[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: A Lifestyle So Good, It’s Mandatory www.nationalreview.com A Lifestyle So Good, Its Mandatory California has effectively decriminalized marijuana (possession of less than an ounce is a civil matter roughly equivalent to a speeding ticket a rarely written speeding ticket), and the state has a medical (ahem) marijuana program that is, for the moment, largely unregulated. At the same time, the state is launching a progressive jihad against vaping, the use of so-called e-cigarettes that deliver nicotine in the form of vapor. The state public-health department says that this is justified by the presence of certain carcinogens benzene, formaldehyde, nickel, and leadin e-cigarette vapor. But by Californias own account, all of those chemicals are present in marijuana smoke, too, along with 29 other carcinogens. If that seems inconsistent to you, you are thinking about it the wrong way: For all of its scientific pretensions and empirical posturing, progressivism is not about evidence, and at its heart it is not even about public policy at all: It is about aesthetics. The goal of progressivism is not to make the world rational; its to make the world Portland. Advertisement Vaping is, from the point of view of your average organic-quinoa and hot-yoga enthusiast, a lowlife thing. It is not the same thing as smoking, but it looks too much like smoking for their tastes. Indeed, California cites the possibility of vapings re-normalizing smoking behavior as a principal cause of concern. Dr. Ron Chapman, director of the California Department of Public Health, says that vaping should be treated like other important outbreaks or epidemics. But epidemics of what? Prole tastes? Progressivism, especially in its well-heeled coastal expressions, is not a philosophy its a lifestyle. Specifically, it is a brand of conspicuous consumption, which in a land of plenty such as ours as often as not takes the form of conspicuous non-consumption: no gluten, no bleached flour, no Budweiser, no Walmart, no SUVs, no Toby Keith, etc. The people who set the cultural tone in places such as Berkeley, Seattle, or Austin would no more be caught vaping than they would slurping down a Shamrock Shake at McDonalds and they conclude without thinking that, therefore, neither should anybody else. The wise man understands that theres a reason that Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors; the lifestyle progressive in Park Slope shudders in horror at the refined sugar in all of them, and seeks to have them restricted. There is not much that I myself am inclined to ban, from Big Gulps to recreational drugs, and I do appreciate that the main problem with rocky-road ice cream is the same as the problem with cocaine: It is exactly as good as advertised. But progressives, who so frequently adhere to insane theories of parenting, have trouble saying no to their children. Which is unsurprising, if you think about it: If you wont say no to your teenage daughters elective mastectomy, how are you going to say no to an ice-cream cone? If you want a brief encapsulation of the view from Park Slope, consider this parents complaint about the ice-cream vendors in the park: I should not have to fight with my children every warm day on the playground just so someone can make a living! Making a living psah! If only those ice-cream-peddling nobodies had had the good sense to get an MBA or to marry somebody with one. They cannot say no to their own children, but they can say no to grown adults theyve never met. Its the only rational thing to do: Science says vaping is dangerous, and progressives are all about the science. Until they arent. On the matter of consumers contribution to global warming, Arianna Huffington was celebrated for leading a moralistic crusade against SUVs, which are disproportionately favored by the sort of people who might vape, eat at Applebees, watch the wrong television shows, and vote the wrong way. In reality, the most carbon-intensive thing the typical well-heeled American does is take an international flight but you will not see progressives leading campaigns against European vacations or exotic eco-tourism in Southeast Asia or South America. Why? Because they dislike SUVs for other reasons representing as they do suburbia, affluence, and the implicit rejection of tiny hybrids and emissions are simply a handy cudgel. International travel, on the other hand, is considered an ipso facto moral good, being an integral part of how one learns to sneer at American culture and American habits. International jet travel is, therefore, necessary, and necessarily good.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
California is nuts with a nutcase for a governor.
Is that actually a thing? Seems hard to imagine. Most girls seem more inclined to want bigger hooters, not no hooters.
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|