Caveat: facetious; pregnant with tongue-in-cheek allegory…debased verbose, linguistic diarrhea.
I do not put disclaimers at the top, but this time, the aforementioned speaks of what follows – you do not approve, you do not continue. Who has time to waste?
My first ever photograph was perhaps inherently funny. You can imagine a newborn human with the same puzzled look on his face (I am male) as the look you get from that bartender who just can’t be bothered. WTF? Omg. Omg, yes!?
Photographs. Yes. Fast forward 22 years. Introduce digital camera. Add young, confused, alcohol intoxicated pre-adolescent troglodytes. Err. No, it isn’t Picasso and I don’t think that was their intent. Sufficiently enough, who should care is perhaps more applicable. I’ve seen stupid and I’ve seen ignorant, but when you combine those two together, those applicants seeking some form of implied, inferred or tacit respect, need not file for consideration.
Photos that capture the moment, can, sometimes, end up being extremely provocative. Instead of having a ”conservative, invalid-carriage bound” look to them, photos come alive. When subjects find it amusing to make faces because “everyone does them,” and “it’s cool to be like that dumb bloke who lives in your washroom,” etc., I find it disturbingly incoherent as an argument of value and or force.
Rock & Republic.
Smoking. Cigarettes. Patios. Ah, Toronto is banning the smoking of cigarettes on those patios that are licensed as such and therefore must comply to all, inter alia, imposed regulatory conditions.
I went out last night. Everyone was complaining. Why? What is your point? Right, you don’t have one, as a smoker, you chose the wrong weapons to fight this battle. Find something more suitable, like horseback riding or road-kill management.
The argument is text-book; it is almost childish. German schoolchildren understand it by the time they are four, and they don’t even understand human addiction. So why is it that most smokers, of the adult stage find room to complain?
Part A is that they can’t be bothered. Smokers simply cannot be bothered to be inconvenienced. Smoking is natural, it is internalized as second nature, and therefore part of themselves. They have a right to smoke.
Enter a close proximity establishment. Enter non-smokers. Those who do not relinquish their status as humans ab extra, are compelled to comply to inconvenience. Tough, is the smoker’s argument, but is it really quite so?
As a smoker, you stand to benefit from the cigarette. It is natural; otherwise why even bother smoking. The cost however, is paid by all of those surrounding you, who may happen to be eating or otherwise; why have to incur the direct cost, especially when it is their choice not to smoke. That should at least be respected, and not disregarded as if second-hand smoking, does not put one at risk or follow further complications.
Begin smoking-ban. The smoker is now forced to abstain from drawing benefit. The non-smoker is not attaching an undesired and unwanted byproduct or risk to him or herself, as a result of their chain-smoking neighbouring diners. The cost is paid by the smoker, the benefit is incurred by all, contrary to the previous scenario where the cost was paid by all and the benefit was incurred by one.
Client politics standing diametrically opposed to Entrepreneurial politics. Choose. I choose the latter, and my case is made above. Comment if you wish.
Puff the magic penguin