Oh dear, it looks like I’m going to have to defend my beloved state. Ok, lets begin…
That’s your opinion, and you are perfectly within you right to think so, however bear in mind that if California never were (especially Napa Valley)the US would never be able to compete with snooty Europeans and their wine. California also has some of the best beaches in the world. Let’s not forget real California cheese either(or oranges and grapes). Then there are the dramatic cliffs along PCH, Solvang, San Francisco (all of it), Disneyland, and Yosemite, to name a few. All that would never be if we didn’t exist.
You’re thinking of Berkely. Obviously you’ve never been to the Republican parts of Orange County in LA, or to the Central and Imperial Valley, where “traditional family values” are strictly enforced by societal norms. San Bernardino County isn’t exactly a “mix of hippy dippy granola huffing earth-farting drivel” either. Don’t judge the entire state based solely on one misguided(and very vocal) city.
Sure, let just go ahead and ignore the movie industry, the Arts and Crafts movement, Frank Lloyd Wright, cowboy culture, the Cobb salad, the balboa swing dance, Beck, Sublime, Incubus, the Silicon Valley, supermarkets, drive-thru takeout, American Chinese food, In-and-Out burgers, McDonalds, Dennys, and the myriad other cultural contributions. You’re right, California hasn’t culturally contributed anything at all. :rolleyes:
I’m sorry if I seem a little snippy, but this is a sensitive subject for me is all.
I’m going to do my best to keep this IMHO, and avoid any Pit-iness. If I fail, I apologize in advance.
California wine is perfectly acceptable, and I even like several vineyards, but even the best doesn’t compare with even middle of the road French or even Argentinean wines.
The cheese and produce are no better than can be found in several other locations.
The geography and scenery are indeed lovely in many places, but we’re talking about the culture, not the landmarks. If we could find a way to wash all the aforementioned people out to sea and leave Joshua Tree, etc. that would be fine with me. Disneyland is one of those cultural butt-pimples I referred to earlier.
No, I’m not thinking of Berkeley. I’ve been all over the state, both NoCal and SoCal, and have seen the same thing, albeit in different flavors.
Berkeley, SF, et al., with the exception of portions of Palo Alto rest of the Silicon Valley area, are indeed the more traditional hippy, Dead Head, variety. Orange and the other areas referred to are indeed the more statist, elitist “our will at all times” variety, but the entire lump-sum of the Cali “culture” is an arrogant, eco-Nazi, socialist, self-superior, trendoid flake-fest that casts its will in the local stone and then tries to foist its cause of the moment on the rest of the country. Look at things like the smoking ban, inefficient but incredibly strict emissions standards, victim disarmament (gun registration and banning), high taxation, etc.
Sure, let just go ahead and ignore the movie industry, the Arts and Crafts movement, Frank Lloyd Wright, cowboy culture, the Cobb salad, the balboa swing dance, Beck, Sublime, Incubus, the Silicon Valley, supermarkets, drive-thru takeout, American Chinese food, In-and-Out burgers, McDonalds, Dennys, and the myriad other cultural contributions. You’re right, California hasn’t culturally contributed anything at all. :rolleyes:
I’m sorry if I seem a little snippy, but this is a sensitive subject for me is all. **
[/QUOTE]
Just about everything you mentioned is much more of a cultural blight than a contribution.
Most of the movie industry is complete pap. Fun but irrelevant.
The arts and craft movement is one of the most horrid things to ever come into being from a cultural standpoint. It’s institutionalized kitsch, for pete’s sake.
Frank Lloyd Wright was, IMHO, an extremely over-rated architect whose PR was much better than his actual work. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the man who gave us tract housing and split level layout?
I live in the real west, where the difference between the real cowboy culture and what comes out of Cali is understood.
The Cobb salad is a cultural contribution? C’mon, it’s just a menu item.
I don’t like the bands you mentioned (or any other rubber stamp homogenized alternative,) but that’s a matter of taste and I can’t really slam it in good conscience.
Silicon Valley’s technological innovations, American Chinese food, drive through, supermarkets, MacDonald’s, etc. would have come into being in one form or another with or without Cali’s help. The computer boom, fast food and service industries arose from perceived market demand, not because of their ZIP codes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some little art snob who thinks that everything must be gourmet, high art, etc. to be worthwhile. I’m fairly plebian in my tastes. However, after this response I’m willing to amend the statement I made with the Vachss quote. California has indeed contributed to the overall culture. It just hasn’t contributed anything worthwhile, and it is, again in my opinion and from my experience, the most oppressive state for individual rights and behavior.
California is an oppressive state because it has rigid smoking laws? That’s the best you can come up with? It’s not like we’ve got the California version of the Taliban executing smokers on the spot.
Gun registration and banning? California’s gun laws have very little teeth to them.
The emission standards on cars? Sorry, but geography makes Southern California prone to excessive air pollution, so we have to do something about it? Or else everyone will have to go around wearing a gas mask 24/7? Either that or turn all of Southern California into Mexico City.
High taxation? California was the home of Proposition 13? My father pays a ridiculously low amount of property taxes. If you want high taxes, go to New York.
California is a large, incredibly diverse state. If anyone thinks that the state thinks with one single guiding principle, you are sadly mistaken.
Well, that’s not true. Apparently park rangers are in mortal danger.
But using the employee defense, shouldn’t my grandmother’s bar be exempt? There are four employee’s: her, her husband, their neice, and a nephew. All of whom smoke. Who is being protected? If it meant they could allow customers to smoke without worrying about their liquor license, I am sure they’d be happy to stop the beer delivery guy at the door and bring it in themselves.
As being the person being referred to in this exchange, I’d like to have a chance to speak.
Yes, I do have a choice as to where I work and my profession. I am working where I am at not because “I don’t want to have to choose” but because I love what I do, and I want to be able to work at a restaurant without having a grey cloud of smoke 2’ above my head for 8 hours a day. If we did not have these non-smoking laws, I would work for a restaurant that had excellent ventilation and did what they could to protect their employees from constant second-hand smoke exposure.
These non-smoking laws were passed to protect employees from second-hand smoke from all places of employment: offices, grocery stores, malls, hospitals, courthouses, and yes… restaurants, bars, and clubs. The law wasn’t meant to just protect a few waitresses, bartenders, and chefs. It was also meant to protect secretaries, store clerks, janitors, nurses, police officers and just about anyone else that holds a job in Los Angeles County. Are you going to go off and tell them “go find another job”? With the smoking laws as they were 20 years ago, just about every profession would have been in contact with second-hand smoke due to co-workers smoking in the lounge, office, or hallway.
To tell someone to choose a profession that would keep them in a smoke-free environment, rather than choosing a profession on their personality, talent, ambition, intelligence, or motivation, is just plain arrogant.
I don’t know the details of this proposed outdoor smoking ban, but there is one situation where it would make perfect sense.
The rains in California are seasonal. Most of the state gets little or no precipitation in July or August. Late summer wildfires are annual features on the local news, often in populated areas. Back when I was in college a wildfire gutted the second storey of the house two doors down from my family’s. We were spared by luck alone.
During peak fire hazards the fire marhsals sometimes ban outdoor fires on public lands. They even send helicopters through the national forests at night to make sure no one lights a rogue camp fire.
Careless smokers cause major damage under these conditions. Last summer I dawdled at the edge of a shopping center and saw a smoker toss a cigarette. Five minutes later I was one of three people who rushed to extinguish a growing blaze.
I can’t help but add a word to the smokers who don’t like the laws of my dear state: fair’s fair. If you believe other people should alter their social lives and careers for your smoking convenience, then keep your own butts the [expletive deleted] out of California.
It shouldn’t bother me at all that people smoke everywhere, even though I am extremely allergic to cigarette smoke and it has caused my previously latent asthma to become a problem.
I shouldn’t go out ever. I should just stay home where I can be assured there is no smoke.
I can’t believe I was ever so selfish to think that I have a right to be in a restaurant, too, or to hang out with my friends in bars. I’m just a whiny brat.
An indoor smoking ban is the only conceivable reason I would ever move to Toronto. Quebec is like Canada’s smoking section, and I’m getting tired of it. At least we have cafés where you can’t smoke.
What I don’t understand is why is it that if I’m the one who’s not spewing noxious fumes into the air, why is it that I have to go outside in -20 weather for clean air?
You would think that it would be the person without a little carcinogenic chemical smokestack in his mouth who might not have to freeze his ass off to avoid getting sick to his stomach, but nooooo. Just a little bit annoying.
I never told you to choose a profession that would keep you in a smoke free environment; you chose to make a smoke free environment an important criteria of your choice.
I have no problem with employees being protected, I just have a problem with the government requiring their protection. I’ve lived in many states that still allow you to smoke and in most of those states my place of employment was a no-smoking zone? Why? Not because the government required it, but because the employees as a whole decided they would prefer it that way.
Why shouldn’t I be allowed to open a bar or restaurant or seamstress shop that caters to smokers and in which all the employees choose to accept the risks? If you wouldn’t like such a place, or if you wouldn’t like working for such a place, then don’t.
I have a friend who is extremelly light sensitive, so far they haven’t passed a law that all stores open shutter their windows or that public parks be put under giant circus tents.
LaurAnge: I’m glad you understand. Of course you have a right to go to restaurants. They aren’t stopping you from going to a restaurants; you do not, however, have any right to a restaurant that meets with your satisfaction.
Just because you are unhappy doesn’t mean we should legislate a solution.
I hope you realize that there is a big difference between “lack of satisfaction” and causing serious health problems. The health problems and inconveniences are not something just I experience. I think it’s been pretty well proven that second-hand smoke is, even if not potently, carcinogenic.
And I do want and deserve the right to go to a restaurant and not need to take medication because of it.
If the populous is unhappy about something, we shouldn’t legislate a solution? What should we do? Go back to monarchies and dictatorships?
OK, what shall we do next? Get rid of health requirements for the food in restaurants? Gee, if you don’t want salmonella in your food, feel free to patronize a restaurant that cooks its meat properly. I’m so sure.
We’re not talking a matter of taste. We’re talking a public health hazard.
Actually, second-hand smoke has not been proven to be a significant health risk. There is much preliminary data but much of it is sloppy and points in either direction. There is no dout that second-hand smoke could be a health risk if consumed in sufficient quantities.
Why would I want a king or a dictator to impose a law if I don’t think it should be legislated? I’m all in favor of democracy, but just because the majority feels an activity should be stopped that doesn’t mean it is right for them to stop it.
If you are correct that most people don’t want smoking in restaurants then use that power and stop going to restaurants that allow smoking. You’ll quickly find that there are all kinds of restaurants available that do not allow smoking. There will still be some that do, but you don’t go to those. You let the people who want to smoke do what they want.
Again, what about my light sensitive friend; should we pass laws making sure she is comfortable in every bar, restaurant, and business in the area?
Be careful the power you assign to the majority, I’m pretty sure that the majority does not approve of several religions, style of clothing, and potentially health-affecting lifestyle choices.
I don’t want this to fall into pit-ness either. As far as I can see, we both have the facts, but we interpret them in different ways.
There are some items that I have to defend, however.
I disagree, and this is supported by facts. According to this, we’ve been on the par with French wines since 1976. Saying that our best doesn’t even compare with even middle of the road French or even Argentinian wines is a bit much.
I disagree. There are many people who would disagree as well, but I would have to start a new thread in IMHO to prove this.
This highly subjective, and I of course disagree. I too have been up and down this state, and I have found nothing but nice people. Apparently, we are hanging out in very different areas.
Again, highly subjective, and I disagree. Everything I mentioned has been a very important part of American culture. To say that the arts and craft movement is one of the most horrid things to ever come into being from a cultural standpoint is your opinion, but it is not shared by others. I happen to think it is one of the most beautiful architechtural art forms bred in the US. I won’t argue the other cultural examples, because my reply would be the same as above.
My opinion on the Cobb salad by the way is that I consider it to be a cultural contribution, like apple pie and gumbo. This is highly subjective on my part, so I would not expect you to agree, but that’s why I mention it.
The fact that they began here means that California had worthwhile things to contribute. I haven’t even mentioned the painters, sculptors, and classical musicians that grew up here, but that is because I’m not proficient in those areas.
California is, in my opinion, one of the greatest states in the US. I know you disagree, and I can’t change that. I do feel I should defend my position, however, and that is why I post this.
matt_mcl, you are talking about a health affect that the individual is incapable of policing. It would be terribly difficult for a patron of a restaurant to be knowledgeable on the food handling situation in a restaurant’s kitchen. It is pretty easy to avoid restaurants that allow smoking.
However, I would have no problem with aboloshing regulations related to the proper handling of food. If people are getting sick, others will quickly stop going there and they will be out of business. That, and the threat of civil lawsuits should serve nicely as a disinsentive to poisonous foods.
But why not go the other way? Hamburgers are likely more deadly than cigarettes; why not outlaw those? What about triple decadence chocolate death cake? Fettucini alfredo? These things all have negative health consequences. What about all the vegetarians unable to eat at Stuart Anderson’s? People with peanut allergies can’t go near a Thai restaurant. MSG causes severe reactions in many people and yet restaurants are allowed to continue serving it. I’m lactose intolerant and I feel it is cruel that there is a Baskin-Robbins down the street.
We all avoid restaurants and businesses that provide services with which we disagree or find dangerous; why is smoking some particularly demonic evil that warrants special attention?
[hijack] Los Angeles also happens to be on the forefront in that area. Three years ago they passed a new law that requires restaurants, cafes, etc. to post their public health rating in a prominent place. Places that get 90-100% on their rating get a large blue sign with the letter A. Restaurants that get 80-90% on their health inspection post a B. Ones that get 70-80% post a C. Below 70 they just post a number. Every establishment also posts a companion sign giving patrons contact information for the public health department in case they have any questions or comments.
It’s a popular law. There were even minor headlines when mayor Riordan’s restaurant got a B. [/hijack]
You’re absolutely right. We’ll never change each other’s minds, and we both have opinions, experiences and quotable facts we could throw at each other ad nauseum and severely clutter up this thread without achieving any results other than the satisfaction of having stood our ground.
This isn’t the place for it, and out of respect for the OP, the forum, Czarcasm and your right to hold you opinion, I’m humbly withdrawing from the ruckus I helped stir up and hoping everyone else will follow suit and return to the original topic.
My apologies to the OP and the other readers for contributing to the hijack.
