Dallas' Anti-Smoking Ordinance
Dallas has been considering a strict anti-smoking ordinance. That led Tod Robberson, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, to write of an incident where his asthmatic grandmother was severely impacted by the secondhand smoke in a Dallas restaurant and bar. He compares the move to ban smoking to other laws that make accomodations for the handicapped.
"Don't all businesses have to be wheelchair-accessible specifically because you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of physical disability?"There are two problems with Robberson's argument. First, wheelchair ramps help handicapped people without inconveniencing other patrons. Smoking bans help handicapped people by inconveniencing smokers. Second, some of the people who are against a smoking ban are also against laws requiring accomodations for the handicapped. Robberson's argument falls on deaf ears.
But I think most of the debate misses the point. The right of the public to smoke versus the right of the public to enjoy smoke-free public venues is only part of the debate.
It is my understanding the original argument for banning smoking in restaurants is for workplace safety. Exposing restaurant staff to secondhand smoke is an easily correctable safety issue -- ban smoking. I suppose one could argue that the employees can always quit and find a job elsewhere. I believe that was the argument in the days of the muckraker Upton Sinclair who documented the dreadful conditions in meatpacking plants (staffed largely by immigrants, by the way, but let's not add that to the argument here). Society decided to restrict the rights of business owners in order to extend the right to a safe workplace to workers. Exactly where to draw the line between rights is a question that is not settled to this day.
Personally, I say ban smoking. On the other hand, leaving the choice up to restaurant owners wouldn't rise to the level of a human rights violation in my mind, either.
Obama at Invesco Field
Joel Thornton, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, reports that Barack Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President at Denver's 76,000-seat Invesco Field. Thornton says, "It will open up the event to the public and add a lot of buzz to what's become a stale rite of the political conventions."
Thornton calls a candidate's acceptance speech "a stale rite of the political conventions." On the contrary, the candidate's acceptance speech is about the only thing left about conventions that isn't stale.
On a related note, I have noticed that since the primaries concluded, we don't get to hear any candidate speeches in prime time on television anymore. One of the great things about the primaries is that each week, all the candidates gave, in prime time, a victory speech or a concession speech that the cable news networks covered, mostly in their entirety. The voters got to hear directly from the candidates, without it being filtered by the talking heads. The next chance for that is the candidates' acceptance speeches at their conventions. Stale? I don't think so.
May I Have a Word? Niggardly
Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog dredges up the old news of people in the public eye starting a firestorm by innocently using the word niggardly, meaning miserly, and having some listeners hearing a racial slur. Dreher asks, "Why should intelligent people who know how to use the English language censor themselves because of the limitations of the ignorant?"
I suppose the simple answer is because intelligent people want to be understood. If there are some in their audience who are likely to misunderstood a word in such a way to create a firestorm, then effective speakers will choose another word. But this wouldn't be the first time Dreher would choose to do something that is not so intelligent "on principle" (read "out of obstinacy").
Most commenters to Dreher's blog post agreed with Dreher. When Eric Chandler suggested that some people deliberately use words like niggardly to cause a stir, Dreher flatly denied anyone does such a thing and "PeterK" mocked even the suggestion. "Frank" blamed the listeners, saying that people choose what offends them. "I.B. Judge" wonders which is the proper word used to describe people who take offense: "retarded", "idiotic", "moronic", or "ignorant"?
"laray polk" offers a thoughtful suggestion for how to deal with such incidents:
"Instead of seeing such incidents as a rupture in which the educated elite get yet another opportunity to tell others how they are misguided, why not open it up? Here, I'll go first: 'I hurt your feelings?' 'Okay, are you comfortable explaining it to me so that I don't hurt your feelings again in the same way?'"
But don't expect the commenters in this thread to react that way. It is my perception that they, if not actually relishing the offense the word "niggardly" causes, then at least not caring. But that's just my perception. I could be miscontruing their real meaning. But by now, I don't care myself.
6 comments:
of *course* Rod Dreher meant [niggardly] as a slur, since I don't know any sane human who would use that archaic word in modern society. if he wanted people to understand him, he would have said [miserly] or another synonym.
he and Jesse Helms are fraternal twins, apparently.
The combination of "willfully ignorant" and "easily inflamed" is a dangerous and common combination in a mob. It's the reason I also don't use small-c catholic , small-r republican, small-d democratic, or small-l liberal in normal conversation even when it is the best fit.
It brings to mind Erasmus: " ... It would be better not to discuss these matters too scrupulously, especially in front of the crowd." On Free Will. 1524.
Rod Dreher didn't use the word niggardly himself. He just reported the commotion the word caused when used by others. And then defended the word. So far, so good.
But then he implied that people should feel free to use the word no matter the offense it might cause, because the offense is unjustified in Dreher's mind. To my way of thinking, anyone who uses a word, knowing it is likely to cause offense, for whatever reason, intends to cause that offense.
bloggermouse, thanks for the Erasmus quote and the examples of other words that are likely to be misunderstood when used in general company.
I'm reminded of more childish examples. Kids in the schoolyard will say things like "chink in the armor" or "nip in the air" or "spic and span" and then snicker at their own cleverness. If an adult calls them on their language, they'll use the dictionary like a shield. The uses of "niggardly" mentioned so far don't fall into that category of deliberate double entendre, but for some reason Dreher does remind me of a snobby kid on the playground.
"To my way of thinking, anyone who uses a word, knowing it is likely to cause offense, for whatever reason, intends to cause that offense."
Agreed, assuming it would be rational to be offended by the usage.
Consider these examples:
"redneck" to mean conservative, "babykiller" for pro-choice. Rational people might be offended by these, and a rational speaker might know it. I am using them here for illustration and not out of identity with the positions. Not great examples but I'm late for work.
Now consider something more arcane and irrational: picnic.
This is where my concern is centered. When the least intellectually rigorous member of a given audience dictates the level of the discourse then "Houston, we have a problem."
What if tomorrow someone gets offended/riled about "doorknob", "telephone", or "tree"? Do we stop using those words? Do we stop talking to them?
I am not being entirely facetious or argumentative. If we were around a table with coffee or beers I think this topic would make for great, unfettered conversation.
Gotta go to work. Keep up the good work Ed. Your blog is always interesting and thought-provoking.
Picnic, doorknob, telephone, tree, and "black hole" all are words in everyday use with no offensive connotations or double entendre. If people do start taking offense, then effective speakers will take note and start adjusting their usage. But until then, keep going on picnics. Just don't be niggardly with the potato chips.
Post a Comment