke is ok? how much exactly is ok forg? its an uttrly ridiculous comparison, but just to play along, its not quite 7 am. How long until the police arrive and ticket me in my private residence if i start cranking my stereo?
How long if i was your neighbor until you yourself called the police? im guessing never since you dont like socialism or big government.
Still don’t see why it is a ridiculous comparison. A little hearing damage is ok? How much hearing loss is ok Jeff?
You have no idea what socialism is if you think it includes calling the police. With that said, things would have to be pretty bad for me to call the police over a cranked stereo. I would probably just put up with it, but if it persisted time after time, I would talk to my neighbor first and see what we could work out. If it wasn’t loud enough to damage my hearing, I don’t think I would care. Just for the record, I have never called the police other than an emergency situation, never just to complain.
Have a great, freedom-loving Independence Day!
FMSN doesn’t really know what socialism is, Jeff.
It’s a concept that the Right only discovered once it realized that America had elected an African-American President.
And what was once okay on the Right (e.g. Republican ideas like the individual mandate), became “socialism”, and the President became a “socialist” with a Kenyan worldview and Mau Mau sympathies.
If you want the real skinny on this…it has nothing to do with Gov. Walker protecting small business rights…it’s big business medical insurance companies who don’t want the added expenses for claims of cancer and cardiopulmanary illnesses that smoking bans have proven reduce noticably.