I talked to a really nice lady who asked one suspicious sounding question which I must have answered correctly because she gave me a whole stack, some pointers about the registration deadlines and then also gave me a bunch of applications for absentee ballots. Finally she thanked me for going out of my way to do this.

So I’m heading off to a bar where a bunch of progressively minded people are gathering to watch Super Tuesday results roll in.

Maybe I’ll score a few new voters.

social moralizing, beyond-the-pale cronyism, an unhealthy dose of nativism and racism, corruption so blatant it has become institutionalized, a borrow-and-spend budgetary philosophy, and redistribution of wealth to the very rich that has appalled all but the Christianist right and some very wealthy allies

Here is the KOS entry as well as the Economist article they were discussing.

The report has no force behind it and has no effect other than to state the view of the FTC. It recommends against legislation to ensure net neutrality preferring to let the market solve the problem.

You know, like the way the market solved problems like poverty.

I’m a huge fan of net neutrality and I’ve seen so much disinformation about a topic which I don’t think is really that complex. I should see if I can’t write something down that makes it clear what the issue is.

The head of the FTC, Deborah Platt Majoras, is a Bush appointee. Her previous career was with the law firm Jones Day protecting big business. Of course, she can do so much more to protect big business as the head of the organization whose job it to protect us against the abuses of big business.

I don’t know whether they can quickly get another batch of signature to make up the difference – but I hope not.

* They want to allow smoking in bars that make less than 10% of their income from food. In other words, they want smoking in bars but not restaurants.

* They want smoking in private clubs

* They want smoking in bowling alleys after 6pm.

It’s a weird mish-mash of items. Presumably this list is the result of compromises necessary to bring together a large enough “Coalition of the willing”.

So, how will it be sold?

My guess is they will concentrate on the private club provision. It’s probably the issue for which people will have the most sympathy. People may sign feeling that, in private clubs people should be able to smoke if they want. They probably will not be told that the provision will put smoking back in bars and bowling alleys.

Another thing petition signers may not be told is what the definition of a private club is. Will it be a definition that truly applies to what we think of as a private club today? Or will it be a definition that allows any establishment to declare itself a private club and thereby exempt itself from the smoking ban? Or will it even be defined at all?

The front group for this petition effort is called the “Partnership for Job Preservation of Ohio” whose web site seems to be down as of this writing.

The group has submitted the proposed petition language to our state attorney general Marc Dann along with 1400 signatures (1000 required) to get the wheels moving. The next steps are (1) 1000 of those signatures have to be deemed valid and (2) Marc Dann has to approve of the petition language which must accurately reflect the intent of the law.

Once those two hurdles are jumped the petitioners will be hitting the streets to collect the necessary 400,000 signatures. At this time it’s not clear whether the Tobacco industry, which heavily financed issue 4, the smoking amendment, last year will be helping to bankroll this effort.

The reason the rules are so strict though is to prevent the “Utah effect”. When I was in Park City Utah once I new it was a “dry” state. Alcohol was allowed in private homes, restaurants and private clubs. That should have shut down the bars but you know what happened? The bars all became private clubs. The rules were so loose about what constituted a private club that it was easy to be a bar and still fit the definition of private club.

Besides the stated purpose of the smoking ban was to protect employees. If a private club has employees and private clubs are not covered those employees are not protected. Hence the rule that a private club is one that has no employees.

I have a question though. To what extent can our state legislature modify a law that was passed by the voters.

That law was struck down throwing most VFW and other private clubs back into the ban.

The next test of the smoking ban is scheduled for Nov 18th. This is a challenge of the entire ban as unconstitutional.

Link

The key thing to realize is that, the email does not suggest driving less on the 15th. It only asks us to refrain from buying gas on the 15th. Since you will eventually fill your tank, all it means is we will pay the oil industry the same amount we were going to pay anyway. We’ll just pay it on a different day.

It’s easy to do – which is why the email is so widely circulated – so if you want to participate it will cause you very little hardship. Just realize that it will cause the oil industry even less hardship. In fact, even if everyone did this, it would cause the oil industry $0.

So, don’t buy gas on 15th if you want. But if your goal is to hurt the oil industry, the only way to do that is to not drive on the 15th.

link

The judge  reaffirmed that there is no constitutional right to smoke in public as well as no right to own a business that allows smoking.

Another challenge, which has already been successful, challenges the recent rule change that allows private clubs to allow smoking as long as “employees” are also “members”. A judge has specified that the rule change cannot be enforced immediately until the challenge to the new rule is settled.