Message delivery failed for one or more recipients, check specific errors below
An error occurred during delivery to host webtv.net.
address james-kalkman Æ webtv.net
Bad SMTP RCPT TO reply
556 : Client host rejected: Resource unavailable - listed by external RBL
http://info.webtv.net/spam/index.html#141.211.14.131
Bounced message:
Received: FROM nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189])
BY dave.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45B4DF8F.B80D8.17145 ;
22 Jan 2007 11:00:16 -0500
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id h2so1395271nfe
for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:00:15 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:c
ontent-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
b=rrRL+svGbZ06lOe5drqq6gS5nw7L77j4vbgP0Ihy9FsCiqbb1oRtrl/Qi47OQTj70o4zPOxDN/4dk
Zzejx+1lskX39uuEElWF1ZFl9HpWAZ33nlYfw6TJFNUmc8IB+q5NWz6ijsWjvxuJTW1Ewjy49MBDBQZ
W4KTlGQoYswKGKMReceived : by 10.49.10.3 with SMTP id
n3mr6886824nfi.1169481614620;
Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:00:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.48.218.4 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:00:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:00:14 -0500
From: "Lisa Hsu"
Sender: lisashoe Æ gmail.com
To: "Daniel Reeves"
Subject: Re: mea culpa: everything I've ever said about smoke-free workplace
laws
Cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu, reeves-kalkman Æ umich.edu
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_91434_20786098.1169481614434"
References:
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1104c1aefefbe5be
------=_Part_91434_20786098.1169481614434
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
does this dislike of bans/laws extend to things like motorcycle/bicycle
helmets, seatbelts, and the like?
just curious.
lisa
On 1/22/07, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
> It took a while but Cam Wicklow's and Matt Rudary's (and possibly other
> of my opponents in this debate who I'm forgetting) points have finally
> fully sunk in. (The greatest thing about improvetheworld in my opinion is
> how often we prove Carl Sagan's otherwise apt obversation about political
> debate wrong (see appended email signature).)
>
> I no longer support smoke-free workplace laws!
>
> The right strategy is a coherent policy that upholds everyone's
> freedom:
> freedom to smoke and freedom to not breathe smoke. For example, mandated
> risk-pay (i.e., the very real risk of cancer for the waitstaff of smoky
> bars) could make it expensive enough to allow smoking that a minority of
> establishments would choose to. Voila, everyone's happy! I'm really sick
> of governments banning things. It's a dangerous precedent.
> Basically, I think policy-makers should be more like mathematicians.
> Smoking in bars and restaurants is/was a real social problem. But there
> are ways to fix it without adding laws. In fact, we can fix it by
> generalizing, clarifying, and consistently enforcing existing laws.
> Risk-pay is one way. Another way is to generalize liquor-license laws to
> include smoking, i.e., directly make it more expensive for bar and
> restaurant owners to allow smoking.
> It really boils down to the Golden Rule. Banning something is A-OK
> when you don't happen to want to do that thing anyway. But worry about
> the precedent you're setting for when the government decides that *your*
> favorite risky activity is a danger to yourself and others.
> I should confess though that part of the reason I finally saw the light
> on this is that, living in supposedly smoke-free New York City you can't
> walk a block without getting three facefuls of smoke.
> I keep thinking how nice it would be to get the smokers into some kind
> of
> special smoking establishments -- "bars" if you will -- and off the damn
> sidewalks! Oh the irony.
>
> And don't get me started on New York's transfats ban.
>
> Danny
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's
> a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they
> would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view
> from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as
> it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes
> painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time
> something like that happened in politics or religion."
> -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
>
------=_Part_91434_20786098.1169481614434
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
does this dislike of bans/laws extend to things like motorcycle/bicycle
helmets, seatbelts, and the like? just curious. lisa On 1/22/07, Daniel
Reeves
< dreeves Æ umich.edu > wrote: It took a while but Cam Wicklow
s and Matt Rudary s (and possibly other
of my opponents in this debate who I m forgetting) points have finally fully
sunk in. (The greatest thing about improvetheworld in my opinion is how often
we prove Carl Sagan s otherwise apt obversation about political
debate wrong (see appended email signature).) I no longer support
smoke-free workplace laws! The right strategy is a coherent policy that
upholds everyone s freedom: freedom to smoke and freedom to not breathe smoke.
For example, mandated
risk-pay (i.e., the very real risk of cancer for the waitstaff of smoky bars)
could make it expensive enough to allow smoking that a minority of
establishments would choose to. Voila, everyone s happy! I m really sick
of governments banning things. It s a dangerous precedent. Basically, I
think policy-makers should be more like mathematicians. Smoking in bars and
restaurants is/was a real social problem. But there
are ways to fix it without adding laws. In fact, we can fix it by
generalizing, clarifying, and consistently enforcing existing laws. Risk-pay is
one way. Another way is to generalize liquor-license laws to include smoking,
i.e., directly make it more expensive for bar and restaurant owners to allow
smoking. It really boils down to the Golden Rule. Banning something is A-OK
when you don t happen to want to do that thing anyway. But worry about
the precedent you re setting for when the government decides that *your*
favorite risky activity is a danger to yourself and others. I should confess
though that part of the reason I finally saw the light
on this is that, living in supposedly smoke-free New York City you can t walk
a block without getting three facefuls of smoke. I keep thinking how nice it
would be to get the smokers into some kind of special smoking establishments --
"bars" if you will -- and off the damn
sidewalks! Oh the irony. And don t get me started on New York s transfats
ban. Danny -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves
- - search://"Daniel Reeves" "In science it often happens that scientists
say, You know that s a really good argument; my position is mistaken, and
then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view
from them again. They really do it. It doesn t happen as often as it should,
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens
every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in
politics or religion."
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
------=_Part_91434_20786098.1169481614434--
|
