Nanny-State Spreading...

So yeah, I've been on hiatus a bit lately. It tends to happen when one has a life (and job) outside the internet. That, and I've picked up on an addictive new hobby - home brewing. The sad thing is that I am not allowed to make any money off said hobby... but that's a different post altogether, and I'm already groaning at the subject material I'm wanting to cover in this post.

And I'm still waiting for my Black Dodge Challenger, dammit!

First, I'm going to pitch my bitch about the nanny-state laws. If you haven't heard about it already, mayor Bloomberg of New York wants to ban large drinks... that is, anything more than sixteen fluid ounces. That's smaller than a normal soda bottle, just a little larger than a soda can. To many, this may seem like more an annoyance (albeit a ridiculous one) rather than a cause for any real concern. But, I beg to differ. The thing one has to remember is precedents and the thing I mentioned in an earlier blog about a frog in a pan of water - turn up the heat slowly, and the frog just sits there unaware he is being slowly cooked alive. Similarly are our liberties being whittled away.

There are a lot of politicians out there who are making a lot of laws supposedly "for your own good." They attack the tobacco companies... sure, they had it coming and probably deserved it. They were lying about how harmful tobacco really is. Well, millions or billions of dollars in lawsuits later, along with surgeon general's warnings on the packaging, you would think it's more or less done with. Now people know that smoking is pretty damned bad for you. But, some choose to do so anyway. Now laws are made that target the smokers. Oh well, it's a bad habit anyway, and maybe we can get some more tax revenue from them... and more... and more... and more. Don't want to ban them, though... too much tax revenue. Which kinda shows, I think, that the politicians suffer from the same malady that the cigarette companies did - rather than stopping a bad practice, they'd rather keep the money coming it. Pretty much the same is done with alcohol, and the thing is that with tobacco and alcohol both, they are great targets of opportunity for weak politicians who need a dog to wag. Bust a few bars in sting operations for accidentally selling to underage people, everyone will compliment said politician for being tough on crime, and most who know better will be afraid to seem as though they might be defending the alcohol and tobacco industries in any way. Forget the fact that most people enjoy an occasional drink or even an occasional (if not more) smoke.

I'm not saying that there should be bans on alcohol or tobacco, just illustrating a point about political targets of opportunity. Politicians are using the alcohol and tobacco industries as a golden goose; forget the feigned enmity. Realistically, the same goes for porn.

Now, these set a precedent and illustrate a mentality that gives birth to a nanny state. I know that alcohol isn't good for my liver, yet I choose to enjoy it from time to time... whether it be a good beer, a nice wine, or a nice hard liquor. I think any fool now would also know that smoking isn't good for one's health also (and yes, I have had family members die from it). But, some still make the choice, as an adult, to smoke. Me, I think that's fine and peachy... whatever.

Of course, it didn't stop with alcohol and tobacco, did it? The trendy thing now is the "obesity epidemic." So, people who either have absolutely no sense of personal responsibility or just don't want to work for a living... actually, I suppose it's both. Anyway, they started suing fast food restaurants for the fact that they had become fat-asses. Makes me wonder what would happen if fast food restaurants were to start declining customers for being too fat. I hope that doesn't happen - I like my Taco Bell stuff, and I could stand to lose a few pounds. But, if I were in the mood to blame, I'd blame myself. Not that I lose any sleep over it, anyway.

Then there was the trans fats thing, in which New York, and I think San Francisco, decided to ban trans fats. Now, trans fats aren't great, no doubts there. And they were easy enough to replace with natural oils, like sunflower oil. The reason for so many people using them was simply that they gave a longer shelf life, stuff like that. However, I don't think that it was the business of the government at any level to ban them. Just put the news out there, and I think that the manufacturers would have transitioned away from them on their own.

Think I put too much trust into corporations? Well, consider the whole "pink slime" debacle (don't even get me started on that one). Consider that pretty much every major fast food restaurant has stopped using the stuff... on their own, without any laws being made. The lean beef trimmings (aka, "pink slime") was perfectly healthy and wholesome, but popular opinion was enough to sway them. Like it or not, capitalism is a form of democracy in itself. You vote with your money and withhold it from those you don't like. Couldn't be simpler.

Now we come back to the soft drinks. Hell, I like them. For lunch, I had a mustard Whopper from Burger King with a 32 oz coke. You should've seen my grin when I saw 64 oz drinks being offered at gas stations. Especially when one lives in a hot climate, they're nice to have. Yeah, they have lots of sugar and little in the way of health benefits, but so what? Last I checked, I was an adult, going on old fart. I make my own decisions, and have no desire to have a new mommy telling me what I can and can't have. One mom was more than enough, thanks much.

Of course, like other such nanny-state laws, this bad idea is spreading - Cambridge, MA considering banning large drinks and free refills.

Still not getting the big deal? Okay... first, consider the attacks on alcohol and tobacco. Next, consider the attacks on fast food. Now consider the attacks on drinks. The nanny-state bans/attacks are spreading. What's next on the chopping block?

Erosion of Liberties

In truth, this is nothing new. Liberties have been eroded or ignored since before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. Figure, slavery was rather contradictory to the Bill of rights, but it endured for decades after. Then we have workers' rights, women's rights, ending segregation, equal rights for gays... the list goes on.

It's undeniable that some significant gains have been made in this direction. Women can now vote, segregation is no longer institutionalized, and there are laws recognizing these things. Granted, the laws aren't always observed by everyone, but they are in place.

Just as gains are being made, we're taking losses in other areas. Perhaps most notably in privacy. It's no secret now that what we post online under our own names can come back and bite us in the ass. It's the same as if you stood on a soapbox in a large park to rant and rave. The only thing is that on the internet, the whole world is quite literally your audience. That can include law enforcement, the government, your employer, potential employers, etc. This is why I choose to blog anonymously. I don't want thoughts I post here to interfere with my life, nor do I want my life to interfere with how people interpret my thoughts. I am aware that if someone really wanted to, they could find out who I am, but I'm not going to worry excessively about that.

But let's move on from the obvious. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said "they that can give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither." That's exactly what we've been doing... giving up liberties for a feeling of some safety, especially since 9/11. When we see cops in movies that make their own rules, we treat them as heroes. We grant law enforcement more and more power. But what happens when they abuse it? In some areas in particular, with how much power they've already been given, it's increasingly difficult to take it back:

Seattle sues an attorney over request for dash cam video

The short of it is that an attorney in Seattle has requested a dash cam video of suspected police misconduct. These dash cam videos are supposedly public record, but Seattle has cited privacy rules. To me, this seems like a pretty clear case of retaliation. To add insult to injury, the city said that they don't have to release the video for three years... which is when the statute of limitations runs out for suing the city, and when those videos are routinely erased.

But, the modern day of erosion of liberties does not end there. Sad to say, much of it can be attributed to people wanting all the rights for themselves and fewer for those who disagree. Religion is one of the biggest culprits in this, I think. We hear often from over-zealous Christians about how their rights are being violated when they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on others in one way or another, and it seems increasingly obvious that Christianity is having a stronger hand in foreign policy, as well as in domestic policy. This is something that is popular with many, while others are afraid to even point it out. Start looking for double standards here, and you will find them in abundance.

If you try to put a frog in a boiling pot of water, it will immediately struggle to get out before it dies. However, if you put a frog in just a cool pot of water and gradually increase the heat, it will not struggle. It will simply sit in there until it is killed. Well, we're in that pot of water, the temperature is going up... how far are we from being boiled alive? If something is wrong, make noise about it. Do something about it. Learn your rights, and be aware of what happens around you. And again, this is nothing new.