[Vision2020] CORRECTION: Bucer's (was RE: More Banning?)
keely emerinemix
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Sat Jun 20 11:25:50 PDT 2009
It's cigar smoking that's done in the enclosed room -- and never cigarettes. Since most Kirk women don't light up stogies, the paucity of females in that room is a result of what we might call not de jure but de facto segregation.
Keely
http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
> From: v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm
> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:54:33 -0700
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] CORRECTION: Bucer's (was RE: More Banning?)
>
> Hi Joe et al,
>
> It seems that perhaps the whole Bucer's thing is a bit less straight-forward than I was informed back then (anyone else remember the cigar appreciation session that was to be offered in 2004?).
>
> At the time, I was informed in no uncertain terms by someone within the Kirk who I had no reason to disbelieve that women wouldn't be welcomed at the class. That was it for me -- I've never been one to socially impose where I'm apparently not wanted. It became a moot point, though, because I believe the class was cancelled.
>
> HOWEVER, in response to my post last evening, I've heard from someone who says that it's ***cigarette*** smoking that's not allowed in the smoking room at Bucer's, ***not women***.
>
> So, perhaps there was some confusion back in 2004. Perhaps the admonition I received was on the assumption that I'd be wanting to smoke cigarettes at a cigar class?
>
> The person who contacted me in response to my post indicates having actually smoked cigars with women in the smoke room, so that more recent experience shouldn't be discounted.
>
> In any case, I don't want to leave an incorrect impression about what's allowed and what's not in the smoking room at Bucer's because I don't know! I implicitly trusted the words of wisdom I was given back in 2004, but perhaps that was a mistake or maybe there was some confusion back then.
>
> For those interested, I suggest contacting Bucer's directly for the current policy rather than relying on information I was given over four years ago that's now been contradicted.
>
>
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
>
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the author.*****
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:09 AM
> To: Saundra Lund
> Cc: <bear at moscow.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Banning?
>
> Good points, Saundra. I didn't know that Bucers restricted women from
> the smoking room. Does anyone know if they still have that policy? I
> haven't been there since Michael Metzler left town.
>
> Joe Campbell
>
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:46 PM, "Saundra Lund" <v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Wayne,
> >
> > You wrote:
> > "What do you think about the way Bucers has their set up?"
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't offer any comment because women aren't allowed
> > inside the
> > smoking room at Bucers, or at least we weren't when I tried to go a
> > few
> > years back. <shaking my head> It's such a ludicrous thing to type
> > in the
> > 21st century: no women allowed. Frankly, if the City Council wants
> > to
> > stick its nose in such matters as mandating smoking bans, I'd be far
> > more
> > interested in the cause had they addressed the gender discrimination
> > by
> > Bucers. But, that's a different issue.
> >
> > I really have no dog in this fight -- while I’m a smoker, I rarely v
> > isit our
> > local bars -- but I do have a couple of comments <g>.
> >
> > First, I think it's a stunningly stupid move on the part of the City
> > to even
> > consider such a move during tough economic times. Have we not
> > enough dark
> > business space already?
> >
> > Second, I really think the city should get an adequate handle on
> > things
> > currently on its plate before taking on new enforcement
> > responsibilities.
> > For instance, let's talk snow removal enforcement as just one
> > example :-)
> > Yes, we've had a couple of hard winters in a row, but even in mild
> > winters,
> > there are sidewalks that aren't shoveled for weeks on end, which
> > presents a
> > serious public safety hazard that is ignored by the city. Streets
> > can't be
> > adequately plowed because the city refuses to address the issue of
> > cars left
> > on the streets for weeks at a time. The resulting narrow roads are
> > a safety
> > hazard for all who travel on them, including emergency vehicles.
> > So. Why
> > on earth the city thinks it should take on a smoking ban in bars to
> > the
> > detriment of small businesses when it is woefully inadequate at
> > enforcing
> > rules already on the books is beyond me.
> >
> > Third, for those who object to smoke in bars, for the love of God,
> > COME UP
> > WITH YOUR OWN ALTERNATIVES rather than trying to force existing
> > business
> > owners to cater to your needs. Isn't that exactly the kind of
> > situation the
> > free market should address. Certainly, there are smoke-free bars, so
> > patronize them. They don't have pool tables? Then convince an
> > investor --
> > or band together yourselves -- to start up a business to suit your
> > needs.
> > Granted, you wouldn't have a liquor license immediately, but had you
> > tried
> > to solve your own problem rather than whine and force government to
> > ram your
> > desires to eliminate lawful behavior that will likely cause some local
> > businesses to fail, you could have had exactly what you want by
> > now. Lord
> > knows there's plenty of dark retail spaces you could check into, and
> > had you
> > attempted to solve your problem rather than getting government to do
> > it for
> > you, you could have a nice setting or four that would suit your
> > needs rather
> > than advocating a ridiculous position that will hurt local business.
> >
> > Fourth, with respect to Ted's case, I reject it. No one is forcing
> > anyone
> > to work in bars where there's second-hand smoke exposure. For those
> > who
> > choose to not expose themselves to second-hand smoke, then DON'T
> > APPLY FOR
> > JOBS WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED! Indeed, I find it incredibly
> > hypocritical
> > that some of those complaining about second-hand smoke exposure
> > explicitly
> > choose to work in bars rather than smoke-free restaurants or other
> > smoke-free settings precisely because they can make better tips in
> > bars, and
> > a good portion of those tips come from smokers. I've yet to see
> > anyone who
> > objects to working in an environment where there's second-hand smoke
> > exposure refuse to take tips from smokers. There's an ethical
> > position for
> > you :-)
> >
> > Fifth, what's next? I think <tongue in cheek> we should outlaw the
> > sales &
> > operation of inefficient motor vehicles in Moscow because they are
> > bad for
> > the environment, which means they are bad for all of us. What about
> > donorcycles -- we should all be aware of the significant impact on
> > health
> > care costs for all of us from those who choose to ride motorcycles.
> > And, if
> > we want to talk about health risks, then let's go after restaurants
> > that
> > serve red meat because you'd have to live in a cave to not know that
> > the
> > consumption of red meat is linked to lots of health problems
> > including heart
> > disease, which is THE leading cause of death in this country. And,
> > what
> > about those vegetarian employees working in restaurants with no
> > vegetarian
> > options?! Quite often, an indirect compensation for restaurant
> > employees is
> > free or reduced prices on meals while working, yet if the restaurant
> > doesn't
> > offer any vegetarian options . . . so perhaps we should get the City
> > to pass
> > a law mandating that ALL restaurants offer vegetarian option. Yeah --
> > that's the ticket!
> >
> > Sixth, I don't know Bill Parks, but I will say that I might be more
> > sympathetic to his cause had he thrown his weight behind the
> > significant
> > concerns for Moscow's air quality problem from allowing bonfires in
> > neighborhoods. *That* is an issue that affects entire
> > neighborhoods . . .
> > and the quality of life for people in their own homes and on their own
> > property, yet I don't recall him addressing that. Instead, he'd
> > rather have
> > the government address social & the business concerns of others.
> >
> > If what's been posted is accurate (I don't know if it is), I can't
> > imagine
> > Mr. Parks would be too happy if Moscow decided to outlaw the sale of
> > products manufactured outside the country -- my guess would be he
> > would
> > vigorously object to local government messing with the legal
> > activities of
> > the free market in that respect. It's really too bad he fails to
> > see the
> > correlation . . .
> >
> > Am I missing something? Isn't any business owner interested able to
> > operate
> > a bar or tavern where smoking is prohibited??? Again let Parks &
> > those who
> > share his concern open & operate their own smoke-free venue rather
> > than
> > trying to get the government to force others' businesses to do
> > things His
> > way. Isn't that what the free market is supposed to do?
> >
> >
> > JMHO,
> > Saundra Lund
> > Moscow, ID
> >
> > The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people
> > to do
> > nothing.
> > ~ Edmund Burke
> >
> > ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through
> > life plus
> > 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
> > outside
> > the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
> > author.*****
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> > ]
> > On Behalf Of bear at moscow.com
> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:22 PM
> > To: Ted Moffett
> > Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Banning?
> >
> >
> > Ted,
> >
> > What about something less draconian than a ban? What about a physical
> > separation with air exchangers? What do you think about the way
> > Bucers has
> > their set up?
> >
> > I can tell you that as a smoker, I am less inclined to compromise with
> > total bans and advocates of total bans when their interests are up for
> > consideration later. And I vote. There has to be a middle ground
> > somewhere.
> >
> > And you mention that keeping bars smoke free is a benefit to the
> > workers
> > in these businesses who need the jobs yet are exposed to second hand
> > smoke. In the case here in Moscow, I don't even think the employees
> > were
> > even asked. Based on the tape I saw of the meeting before city
> > council on
> > the 18th of May, it was an individual that is a bar customer, and
> > from his
> > comments, I have to believe he was talking about Mingles. So,
> > because he
> > doesn't like the smoky atmosphere in Mingles, all of the bars in
> > Moscow
> > have to ban smoking?
> >
> > I just think much more research needs to be done to see IF there is a
> > problem before the Council passes a ban. The quick, knee jerk
> > reaction,
> > the simple solution to the problem IF there is one, is to pass a ban.
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090620/6cd1513a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list