Talk Elections

link (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html)
()
Really, who is going to start smoking because of an old lady on a stamp?  Pure idiocy.

()

     Credit to JS, of course.

Nah, someone else used Picard before me.

And yeah Dead -- that's pretty stupid.  Not as stupid as putting movie stars on stamps in the first place.  But I'm in complete agreement.

At least the Postal service raises money in a respectable way instead of frivolously wasting money then begging Washington for a bailout.

     Yeah, though you were the one who uploaded that methinks. I'm too lazy to find out where else it has been used. :P

Ask Xahar... he'll know... :P

Absurd.

They could have, like, you know, just used a picture of her without a cigarette, now couldn't they? I'm sure there must be some good pictures of Bette Davis without a cigarette.

The same thing has been done to Lucky Luke comics, by the way.

...and film.  How often do you see a "good" guy smoking in modern movies?  Even in stoner movies very few people smoke cigs.

As absurd as this is, those who whine about it are no better :p

True Pit...I upload all the pics I use because I am too lazy or dumb to do it the other way. 

And those that whine about the whiners are a million times better somehow. ::)

I'm not whining :p

I wouldn't call this political correctness. Just nanny state revisionist propaganda.

"Political correctness" is the politically correct term for that.

I was under the impression that political correctness was an avoidance of insulting those that are perceived as socially disadvantaged.

What characters smoked in The Departed? And what character was mocked for not doing so?

k
I'm sure there are some more exceptions too, but generally speaking, good guys don't smoke in films anymore.  It even gets factored in the ratings of movies.  cite (http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/fwm-hillarytipper.jpg)

We were at Barnes&Noble yesterday looking at Curious George books.  My son watches that show on PBS every day, and seems to like it, so we wanted to get him some books like that.  They had a large collection of titles like "Curious George goes to the Museum" and "Curious George flies a Kite" and so on.  One particularly big volume was just titled "Curious George" and the artwork on it looked sort of neo-impressionistic.  I found it odd among the others, so I picked it up and looked at it.  It was fascinating.  It was a 2006 reprint of the original 1941 book Curious George.  So I read it intently, and learned how the Man With The Yellow Hat hooked up with George in the first place.  On about page five of the story it showed George trying out the pipe of The Man With The Yellow Hat.  Even talked about it.  "George was a good little monkey.  He learned to read the man's book.  Learned to wear the man's boots.  He even learned to smoke the man's pipe."

It seemed so out of place, to be honest.  Times have changed.

I remember being like four years old, and there were no car seats and no one buckled, not even children, and little children rode in the front seat or the back seat or on the dashboard, or even standing up in the bed of a pickup, if they wanted.  And no one ever pulled anyone over for drinking an alcoholic beverage while driving.  And everybody smoked.  Teacher's lounges, back when I was in elementary school, all had smoke wafting out under the door.  And every actor and actress--we used to have separate words for actor and actress--in every movie smoked.  We even had a nursery rhyme that went:

"I know a secret I cannot tell
3 little monkeys in a peanut shell
one can read, one can write
and one can smoke his daddy's pipe."

Smoking (pipes), peanuts (at least the shell), and implied misogyny (assuming only daddy would have the lung capacity or inclination to smoke) all in one poem.  Never seemed like it, though.  Well, the peanuts did sound like peanuts.  Most schools nowadays are peanut-free, even.  We don't even keep any peanuts in our house.  Or peanut butter.

Funny, though, one of the first things I notice when I watch old movies is how people smoke all the time, and drink quite a bit of alcohol.  And slap their wives around.  Stuff like that.  I guess it's conditioning.  Back when I was in college, I almost always kept a bag of weed in my car, along with rolling papers and roach clips, never wore a seat belt, and usually had a serious Wild Turkey buzz when I was driving around after school.  I would show up at job interviews stoned, and attended class more than a few times high on acid or coke.  Nowadays, I always buckle up first thing when I get into a car, never drive if I've had more than a couple glasses of wine, and I wouldn't dream of letting my child ride in a car without being strapped into his booster seat.  And, of course, we never let him near cigarette smoke.  Or any smoke, for that matter.  We cross the street to walk on the other sidewalk if anyone's doing barbeque in their lawns.   Nowadays, it's hard to imagine that I used to show up to class high on acid or coke or weed or alcohol.  Or stand in front of open barbeque pits, smoking reefer, drinking hard liquor, and breathing in all that particulate matter from the charcoal.  But it's not just me.  Individuals become more responsible as they grow older, but it seems like the whole society has matured a bit.  We don't even allow smoking in bars, pool halls, and restaurants anymore.  It would seem so out of place to see someone lighting up indoors, wouldn't it?  I used to be so anti- anti-smoking.  When the anti-smoking craze hit college campus back in the late 80s, I decried the phasing out of indoor smoking lounges as an affront to personal liberty.  I guess I've just gotten used to it.  Particularly since I became a parent.  I don't want my son breathing cigarette smoke, or riding around in a car with the driver high on crack or meth.  And I don't want him going inside skanks without a condom, the way we did when I was younger.  It all seems dangerous,  Didn't used to.  Does now.  I guess we hope our children don't do all the stupid things we did.

I guess the artist has just been so conditioned by our more uptight society that he left out the cigarette.  It does look odd, though, to see her fingers pursed like that, empty.  Should have found a different pose if he was going to do a smoke-free stamp.  Because all you notice here is the empty fingers.  So much so that it sort of defeats the purpose of leaving the cigarette out, imho.

We haven't grown up, we've turned into pussies.

That is the correct and original usage of the term.

The standard usage is as a euphemism for nanny state revisionist propaganda.

Somehow, I don't think "Pointless nanny state revisionist propaganda," as a thread title, would have had the same ringing conciseness.  And it was pointless.  And I'd argue that it is political correctness given perdedor's definition.  Smokers are pretty much treated like lepers, at least in the urban centers in my country.  An addiction so strong it requires that you step out into the cold rain for five minutes once every hour would certainly have the effect of giving others the impression that you are socially disadvantaged, don't you agree?

It's anti-smoker nanny state revisionist propaganda we're talking about here, though, not pro-smoker political correctness.