Smoking Is Legal

Apparently, some people are all up in arms (however that happens) about the smoking at the end of the Herman Cain ad that was published on the Internets. And I'll admit that I thought it was a little odd when I first saw it. But I hardly think that it's anything to get all worked up about. Others, however, did not feel the same way.

According to an article over yonder at the Huffington Post, a one Bob Schieffer was none too pleased with the weird smoking man at the end of Herm Cain's Internet missive. He inquired about it during his interview with Cain in a manner that was as if Cain had killed a live chicken in the ad. His tone was absolutely that of someone who was completely offended. The dude wasn't snorting a rail of coke. He just took a drag off of a cigarette, for cryin' out loud. Calm down, folks.Bob Schieffer, who sounds and looks like a little elf, actually said to Cain, "It sends the message that it's cool to smoke." How does it do that? Did you see the guy doing the actual smoking? It's not much to aspire to via smoking, I'll tell you that.

Let's go over Schieffers chastising of the smoking in Cain's ad. "Was it meant to be funny? Because let me tell you, it was not funny to me. I am a cancer survivor. I had cancer that was smoking related. I don't think that it serves the country well, and this is an editorial opinion here, to be showing someone smoking a cigarette. And you're the front runner now. And it seems to me that as front runner, you have a responsibility not to take that kind of a tone. I would suggest that as the front runner that you would want to raise the level of the campaign."

But here's where Bob Schieffer's age might be getting the best of him. He asks Cain if he's going to take the ad down, to which Cain replies, "It's on the Internet." Schieffer clearly doesn't get what that means because he follows up with, "Why don't you take it off the Internet?" Cain tells him, "It's impossible to do now." He's right about that. If you ever want something to last for eternity, put it on the Internet. That stuff is never going anywhere. That Schieffer would even ask that question makes me wonder about how much he knows about the Internet. He must be a 'series of tubes' guy.

Schieffer asked, "Have you ever thought of just saying to young people, 'Don't smoke. 400,000 people in America die every year from smoking related diseases'?" (How would that even work? "Hi. I'm Herman Cain. I'm running for President and smoking is bad for you. Please vote!) It's not an anti-smoking PSA, Bob! It's a...well...OK, I'm not sure exactly what it is. But it isn't about smoking! Get over it. Maybe he was just trying to be edgy. Personally, I think that he was just doing something to get more people talking about him and to get more name recognition for himself. It worked. He was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer chastising him. Mission accomplished.


Look, I despise smoking. I find it absolutely disgusting. It will kill you and it could possibly kill those around you. It also makes you stink and makes me not want to be around you. (It also makes me not want to do anything else with you. Just sayin'.) There is nothing about smoking that is good or ok in moderation. We all know that. It's just all bad. That being said, it's freaking legal. It's as legal as can be. Yet there is nothing more ostracizing in parts of this country than smoking. I'd really like it if there could be some sort of consistency in this area. If it's going to be legal, then let's act like it's legal. But I digress.


And not that it matters what his campaign manager (or whatever that guy's role is) does or doesn't do, but I will hand it to them for at least acknowledging that people smoke. You know, President Barry smokes. Last I heard he had done pretty well with quitting, but you might not know that because they did such a good job covering up the fact that he smokes in the first place. Does Bob Schieffer ever get on President Barry's case for his smoking? Does Bob Schieffer ever tell President Barry what to say to the masses about smoking? I don't think that he does. But for some reason, he wants Herman Cain to run some sort of anti-smoking campaign. It's odd. (Well, not really. The media has been President Barry's bitch since before he was elected. It's a wonder that anything is reported accurately, given their complete adoration for the man.)

Cain told Schieffer "This wasn't intended to send any subliminal signal what so ever." Yeah, I don't know so much about that. It could send one subliminal signal. And that would be that he's just blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Or in their face. (I don't know how you browse the Internet, but from what I gather, either one of those could be correct.) I don't know if he's serious about being President or not, but he is serious about getting his name out there and amassing some recognition. You can't say that he hasn't accomplished that. He certainly has. And if he does end up being the nominee or the President, I have the feeling that we're going to be seeing a whole lot more smoke in a whole lot more commercials in the future.

moreless

Do I Smell Smoke?

You know who Herman Cain is, right? He's that Republican dude that everyone seems to like and who is doing quite well in the polls. He's not exactly running a conventional campaign, nor is he putting out conventional ads. Look at this thing he's running. It's different. (If you're pressed for time, just go to 0:41 and watch from there. That's really the part that got my attention.)

See that? What's with the smoking at the end? Is that guy trying to look like a badass? I thought this country was anti-smoking. Has that changed? Are we pro-smoking now? 'Cause I was kind of liking it without all of the smoke. And I don't know about that sideways smile that he gives there at the very end. It's a little creepy. It kind of has a little bit of "You'll never find the bodies" look to it. He might want to work on that.

moreless

Scared Smokeless

I've had kind of a long day and I'm really kind of tired right now, so I'm going to make this one a little short. I just learned that over in Australia, they have made new regulations for what cigarette packages can look like. They're trying to deter young people from starting to smoke. They're method of doing this seems to be to try and scare the holy crap out of kids by making the packages downright scary.

The Federal Government down there in Australia has made it so that companies can no longer display their logo on the packages. The color of the background has to be an ugly olive green color, as someone's research has determined that ugly olive green is the least attractive color to smokers. (I don't know that research was all that necessary, as I think most people are turned off by ugly olive green. Hence the term "ugly".) The name of the brand has to be in a specific font. (They don't mention what the font is, though. From the looks of it, it could be a variation of Arial or the beloved Helvetica. But I only mention that because I'm a nerd and I don't get to throw out my font knowledge...um...ever.) There also have to be huge warnings on the sides and on the front. Also included on the front, a scary ass picture of something horrible that will happen to you if you smoke. The folks over there at news.com.au were kind enough to provide a picture of what the new scary ass cigarette packages will look like. Behold!

Holy S! My God! Why is his eye held open like that?! Shouldn't there be a picture of a seeing eye dog or something else?! Why not a German Shepard?! Oh, right. Because they're trying to scare the holy bejeezus out of folks. Hey, it worked with me. I can't believe that with images like that, they were seriously concerned about whatever font they were going to use. I can tell you right now, I have no idea what any of the wording on the package says. And I am not going to know what it says ever because I will never look at that package again. I will not be smoking in Australia or anywhere else. Granted, I wasn't planning on smoking anywhere to begin with, but that image did deter me from ever thinking about it. Holy crap. I hope I can sleep tonight.

moreless

So Gross And So Hazardous To Your Health

The FDA is now going to have more graphic warnings on cigarette packages. That's not a bad idea. You know and I know that no one reads those things. Then again, it's not like you can't figure out that smoking is bad for you. But yet, people continue to do it. I know, I know. Supposedly, quitting smoking is harder than quitting heroin. I don't know about that. I've never smoked and I've never been addicted to heroin, but it seems like a pretty strong comparison, so let's just say that quitting smoking is hard, shall we?

According to The Washington Post, the new warnings will consist of "...images that could include emaciated cancer patients, diseased organs and corpses." Nice. Apparently the new warnings will no longer be regulated to just the side of the cigarette pack. No, now they will take up "...half the front and back of each pack and 20 percent of each large ad." That's a pretty significant amount of space on each pack. And since it's on the front and the back, it's not like there's going to be any getting away from it if your pack is just lying around. It is going to be a bit imposing on ol' Joe Camel, though. (Is he still around? Dead? Lung cancer? I'm not really sure. But I've always thought that his nose looks a bit like a penis. I don't know what that has to do with making someone want to smoke or not, but it's fairly undeniable that that's what it looks like. Penis.)

Here are a few of the proposed images that the FDA is mulling over. This one shows a guy with a tracheotomy hole and he's still puffing away on a cigarette. The caption reads "WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive". Geez. Yeah, I'd say.

This one says "Warning Cigarette smoke can harm your children". What a cute little baby. How much do you want to bet that they don't use that one because it's a black baby and they don't want to be accused of being racist and saying that cigarette manufacturers are trying to kill black babies? That's what this country has come to, so don't be surprised when it happens.

And this one says "Warning: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease." But then they have a picture of a toe tag on a corpse. How is that helping? Why not show a diseased lung inside of a dead person? That would hit it home for a lot of folks, wouldn't you say?

Most of the ones that I looked at were along these same lines. They're fairly tame. But, then again, we've become a rather soft nation, so it doesn't really surprise me, even though it does sadden me. Then I learned that other countries have been putting gross pictures on cigarette packages for years. And those other countries don't mess around with the pictures that they came up with. Holy Toledo. Let's take a gander over there at Brazil, shall we? This one starts off with "Infarto". (I think we used to call each other that on the playground in elementary school.) Then it shows a picture of a human heart in a human chest with a bunch of cigarette butts put out in it. Good Lord! That's disgusting! And that's on the pack of cigarettes that someone is going to willingly buy? Holy crap. It's a wonder anyone smokes at all having to look at that. Behold! Infarto!

Here's another one from Brazil. It appears to depict a very premature and ridiculously small little baby. It's incredibly sad. I don't understand folks who smoke when they're pregnant. I don't get it at all. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You can't quit for the sake of your unborn kid? Oh, I'm sure you'll be a great parent. Uh-huh. Let me know how that turns out. Actually, never mind. Don't. I can already guess.


The one below, from the UK, almost caused me to hurl. It is absolutely disgusting. I don't even know what the deal is with the guy on the left, but it appears that the inside of his neck is trying to escape. As for the one on the right, I can barely look at it without cringing. I have awesome teeth and that just makes me want to vomit. It definitely does NOT make me want to smoke. Good job, UK!


Singapore heeded to my picture of a diseased lung idea from above. Here's what they did to their packs. You know, the amount of space that it takes up is stunning. It's not like you can miss that or anything. It's just gross.

And the last one that I'm going to include is NOT for the faint of heart. Holy canoli, I can't imagine why anyone would ever think of starting to smoke if they had seen something like this first. Seriously. Behold! The dangers of smoking!
Wow. Really? Gangrene? I didn't know that smoking could cause gangrene? How does that work? Well, it's not good, whatever the situation. Smoking. Is there anything in your body it can't ruin? Apparently not. I don't know if stuff like this is going to do much for the person who has been smoking a long time. It might help for those who haven't been smoking for very long. I'm really hoping that it helps those who haven't even started yet. Make sure kids see stuff like this often as soon as they're of age to get it. Why would you want to start after seeing in graphic detail what it can do to you?

moreless

Reverse Natural Selection?

Sometimes, you just have to see things to believe them. And I think that a lot of the times when that is the case, once you see them and once you believe them, that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand them. That's why you're usually left just wondering what in the world is wrong with a lot of people. And that would include wondering what in the world is wrong with the media covering such stories.

Take, for example, the family of Ardi Rizal. Ardi and his family live in Indonesia. And according to the Washington Post, there has been somewhat of an uproar after "Shocking photos of....Ardi Rizal puffing away on up to 40 cigarettes a day" came to light. Sure, sure. I know a lot of people smoke 40 cigarettes a day. I don't know how in the world that they afford it, but I know that they do it. The thing that makes this a little bit more of a head scratcher is that Ardi is 2. As in "years old". Two years old. Smoking up to 40 cigarettes a day. Wait. He's two and he...? That's right.

While I am usually a huge fan of the Washington Post, I am not a huge fan of how they covered this story. If they were trying to win some sort of a prize for presenting the subject in the most irrelevant manner possible, then they were on top of their game. Other than that, well, I'm just glad I didn't pay for it or anything (even though I still feel a little gypped). They talked to a one Matthew Myers of something called the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which is located in Washington, D.C. Mr. Myers was quoted as saying, "This reflects a pervasive problem in many low-income countries where tobacco companies market their products to an uneducated public." Really? Are they marketing their products in such a way that it is implied that babies should be smoking cigarettes? No? OK, then. Anything else?

Unfortunately, yes. He also stated that "...anybody, at any age, can buy cigarettes in Indonesia". Wait. What now? Anyone, regardless of age, can buy cigarettes in Indonesia? Oh, now I see why that's a relevant fact! Of course. Because this two-year old wouldn't be able to smoke if he hadn't been able to go out and purchase the cigarettes that he's smoking on his own, right? Of course not! What does that have to do with anything?! Oh, nothing? Let's move on.

Now, a one Seto Mulyadi, who heads the country's child protection commission, "...blamed Ardi's two-pack-a-day habit on advertising and clueless parents." Well, that's a little bit better. Though I'm still not sure what advertising has to do with this. I'm really liking the pointing the finger at the clueless parents, however. It's probably an understatement to say that's the most likely culprit here.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's check in with this toddler's parents and see if they strike us as being of the clueless bent, shall we? First, we'll hear from the boy's mother, Diana. "He's totally addicted. If he doesn't get cigarettes, he gets angry and screams and batters his head against the wall. He tells me he feels dizzy and sick." She apparently doesn't seem to see her part in all of this. She apparently doesn't seem to think that she is the parent and that she is in control and that, eventually, all of the screaming will subside. Hmm. Yep, there are definitely indicators of cluelessness here. Let's check in with the father next.

But wait. Before we do that, I should probably also mention that not only does this two-year old smoke two packs a day, he also "...weighs 56 pounds. He's too fat to walk far so he gets around on a plastic toy truck." Yeah, see, just when you thought that it couldn't get any sadder, then it does. Let's quell that sadness with anger, OK?

The boy's father, Mohammed, is the moron who gave the kid his first cigarette when he was 18 months old. Nice job, Mohammed. Now your kid is incredibly fat and addicted to cigarettes. How does that make you feel, Mohammed? "He looks pretty healthy to me...I don't see the problem." Really?! He can't walk, you dumbass! Do you see other two-year olds getting around on a plastic toy truck whilst smoking a cigarette? No? Then he's NOT OK, you nitwit!

Seriously, I know that there are different cultures and all of that, but this has so much wrong with it that I really can't even make up anything good to say about it. I guess they're not fortunate enough in Indonesia to have things like Child Protective Services or stuff like that? (That really is a question, as I have absolutely no idea about the social services of the Far East.) Oh, wait. I just read that there is some intervention being attempted with this family. "Concerned officials offered to buy the family a car if Ardi quits." A car?! That's how social services work in Indonesia? They bribe folks to do the right thing?! Grand. Good luck with that, Indonesia. Gooooood luck with that.

The video of this tragic, preventable and completely unnecessary situation is below. If it doesn't load, try clicking here. Oh, yeah, and thanks (I think) to my friend for bringing this to my attention.

Ardi Rizal - The real SMOKING BABY !! free videos" classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=364 height=291 type=application/x-shockwave-flash>

moreless

What Are YOU Smoking, Arlen?

Ancient Senator Arlen Specter was handily defeated the other day over yonder in Pennsylvania. Now, it was probably his stating that the reason that he switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party was so that he could be re-elected. I don't doubt that is what he thought. What I can't figure out is why he would be so freaking boneheaded as to actually come out and SAY that's what you were thinking? Does he not quite understand that it makes it sound like it's all about HIM? Apparently not. Because he said it and now he's done.

But I'm pretty sure that it was time for him to go anyway. Look, I don't have anything against people who are old. I don't have anything against people who are ancient. But I do have issues with people who are old and out of touch, but they try and convince you that they're not. Take ol' Robert Byrd. How is that guy still a senator? Seriously. My sources (which are far from trustworthy, as I make them up myself) tell me that Robert Byrd is somewhere around 147 years old and the last coherent thought that he had was midway through the Taft administration. Why do you folks in West Virginia continue to re-elect that man? Not to mention that he used to be a member of the Klan, the man is not fit for civic duty.

But back to Arlen Specter. According to TPM, Arlen Specter did an interview with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC on May 18. (Side note: Is it just me or does Andrea Mitchell bear an odd resemblance to Barbara Walters? Maybe I wouldn't think it was so odd if they both weren't technically considered to be news reporters/anchors/whatever. Do you think that she's trying to look like that? I have a hard time believing that she naturally looks like that. I'm not implying plastic surgery (but you could make that leap if you wanted to), I'm just sayin'.) She asked him if his opponent was more vigorous than he was. Uh-huh. Remember, Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, so she would know a thing or two about vigor...or a lack thereof.

Arlen Specter is 80. It's fair to say that there are a lot of things more vigorous than Arlen Specter. Puppies and baby ducks, for example. Possibly Abe Vigoda. Definitely Betty White. But I find it unlikely that he is more vigorous than his opponent. Of course that's not what he thinks/thought. His response to Andrea Mitchell's question was...well...it was interesting. He said, "When you talk about Sestak being more vigorous, you must be smoking dutch cleanser." Of course. I must be...wait. What now?

Smoking dutch cleanser? What the heck is that? Dutch cleanser? I did a quick search online to see if I could find out what in the heck he was talking about (and, more importantly, if I should be smoking dutch cleanser, whatever it is). It was not easy. It is a rather obscure reference, apparently. Dutch cleanser is apparently a cleaning product akin to Comet and Bon Ami. It's been around since 1906 (so, almost as long as Arlen Specter). That's just the product. I had to dig deeper to find the meaning behind his asking if someone was smoking it.

I only found one other reference of someone using the phrase "smoking Dutch cleanser" on the Inner Webs. Guess who it was? That's right. Arlen Specter.

It was sometime in early February of 2006. According to Time Magazine he used the phrase when he was "Criticizing then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez during hearings on the Bush administrations warrantless domestic-wiretapping program, saying Gonzalez's responses defied logic and plain English." Wait. Gonzalez's responses defied logic and plain English? But an obscure reference to smoking some sort of turn of the 20th century cleaning product is completely logical? I don't think it is, sir. I just don't think so.

It really didn't help his case for how vigorous he was when he answered Andrea Mitchell and mispronounced Sestak's name. I'm not sure exactly what he said, but it wasn't Sestak.

But even after the odd Dutch cleanser as a mind altering substance reference, he continued to try and make his point about how vigorous he was. He went on with, "Did you see us on the debate? Did you see us on the debate? If you didn't see it, John Bayer (could be Mayor), the moderator, wrote about it, how strong and vibrant I was and how weak he was. You saw that town meeting. That Tea Party guy rushed up at me with his fists clenched. Security wanted to throw him out. I said no, no. And I fought him right there on the spot. Verbally. Beating. Uh, when you talk about vigor, uhhhh....it's all on Arlen Specter's side."

Again, I don't think that you're helping your case when you have to repeat yourself. It's not like she didn't hear you. She's sitting right there. Perhaps you forgot you had just said that? I don't know. But I do like how he implies for a moment that he all but stripped to the waist and knocked out some Tea Party dude before throwing in that he had fought him "verbally". It also didn't help him that after he said, "When you talk about vigor" he really didn't seem to know where he was going with that. And he was talking about himself!

I don't know that you can really make a good point about how vigorous you are by using some Victorian era reference that no one else knows what you're talking about. You're certainly not helping your case. I wonder what we would be thinking if he had answered the question by saying "Are you on glue?" I'm pretty sure I would have thought that was all sorts of awesome. It wouldn't mean that I would think that he needed to or should be re-elected. But at least I'd know that he knew what year it was. I'd also know that he knew that we knew what he was talking about.

moreless

Put This In Your Park And Smoke It

Because the state of California legislature has solved all of the problems with the budget, it's seemingly inevitable bankruptcy, illegal immigration and unemployment, a bill has been introduced to ban smoking at all state parks. Seriously? Maybe when they're done with that, they can get to work on their long awaited book "How to Piss Away Time and Money While Feigning to Serve the Public."

The author of this ridiculousness and waste of everyone's time is a one Sen. Jenny Oropeza (D-umbass), Long Beach. According to what appears to be called The San Diego Daily Transcript Ms. Oropeza explains that "It is very clear that the garbage that is created as a result of smoking on beaches -- butts and wrappers -- are polluting our water. In terms of the state park system, we have a major fire hazard when cigarettes are smoked in parks." Uh-huh.

While I'm not going to disagree that part of garbage on the beaches is composed of cigarette butts and wrappers, I am going to point out that it's hardly the main component of the garbage itself. I'm not justifying anything here or anything like that, but all of that sand in one place (ie, the beach) is just like one of those public ashtrays that you see outside of downtown buildings. Perhaps those dumb enough to be smoking in the first place are merely confused. (And who in their right mind would WANT to be smoking on the beach anyway? It's so freaking beautiful there. And you want to whip out a cigarette and start puffing away? Are you kidding me? Why?)

But back to the state parks. It's not a "major fire hazard when cigarettes are smoked in parks." That makes it sound like people are walking around the state parks with the equivalent of a blazing tiki torch hanging out of their mouth. Sure, if the thing is still lit and it goes flying into some pile of dried debris, there's going be a problem. But how many forest fires in California are actually started by a cigarette? I have no idea because I can't find any data on it. (I did find a reference to a 2002 fire in Lake Tahoe started by a cigarette tossed from a gondola, but that's about it. I'm not saying there aren't more, I'm just saying they're not spreading like wildfire or anything. Pun totally intended.)

According to the article (and obvious to folks who have ever heard anything about the ridiculous legislation that California passes) "The move would not be surprising in a state with a long history of cracking down on smoking as a way to eliminate exposure to second-hand smoke." In a state park?! How much second-hand smoke is there actually exposure to in a state park? Have you visited a state park? Anywhere? They're quite roomy. I think that exposure to second-hand smoke is the least of your concerns. Unless you're a bear, perhaps. Is this for bears?

That same article reminded me that "A California law that took effect in 2008 slaps motorists with a $100 fine if they are smoking in a car that contains a minor under the age of 18." Are you kidding? Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of smoking in a car with children. But I'm also not in favor of smoking in a home with children. I'm kind of guessing that the same folks that smoke in the car with their kids are smoking in their home with their kids. Why aren't we regulating that as well? Because that would be silly, that is correct. Why it's OK to regulate it in the car is beyond me.

Look, I don't smoke. I am thrilled that there is no longer smoking in restaurants and in a lot of public indoor areas. I could not be happier. But we're talking people who are outside here. And they're not going to be around many other people. Yes, there is the danger of wildfires when there is smoking, but that's going to be your argument, you're really going to have to explain to me why campfires would be fine, but cigarette smoking would be a ticket to hell.

But, wait! There's more! "Oropeza said the legislation could save the financially strapped state millions in fighting wildfires started by someone tossing a lit cigarette in a state park." Aww. Look. There's my favorite word when any politician is explaining why their hare-brained idea is legitimate. "Could". It could happen. It could do this. It could do that. (It won't, but it could.) And what else could happen? Monkeys could fly out of my butt, that is correct. (They won't, but they could. Could they?)

However, "Oropeza excluded campsites from the ban to accommodate state park officials, who said prohibiting smoking at campsites would be difficult to enforce." Soooo...let me get this straight. You're not prohibiting smoking in state parks at campsites. That's OK. So the places where people are most likely to be congregated and exposed to second-hand smoke will not be effected by this. Got it. Soooo...it will be enforced where? Right, on the hiking trails, that is correct. Because if there's one thing that is a frequent occurrence everywhere, it's hikers who smoke a lot.

Why isn't this idea covered under the "no littering" provision of whatever law that is under? I can't imagine that it isn't. Then again, for some reason, driving while talking on your cell phone isn't covered under the "distracted driving" provisions and needs its very own, special law. Go figure. We are so over-regulated in this state. And what is this thing going to cost? Well, don't you worry! "Any state park that does not have the money to buy no-smoking signs alerting visitors to the rules also would be exempt." This state has no money! Didn't they just make huge cuts to the parks budget this last time around? I'm pretty sure that they did, but that's only because they made huge cuts everywhere! So if you don't have a sign, you don't have to follow the rule. Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

This is nothing more than a feel good law for softheads. It's a waste of time to even be considering something that, in it's own language, does virtually nothing. Yet state senators continue to waste their time and taxpayer dollars composing bills such as this one that are useless. This state is so screwed. And we're so doomed. That's right. We're scroomed.

moreless