kfw

Smokers are free to move as well, to smoke elsewhere. If, to use Simon's terms, their liberty is curtailed by having to do that, then the liberty of non-smokers is curtailed by having to move to get away from them. So whose liberty should be privileged, that of the person who is doing no potential harm and causing no annoyance, or that of the other guy?

I think that's a great point. The author has given us a tremendous gift, and if her history is biased and incomplete, well, whose isn't? We can hope it will inspire others to write their own.

Of course I agree with this, but I chose this piece of post because it's so well-written Well written but inaccurate. In my experience, supposition that doesn't begin with presuming the best motives and seeing if those don't provide adequate explanation usually results in a false understanding. In this case, it's not ego that makes people object to a bad example - someone who has enough perspective to recognize a bad example is unlikely to be influenced by it - it's concern for others, particularly the young.

I object to loud music in cars; I've never heard anyone object to people talking on the street. I object to unnecessary behavior that annoys other people. In other words, I object to rudeness. No we shouldn't ban every kind of rude behavior - that would be unworkable and it would set people against each other - but in the case of smoking, the rude behavior is also potentially harmful. What compromise would you recommend? If people have to vacate or avoid a public space for health reasons, or just to enjoy a picnic, for example, their liberty has effectively been curtailed. Smokers, on the other hand, can enjoy their food without lighting up. There is only so much time in the day, and we could go back and forth about each charge. I imagine too, that you can easily see the weakness in each characterization (I'm not saying there is no truth in any of them). The fact that tobacco has been important historically and that Big Tobacco today does some good doesn't change the fact that when it's used in public it harms people who don't use it. And the arguments against smoking restrictions are no less didactic. Subjective characterizations like “aggressive" and "fascist" are no more than rhetorical exaggerations, on the order of "far Right" or "hard Left," which shut down careful examination and debate. Laws are by nature “universal” in the sense you seem to be using it i.e. that they apply to everyone within the law’s jurisdiction. The object of smoking restrictions of course is not to suppress anyone or any group, but to suppress smoking. You may as well argue that traffic laws are intended to suppress speeders. And here’s a point I want to emphasize: I’m sure there are many non-smokers who feel morally superior to non-smokers, but that’s their problem. Arguments for restricting smoking in public places do not depend upon a presumption of moral superiority. That we’ve all made dumb mistakes is obvious. Some have potentially grave consequences and some don't. I’m not disputing that the lightness of Martins’ sentence is suspect. The point I was trying to make . . . well, see below. That would be the two wrongs make a right argument, but in any case, I am not saying that driving a car after having a few drinks is not as bad as chosing to smoke habitually, or that the former shouldn’t be strongly punished, or that the latter should be punished at all (again, restrictions are not intended to punish, but to protect others). I’m saying that they are apples and oranges. Taking two hypothetical people – not Martins and Gillot or Dupont – and looking at the sum of their actions so as to decide who if either is a good role model (not a moral or less moral person) all other things being equal, I would take the person who made one big mistake and endangered himself and others that one time over the person who the person who habitually endangered his health by smoking heavily. But of course all things are never equal.

A total curtailment would of course be that smoking was outlawed, period. Who actually advocates that? And what is the alternative to curtailing the liberty of would-be smokers in public? It is to curtail the liberty of non-smokers on public. Really, if more smokers just showed common courtesy and lit up less often in crowds, anti-smoking laws might be few and far between. Each of these blunt characterizations could be challenged.

Thank you for posting, Pamela. Standards have slipped so far, and the concept of duty has been so eclipsed by the worship of freedom, that in my opinion it's unfair to ask much of celebrities these days. But examples like Queen Margrethe's are invaluable.

Great story, Cristian. My parents never smoked, but I remember standing on a beach in shallow water, having fun knocking the ash off of my grandfather's cheap cigar.

Hah! Don't feel bad. That's a very easy mistake to make. I'll just let things be.

This is a note from dirac - apparently in an attempt to cut and paste I deleted the text of kfw's post and substituted my own. This is a public apology to kfw for the screwup and I'm leaving this in place so kfw can re-post or delete. Sorry!!!!!!

This is indeed from Delouche's "Violette et Mr. B."

Best line of the whole thread. Thanks for the laugh, Marga.

Thank you for clarifying. As for me, nothing I’ve said has been in criticism of dancers who choose to smoke. I have said that I favor restrictions on smoking in public spaces, that I believe the concept of high profile people choosing to be role models is worth keeping rather than scoffing at, and that even highly disciplined people have lapses. And in regards to an earlier remark of Simon's, to say that giving Martins the benefit of the doubt is reminiscent of Whoopi Goldberg defending Roman Polanski, is tantamount to saying that “there but for the grace of God go I” is comparable to arguing that crime should not be prosecuted.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I'm not interested in discussing the discussion, which is against BA rules anyhow, and as I indicated, I'm trying to bow out here. But that's a rhetorical question, and like the points in your previous post, it would not arise if you understood my view.

As serious and disgusting a crime as a DUI is, I still respect people who exercise discipline day in and day out. One lapse, or one lapse every 19 years, doesn’t greatly lessen my respect. And as I wrote before, I don't think we have any right to expect dancers to be good role models, but I admire people who recognize that, like it or not, they are role models, and who believe that with privilege comes responsibility, and who embrace that role. We have no right to demand anything from them, but they can demand it of themselves. I don’t look down on people who don’t take on that responsibility, but I do look up to those who do. No you don't have to be privileged to want to be a role model, but that's beside the point. I don’t think it impugns any of those things, it just says they’re only human. Intellect doesn’t have much to do with it, in my opinion, given that knowing what’s smart and doing what’s smart are two different abilities. You could argue that, sure. I’m just giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. You could also argue that he’s not the first person to drink too much on New Year’s Eve. Again, that is not at all the spirit of what I’ve been saying. And now I should follow your good example in regards to an earlier point of disagreement, and say that I'll leave it there.

Simon, I understand your feelings, and I'm sorry you had to experience that tragedy. I don't think this is the place to discuss the issue in detail, so I will only repeat that I don't see lifestyle choices and one-off dumb mistakes as parallel when it comes to modeling behavior, whatever their outcomes.

I don't think we have any right to expect them to be good role models, but they're in a privileged position, so they have the opportunity to be good role models in that respect if they want to be. In any case, chosing to smoke and getting a DUI through carelessness when one doesn't abuse alcohol aren't parallel. The first is a conscious choice; the second is a dumb mistake, and we all make those.

You're right, we are.

I disagree. There isn't any question that secondhand smoke affects enjoyment and sometimes health, and I'm all for laws that cost little or nothing to enforce but cut out risks created by rude behavior. That's what it comes down to for me - it's a shame we need "state power" (which conjures visions of cops pulling guns) for that, but my sympathies aren't with the risk creators.

On the grounds that they are citizens who have a right to enjoy open public spaces just as others do as long as they observe certain rules. If you object to being downwind of the fellow, is moving such a titanic effort? “Certain rules” just begs the question of what the rules should be. Helene gave a few examples of when moving is a pain or else defeats one’s purpose for being there in the first place. Why should the rules favor the person giving other people headaches, making their clothes smell like smoke, ruining their meals, and possibly doing much worse in the long run? Why should they have the right to spoil someone else’s enjoyment? Having said that, as a former smoker, I do think smoking should be allowed in Chicago blues bars. So does just about everyone else in Chicago blues bars.

Role models for responsibility and gratitude - people who don't just tiresomely insist on their rights as modernity has taught us to do, but in gratitude for their good fortune give back to the community by not glamorizing unhealthy behavior, and by positively modeling wise behavior. I can anticipate all sorts of objections to this. But wouldn't it be nice . . . Yes, that's just it - you do have to move around, not just to be unharmed, but not to get a headache, or just to enjoy your sandwich. Smokers claim quite a bit more "personal space" than non-smokers. On what grounds?

Yes, and it's funny and sweet, and of all the historical characters, Hemingway in particular is a hoot. I also love the scene where Gil, the character Allen would have played in his younger years, tries suggesting a plot to Luis Bunuel.

No, but I don't think that's actually the question. The question is whether or not smokers should have a legal right to harm non-smokers. Yes. It makes sense to me that spaces immediately outside entrances and exits to public facilities should be no-smoking areas.

I remember Silja Schandorf and Gudrun Bojesen dancing it the last time RDB was over here, in 2004. Neither are tiny, but I found both convincing. I'm glad you could see the company!

Thank you so much for that report, Victoria. It's great to read that the company was well-received. I'm surprised they haven't tweeted about the trip, but perhaps blog posts and photos will follow. Of the Bulgarian pieces, Vardar Suite sounds utterly fascinating. A celebration of the national folk tradition with the principal women representing virtues and the corps women in pointe shoes . . . no kidding? How delightful that it's a contemporary work, and one by Mladenov no less. How did you like it?

I suppose one could safely assume laziness on a critic's part if he consistently got easily verifiable facts wrong. A pre-ordained opinion, an opinion reached beforehand, is perfectly legitimate if it's not contradicted by the performance or other facts at hand: if dancer X has always been bland, we assume she'll be bland again. Agendas can be good or bad, and good critics will have them just like many Ballet Alerters : they'll wish an AD would bring in this choreographer and stop using that one, would give this dancer more roles and less to that one. Really, once we get beyond verifiable facts we're in the realm of taste. I do believe in good and bad taste (and good art I simply don't have a taste for), but once we get beyond those facts it's all but impossible to show that someone has an improper agenda. All we can say is that his taste is lacking.