That's Harsh

Kevin Williamson, again.
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 — it’s 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.
One could say without offense that the philosophy entails a lifestyle. The claim here is that there's no coherent philosophy at all. True?


MikeD said...

I would love to see a reasoned response to this. But frankly, as I don't know the science behind it, I question a few things in the article. Williamson states:
"d 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 lead—in e-cigarette vapor. But by California’s own account, all of those chemicals are present in marijuana smoke, too, along with 29 other carcinogens."

That may be useful information. Or it may be misleading. If the volume of the carcinogens is 5 parts per million in marijuana but 600,000ppm in e-cigs, then yes, it is indeed "present" in both, but far less concerning in marijuana.

Now, full disclosure here. Of the two (e-cigs vs marijuana) I only have ever tried the former. So if anything, I'm a partisan of the former over the latter. But really, I have no dog in this hunt at all (I even quit using the e-cigs years ago), and in fact, I even suspect Kevin Williamson is entirely correct. Mostly, I just get all skeptical of claims when they're so carefully worded as "all present in marijuana smoke as well." The mere presence of something is not the be and end all of things to be concerned about. I'd like to see the numbers behind this as well before I judge the matter.

Grim said...

I've never used either one, but I do on rare occasion smoke big honking cigars like we used to do in Iraq.

I think there's an interesting point here, but I'm concerned about the claim that it isn't coherent. He's stronger on the SUV evidence, maybe. Maybe not.

E Hines said...

...conspicuous consumption...the form of conspicuous non-consumption: no gluten, no bleached flour, no Budweiser, no Walmart, no SUVs, no Toby Keith, etc.

Frankly, I'm down with the no Budweiser part. I prefer actual beer. I also conspicuously don't consume SUVs, preferring a Lotus Evora (which I also conspicuously don't consume because, wife).

Eric Hines

raven said...

I think there is coherent philosophy. it goes like this-
If someone is doing something they enjoy, and the progressive does not also partake of that enjoyment, it must be stopped by the full power of the state.

douglas said...

To expand on that- because I'm of the educated, socially refined elite who know what's better for you, and it's my moral duty to save you from yourself. Note that better is defined as that which I deem to have inordinate risk for me (and so you)- this is the risk aversion component which says that safety (or at least it's illusion) comes above all else. No Gluten or bleached flour- toxins that can harm you; No Budweiser or Walmart- well, only harmful to your tastebuds and social status; No SUVs, harmful to the planet and by extension our health; No Toby Keith, he's anti everything we stand for. Coherent enough, I suppose. You can always ask me about these people- I live among them, and have years of field observations in their natural habitat to draw on.

Dad29 said...