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?

Nanny State Lunchbox Inspections

When I heard about this originally a couple days ago, I was skeptical. I was figuring it seemed kind of far-fetched to be true. But the story persisted through a few different sources, so it caught my attention.

State officials inspecting lunchboxes for nutrition.

The above story takes place in North Carolina, specifically. Were it extreme circumstances, say, the kid showing signs of malnutrition, I'd support it. But policing kids' lunchboxes? Come on! Oh, and the unhealthy lunch being provided provided to this poor, malnourished kid by her negligent and uncaring parent/guardian: a turkey and cheese sandwich (meat, dairy, grains), a banana (fruit/vegetables), potato chips (kinda vegetables), and apple juice (more fruit/veggies!). As is the case with most kids, this one is kind of picky too, so her negligent and uncaring parent/guardian packs the food according to what she eats.

So, enter the state inspector, who says that her lunch does not meet nutritional guidelines (yes, that's guidelines, not law... yet). It seems unclear whether the lunch was actually taken away or not, as you can imagine the headline alone tends to ignite all sorts of anger and speculation. At any rate, it is clear however that the four year old girl was told her lunch wasn't nutritious enough. I read somewhere that the girl brought home the lunch, which means that it wasn't thrown away... but it may have been taken away during the lunch period, or the little girl may have been given the impression that she wasn't allowed to eat it. Keep in mind, this is a four year old we're talking about, and kids generally don't make these fine distinctions.

So, what do these heroic lunch box police do? They give her a cafeteria lunch and bill those darn dirty negligent and uncaring parents/guardians $1.25. What did this healthy and nutritious cafeteria lunch consist of? Apparently, the main part of it was chicken nuggets, of which the girl ate three. I dunno... I don't claim to be a doctor or nutritionist, but that turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, banana, and apple juice are sounding pretty good right now... especially in comparison to a few chicken nuggets.

Generally, if a parent cares enough to pack a lunch, they care enough to make it something relatively nutritious. And speaking as someone who vividly remembers what it's like to be a kid, I'll say that chances are, a packed lunch from home will taste much, much better than one the school would serve up, thus making it more likely the kid might actually... are you ready for this? You may want to sit down. Okay, continuing... making it more likely the kid might actually eat it.

Not too many kids praise the taste of school lunches, if you haven't noticed. This is for good reason - they suck. The quality is poor (for all you fast food haters, McDonald's has more strenuous quality and food safety standards). By the time of high school, I was ignoring school lunches pretty much entirely because of how bad they tasted, instead opting to get a bag of chips and a soda on most days.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not bashing the school lunch program as a whole, but I am discussing the relative merits of school lunch versus homemade lunch, and the stupidity of policing lunch boxes to replace their contents with a "more nutritious" school lunch. Yes, that has to stop... else, the nanny state mentality will grow, guidelines will become laws, and freedoms and liberties will be further eroded.