Misplaced priorities in Columbus

Let’s see.

Ohio is third in foreclosures in the country.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the system of school funding in Ohio was unconstitutional – over 10 years ago.

What is most pressing to Columbus legislators?

A “stripper bill.”

Yes, instead of worrying about protecting it’s taxpaying citizens from losing their homes, or raising stupid kids who will not be able to pay taxes in the future because they don’t have the basic skills to work- we’re worried about what time liquor stops being served in strip clubs and how close a naked performer can get to an adult who has made a choice to go into a place expecting to see naked people.

If you don’t want to see a stripper- don’t go.

If you don’t want to lose your home, or have stupid kids- don’t live in Ohio- at least that’s what I get from this malarkey in Columbus.

Yes, I’ve been to a strip club. According to a poll in the paper today- almost half of Ohioans had. The interesting part of the poll was that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to have visited a strip club- so why do we have to suffer through this conservative guilt trip? Because our legislators are absolutely terrified of addressing real issues.

It’s time to recall the bunch of them, create real campaign finance reform (so the banking industry can’t protect their high yield bad loans with campaign loot) and start addressing real issues.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

14 Responses

  1. Bruce Kettelle May 16, 2007 / 9:37 am
    Reason 1 – R’s must show their conservative Christian base that they are still working for them.

    Reason 2 – They hope it will fail so they can turn it into a ballot issue in 2008 to increase conservative turnout for the presidential election (like they did with 2004 marriage amendment).

    Reason 3 – They want liberals to oppose the bill so they can use that opposition against them during the next re-election campaigns.

    Reason 4 – They would like to pass a bill that the Governor will veto (see #3).

    Reason 5 – Someone wants to buy a stripclub somewhere for redevelopment and making it less lucrative may lower the price.

    And David, I think you are being a little two faced suggesting if you don’t want to see a stripper don’t go! You used the opposite argument to support the smoking ban. I say if a restaurant or bar wants to allow smoking then if you don’t like it don’t go!

  2. David Esrati May 16, 2007 / 9:45 am

    Bruce- seeing a stripper is harder to do through a smoky haze:-)
    I’m not going to waste my time explaining the difference here-
    strippers don’t kill, cause lung cancer, or have the company that makes them donate huge sums to conservative legislators.

  3. D. Greene May 16, 2007 / 11:14 am
    David, while it might not be as easy to make an argument that strippers harm public health, the argument has been made – socially conservative groups argue all the time that adult stores, liquor stores, etc., lead to an increase in rape, sexual assault, STDs, and child abuse, among other social maladies.

    What matters with the stripper issue is that some third party (in this case Citizens for Community Values) objects to an activity that is taking place in private between two consenting adults. The whole notion of ‘community’ values, beyond respecting life and property, is nebulous and dangerous – almost anything can be justified for the benefit of the ‘community’ or the ‘greater good.’ CCV is arguing that strip clubs harm families, without ever explaining how, or why, or providing any data or evidence of any sort. What is being sacrificed is individual liberty. It’s not like strippers are walking into people’s homes and giving unwanted lapdances in the den.

    I agree with Bruce that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too with regards to your arguments protecting strip clubs and opposing smoking in ‘public.’ Again, in the case of private businesses, patronized voluntarily by consenting adults on private property, smoking took place. So what? If people didn’t like it, they could go somewhere else (cf. the very popular Therapy Cafe, or Pacchia’s, etc). Plenty of so-called harmful activities are legal, such as drinking, riding a motorcycle, etc. It ought to be up to the individual to make free choices as to where he or she will spend time and do business, taking full responsibility for the risks.

    Instead, the voters of Ohio took it upon themselves to protect people from their own bad choices, by making the choice that should be every business owner’s prerogative. History is already repeating itself with the strip club legislation.

    Ohio is fast becoming a nanny state.

  4. David Esrati May 16, 2007 / 11:18 am

    Smoking and stripping are not connected.
    One was done everywhere- if you wanted it or not, the other in only certain places.
    So- should a business be allowed to be a smoking establishment? No- the reason- because if it has employees, who don’t have a choice on being subjected to smoke in order to make a living- their rights aren’t protected.
    Stop with the smoking thing- it is a positive move for the State of Ohio.
    Just wait until I post my opinion on helmet laws….

  5. D. Greene May 16, 2007 / 11:28 am
    Oh come on, you can’t be in favor of helmet laws! You don’t favor man-made forms of natural selection like ice-fishing, rugby, or base-jumping?
  6. David Esrati May 16, 2007 / 11:37 am

    I think not requiring a helmet is an excellent way to clean out the gene pool.
    However, I believe that no insurance should be required to pay any medical expenses for a motorcyclist who is not wearing a helmet-
    or that they have to pay a premium for their coverage to get that coverage. I’m sick of paying jacked up insurance rates on my bikes because of the moron factor.

  7. Scott May 16, 2007 / 12:17 pm
    Wait…you went to a strip club?!
    And you didn’t invite me?! Gee, thanks, Dave.
  8. Quixotic May 16, 2007 / 7:55 pm
    I have an even better idea – allow late liquor sales and friction dancing, but increase the penalties for lying about tips. Hello increased income taxes. Second, go so far as to legalize prostitution, then tax the shit out of it. Goodbye school funding problem.

    The only thing that really bothers me about these types of laws are the complete lack of common sense they display. Men have been going goo-goo over T&A’s since time immemorial – nothing is ever going to change that (the blood simple cannot be in both brains at once), God bless your hearts. Prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world – it is illegal, yes. Has that stopped it? Nope. Never will. That’s just reality.

    And D. Greene, you’re right, socially conservative groups (i.e. the
    religious right) have made such arguments. But don’t you find their twisted logic insulting? Basically, their argument is “well, this was an upstanding citizen, but then he saw a little T&A at the strip club, and went crazy.” Oh, please….

    You know, that’s my other idea for solving the school funding problem. We need to finally admit the organized religion is a business, pure and simple, and tax the shit out of it too.

    Prostitution and religious shaman/minister/pastor – the two oldest professions in the world…..

  9. gene May 17, 2007 / 2:48 pm
    It really depends on which religion……. Many churches do not have share holders, and no person profits, so therefore no reason to tax. (like many tax exempt / non profit businesses that are not affiliated with any organized religion)People are usually giving this as a donation, especially if they are in a situation where the people running the place have taken a vow of poverty. But many churches do profit, and the people in them, ie the people running the place, do profit (salary). There is one guy in town who drives a really really nice M Benz and his lic. plate refers to him as a PREACHER, interesting. But, I do believe this guy pays income tax…….If a friend gives me $50 just b/c I am ME, i dont have to report that, right? Soooo many people and soooooo many businesses scam the system, don’t pick on religion because it serves your purpose. Many people cheat and lie on their taxes, that is life. A flat income tax would be fair and easy, but that would make too much sense and it would put thousands of CPA’s out of work…. oh well. And don’t compare a prostitute who almost never pays income tax to many legitamite church ministers and other church employees who tell you who they are, who pay income tax, who help homeless and children, and who have helped abused woman and assist with adoption services. These are the same people who help cloth and feed others, help in the times when there are natural disasters, people losing their homes b/c of fire and other life changing events, who educated children and employ thousands, people who look after the elderly and give comfort to those who need it the most, and many many more things. If you have a problem with what they do and how most help many many people, I take issue with that. Grow up a little and understand who you are talking about.
  10. Quixotic May 17, 2007 / 9:22 pm
    Gene,

    Get a grip. What I said was organized religion is big business – I defy you to tell me that the ever expanding universe of the mega-churches, TV evangelism and the like is not a for-profit business. As you yourself said many churches do profit – my point exactly. So start taxing them like any other business.

    As to your rant about ministers, I do not recall bashing them or saying I had a problem with what they do. What I said was “prostitute” and “religious leader” are the two oldest professions in the world. Study your history, that’s just a fact. At no point in history have prostitutes or religious leaders (be they shamans, priests or ministers) had to work in the fields for their daily sustenance, it was given to them on account of what they did. (The trading of services for sustenance or the money to buy sustenance is called a profession). That was my sole comparison – “prostitute” and “religious leader” are the 2 oldest professions. I made no comparison between the value (or morals) of the two.

    You know, overreacting is no great sign of maturity….

    Incidentally, prostitutes and ministers are alike in one other way – both almost never pay income tax. That’s right, buckaroo. Most cities exempt ministers from paying income tax. Do your research.

  11. gene May 17, 2007 / 11:27 pm
    go smoke your weed and hang out in your parents basement a little longer….. some religion IS big business, some is not. It would be real hard to seperate these. I suggest that you give a a little more of your paycheck to right the wrong with education. Stop looking for other people to pay for your schools when you cant come up with good arguments to support them. If it were worth paying for, people would have voted for it… most people are tired of throwing their money at the same old bull shit problems with education. Throwing money at a problems, ESPECIALLY when it is not your money, is not the answer. But I know you think it is just easier to put a tax on it and all will be well, but the fact is that if organized religions were to pay taxes, then many of the services would go away… less shelters, less food, less help for kids,…. it is just too hard to say who would pay the tax and who wouldn’t…. and I wasnt over reacting, rather pointing out positives of many religions and their employees….
  12. David Esrati May 19, 2007 / 5:02 pm

    Sorry- we lost a comment from Gene- I upgraded servers today.
    Here is what he said:
    Sorry I hurt your feelings – i should not have gotten personal, I just think that you really don’t understand the many fuctions of religion or a church. Again, some are big business, what you see on TV, but most, by far, are not that way. You are just one of many who thinks they know the function of a church but have never stepped into a church – maybe for a wedding. I once had a guy tell me that getting divorced was not a real big deal, even in the Catholic church. He has never been to a Catholic church, and for that matter had never been to any church – you remind me of him. You just don’t understand the fuction of the church (or many other religions)

  13. mike schmidit July 1, 2007 / 2:07 am
    typical liberal hypocrite. pretends he cant see the similarity between stopping touching in a stripping business and stopping a BAR from having smoking. something that is absolutely legal.

    if u dont want to see smoking. dont work there. ;)

    liberals are so ignorant they make me laff. and btw libtard, if people want to donate money to causes they support, i guess u find that repulsive too? fascism=liberals

  14. gene July 3, 2007 / 6:46 pm
    liberals love YOUR money…… btw, if we tax it, and go for it babe, then the MAJORITY religion can enter our government. Maybe a step in the right direction. Be careful, very very very careful. The liberals want the illegals to be citizens, the illegals are PRO LIFE, be very very very careful for the shit you want…….. look beyond the mask, look beyond the next wave, look four or five waves up……… be careful………

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *