Safety First

The Nanny State cares about you. The Nanny State wants you to live life without facing any adverse situations….well, without facing difficulties that have not been caused by government. You see, when life throws you curve balls, those are bad. When government throws you bean balls, those are called “shared sacrifices.” The Nanny State is committed to protecting you from every type of imaginable or potential harm…except for the damages inflicted by the government. Even when I personally resent the Nanny State’s annoying meddling in my life, I could, at some level, understand the insatiable desire by the government to control so many facets of my life if they were not ideologically and agenda driven constraints. Many of the limitations and regulations do not make sense from an economic or a safety point of view, but do satisfy some misbegotten ideological purpose.

A glaring example that we have previously discussed on these pages is the banning of the incandescent light bulb in favor of the compact fluorescent variety. For the moment the House has suspended the implementation of the policy, but government never gives in, never gives up. The insanity of an ideological unproven “global warming” scare leading Congress and the EPA to ban a tried and true technology and replace it with a toxic-laden substitute illustrates the folly of much government regulation—particularly the ideological-driven rules. The collectivist attitude is blatantly apparent in this regulatory fiasco….preserve the planet from a theoretical future of global warming, but put individuals at risk with more expensive deadly products.

When any child loses his or her life, it is a tragic circumstance. According to the Product Safety Commission, in the last ten years 32 children have been mortally injured by baby cribs with sliding adjustable sides. With the publishing of the data the PSC has arbitrarily determined that ALL parents are too stupid or lack discernment to choose a crib for their children that is not so risky. So, they have banned the sliding-side infant crib, and forbade reselling of older models at garage sales and thrift shops. We are waiting for a definitive rule that bans “giving” the lethal cribs from one family member to another as has been the historical norm. While 32 deaths are regrettable and heart-breaking, the banning of the crib can, to some degree, affect nearly all of the 308 million residents of the nation.

Unlike the infant crib regulatory ban, RU-486, the “morning after pill,” is ideologically and politically correct. The statists promote unrestrained abortion, and resist any attempt to curtail the deadly industry. It is apparent that ideology trumps safety when the impact of RU-486 is examined. According to analyst David Alton of Great Britain, roughly 5-8% of RU-486 users experience severe complications…including death. So, the obvious question is “why are sliding-side baby cribs banned because of their dangerous potential when RU-486 has a much higher level of malfunctioning?” Clearly the answer is that Big Government and the Nanny State are driven by ideological considerations. Aborted children and their deceased mothers are an acceptable risk to preserve the right to destroy children at will according to the government’s priorities.

As the government and the multiplicity of agencies, bureaus and departments roam the country looking for ways to make my life better and safer, the unspoken factor is that every little regulation that makes my life safer also limits my freedom. Many would argue that the comprehensive examination conducted by the TSA at our airports is necessary to protect us from nefarious characters. We know, however, that their “so-called” random extensive observations have no basis in reality other than mere statistical happenstance. Profiling is forbidden because it may be deemed as discriminatory whereas groping small children and little old ladies in wheelchairs is considered acceptable. Once again, the Nanny State’s efforts to enhance our safety do little to make us safer and do restrict our personal liberty.

Finally, this observation does not involve product safety or the efficacy of pharmaceuticals. I wonder how can a government that is so concerned with the potential safety of every citizen when they interact with the private sector, be so nonchalant about high-level bombing using aircraft and drones? The resultant collateral damage from those sorties exceeds the losses by far from some of the issues they seek to regulate. Does our federal government practice gross discrimination by assuming that Libyan civilians or Afghanis are not as valuable as U.S. residents? Or is it that Nanny State’s real concern is for the power to control us? Our actual safety and well-being are secondary considerations. Every little regulatory element places another nail in our boxes. The motto of the new order is “safety first, liberty never, state forever.” Enjoy your safe trip toward tyranny, because it will be nearly impossible to come back.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Needing Wants

If only I could remember where I first heard the phrase “we are a country of wants…who believes they are needs.” Yep. It is the entitlement mentality. That phrase represents the new movement for “rights” that are neither inalienable nor practical. How often have we heard a self-important politician or a “rights” advocate proclaim their rights to healthcare? Well, my poor misguided fellow humans, you have an inalienable right to life (which many deny to the unborn), its up to you to find a way to succor it. God has provided you with life. Do what you can to preserve it. All of us share the same inalienable rights, but we may have varying methods or preferences for preserving or enhancing our lives. One such method may be found by seeking the best most high-fallutin’ healthcare regime available. Others may prefer to follow more natural, herbal methods. And some of us may wish to roll the dice and live a totally debauched and gluttonous life. It seems, therefore, that YOUR healthcare is neither a right for you nor an obligation of mine.

As we attempt to draw the distinctions between wants and needs, rights and needs, we might use the following illustration: Harley avoids doctors and pharmacy counters whereas Farley goes to ER for a hangnail and takes a number of meds. Should Harley be forced to subsidize Farley’s medical addiction through punitive taxation, and should Farley cough up the money to pay for Harley’s natural multi-vitamins? If you have answered in the affirmative, then it isn’t much of a leap to insist that we should purchase Farley’s food for him because his vitamins supplement an extremely healthy diet. Because we agree to by Farley’s food in the previous illustration, we are socially, morally and equitably obligated to purchase the food for Harley. He prefers Big Macs, Big Boys, super-sized fries, and Dilly Bars from Dairy Queen. Food is food, after all.

The moral, economic and personal bottom line is that we NEED food. We NEED shelter of some sort during inclement weather, and most of us NEED clothing in certain types of climates. The Bible states  (paraphrase) that if we expect to eat, then we must work for our sustenance. Working will also produce resources for limited shelter and clothing. If there is no moral or theological basis for a collective effort for providing the basic needs, where can we find a universal imperative for meeting the wants of individuals…as varied as they might be? Any decision for provision by the state or the collective requires that some value be given to the item. Generic or brand? Cloth coat or fur coat? Prius or 10-year old Chevy? It is unavoidable that some wants (or perceived needs) will be satisfied while others remain unmet. Given the individual preferences and perceived needs, it follows that the distribution of the collective largesse will be uneven and biased. Besides, government will grossly underperform anyway.

As each person transforms personal “wants” into “needs” or “rights,” the social order moves closer to a breakdown. The new-found needs begin to ratchet higher and higher as the government redefines its role, and the level of satisfaction for the recipients sinks lower and lower. The end result is a government and economic structure incapable of providing the newly-defined “needs” while the frustration level of the populace swells because of their dissatisfaction. Redefining wants as needs leads to a disintegration of the economy and the social order. Everyone—government and individuals—live beyond their means….spend beyond their abilities to produce. Wants are unfulfilled, and needs are shortchanged. The benevolent Nanny State slips into chaos. The government yields to anarchy. The competent and resourceful will satisfy their own needs while their neighbors resort to violence or endure suffering. Expecting government to supply our wants leads us down a deadly to destruction. It is unfortunate that so many of our citizens have misinterpreted the “pursuit of happiness” clause to mean that they chase after government goodies while other taxpayers pay the bill.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Every Little Thing

An anomaly is something that is extraordinary or abnormal. In a nation of 312 million people we have a huge government apparatus which slinks into action whenever there is a freak occurrence in an attempt to regulate it or prevent it from happening again. The nature of government agencies is too attack the problem for which they were created then identify or “create” additional issues requiring their intervention. Freakish things happen, and it is not a necessary rule of Natural Law or Biblical Law that government has to ride to the rescue. Where is it written that every mishap that we encounter during the day-to-day living of our existence has to be pristine and hazard free? Because we live in a democratic republic, where and when has government been given or assumed the power to micro-regulate every facet of our lives?

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was created did the legislators anticipate that every aspect of food consumption and remedies for ailments (including the natural, organic ones) should be minutely regulated? Certainly we do not want our medicines to cause us harm, but many natural products are beneficial without the many side-effects that plague the artificial pharmaceutical industry. If we assume that the human made products may be stronger and more beneficial than the products of nature, shouldn’t the choice be left to the consumer…the patient whether or not to ingest or inject the artificial compounds? As long as full disclosure is available for artificial and natural products, the FDA has no valid interest in preempting the choices of consumers. Nevertheless, a growing arrogant bureaucracy feels compelled to limit the freedom of consumers in order to justify its budgetary existence…and increases.

Individual liberty requires that we exercise personal responsibility. When we implement our unalienable rights to their full measure, we may mess up or choose unwisely from time to time. Government has no responsibility or mandate to prevent our making unwise choices. By eliminating the opportunities for our bad choices government, in essence, unnaturally restricts our options. The regulatory effort to “do good” in effect does harm by curtailing our freedoms. The underlying assumption for overreaching government rule making and regulation is that government is privy to the best and most useful information. The reality is that government is constantly besieged by special interests and weirdo advocates whose efforts to direct the bureaucratic focus often result in rules that endorse unproven and unreliable methods. Big government regulation is not benignly committed to saving the citizens from drastic consequences of nefarious corporations and scam artists. The regulatory regime dedicated to identifying products, services and remedies that it approves, and forcing the people to be limited to those choices under penalty of law. If you WANT to chew dandelion leaves to ward off the heartbreak of halitosis, by what natural or supernatural right does the government deny your freedom to do so?

The Nanny may be well-meaning although something as huge and impersonal as a government agency or program has no feelings. Good intentions can never replace our freedoms. The Nanny State’s desire to control (limit) our lives so tightly may lead to the government conclusion to ban all sharp objects…just in case we might be silly enough to run while holding them. Of course, a ban on sharp things could limit our ability to fend off tyranny, too. It could become a simple little side benefit for Big Brother to consider. Government’s decisions about what may be a better choice for us may be correct. On the other hand their determinations may not be the best ones for us as individuals. Whether the government’s assessments are right or wrong isn’t important. The key element is that as reasoning individuals who have natural rights and unalienable rights assigned from our Creator, critical choices are ours to make. Government has no right or duty to usurp our rights…our liberty.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States assigns seventeen enumerated powers and responsibilities for the federal government. That portion of the primary legal document of our republic does not mention any little things, so why does our ineffective, inefficient government insist on regulating every little thing? I suspect that if we are compliant with the little things, government can violate the important duties with impunity. By conceding authority to regulate the small stuff we have lost our standing to challenge the government’s gross misfeasance and malfeasance when the greater issues are mishandled. We have a duty as citizens to reject the government’s overreaching into every little thing, and we must forcefully express our displeasure at government’s failure to fulfill its constitutional mandate. Rejection, resistance and restoration must be the patriots’ path.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

 

Last Private Sector Worker

Biff Buffer: Hello, Everyone, welcome in to tonight’s “Spotlight on Oddity Show.” This program will be a special treat for you as I interview the last private sector worker in Amerika. He has been living under the radar and out of government scrutiny in the little decrepit village of Toledo, Ohio. Our producers have done an amazing job of investigative work to discover tonight’s subject for our interview. He was reluctant to speak on mic with us, but Guido and Tony, our Associate Producers, were quite persuasive.

We’ll be right back with tonight’s scintillating interview after this time out from your friendly, caring Government Health Service and Sexually Transmitted Disease Warehouse:

Biff: Welcome back. As promised, our guest today is the last private sector worker in the United States. Please tell the folks at home your name, Sir.

G.A.C.: My name is George Armstrong Custer the Ninth.

Biff: Interesting. I find it fascinating, George. May I call you George?

G.A.C.: I prefer to be called “Nine.”

Biff: Well enough. Nine, many of our listeners are surprised that there is a private sector worker in this country because the most benevolent, benign and loving government is providing employment for all. How did you miss out on the wonderful and secure opportunity for government employment?

G.A.C.: Well, I never applied for the mandatory government employment control subsidy because I was too busy with my small business when everything was nationalized.

Biff: Just what is your “business,” Mr. Nine?

G.A.C.: Just call me Nine. No “Mr.” needed. I am a handyman. I clean gutters, repair windows, fix bicycles…all kinds of useful things that the government workers never get done.

Biff: Is it a lucrative business? It must be difficult to carry on without the government worker card or the tattoo of approval. How much do you earn?

G.A.C.: It is somewhat difficult dodging all the inspectors and regulators, but my services are in great demand because the government agencies never fix anything. My earnings average around 27 million dollars per week, but with gasoline at 42 dollars a gallon, it’s becoming more and more difficult to get by.

Biff: You use gasoline? Are you an environmental sloth, Nine? Do you not care about the planet and your fellow citizens? Twenty seven million dollars per week makes you a rich person. Does your wealth matter more than your fellow citizens and the health of our planet? You must be the sole remnant of the greedy selfish capitalist class of bygone days. With your me-first attitude, how can you justify being alive?

G.A.C.: Well, I have to use gasoline to operate my 1977 Chevy 1500. It has never been converted to burning food like the other vehicles have. Rich? Yes, I earn 27 million dollars per week, but I receive no free housing, no free food, no free healthcare, no free transportation, no free cable and no free censored internet, or any of the other benefits the government forces on the citizens.

Biff: You sound just like all the robber barons we learned about in school. You are the richest man in Amerika, and you have managed to duck the system while avoiding paying your fair share. You are a disgrace. You violate the very structure of our society, then complain because you’re not receiving benefits like the honest people are.

G.A.C: I’m not complaining. I’m explaining why I’m not rich. And I do pay my fair share. My weekly tax bill is 26 million, 999 thousand, 988 dollars and 87 cents which leaves me with $11.13 per week. How can that be interpreted as my not paying my fair share?

Biff: But YOU ARE RICH and you are ignoring your responsibility to the less fortunate in our society. Besides…something is odd here. How can you survive on eleven dollars a week?

G.A.C.: You’ve got it all wrong. I do help the less fortunate. I do their work for free. As for how I manage to live. Well, I’ve been drawing down my savings.

Biff: SAVINGS! Savings! There you go. You rich people hiding money from the government. Wait a minute! Where are you going? We aren’t done yet.

G.A.C.: (climbing into his truck). I’m leaving. I can’t live here any longer now that you’ve put me on the air. I am going away forever.

Biff: You can’t leave. There’s no place to go.

G.A.C.:  “Galt’s Gulch.”

Summary:  Those two words were the last ones that anyone heard from George Armstrong Custer, IX.

Biff and his crew saw the old truck fade away into the distance until the two tail lights merged into one red dot. And there was no more private sector to pay its fair share.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Nuking Chicken Little

The post-earthquake tsunami devastation in Japan has developed into a tragic situation. They continue discovering more fatalities, and the number of missing people could increase the death toll significantly. Because of the impact of the wall of water, a number of nuclear power plants have malfunctioned. The issue is compounded by the fact that electrical power has been knocked out for much of the nation near the power sites, and the coolers for the systems have stopped running. News media have been awash with stories and predictions of pending doom for the Japanese, Hawaiians, Alaskans and other U. S. West Coast residents and Western Canadians.

Radiation poisoning is no laughing matter. Neither is the ingestion of any type of harmful chemical or substance whether natural or synthetic. Getting run over by a bus or drowning after an overloaded ferry capsizes are equally unpleasant ways to meet one’s end. Rusty nails, kitchen tools and power tools have the potential for deadly harm, and carbon monoxide can be sleepily fatal if one is in a confined space. Vicious animals, evil people and “wrong place, wrong time” accidents contribute to the untimely demise of people rather frequently. Risky situations and deadly circumstances surround us, but we must go on. The mass media’s obsession with hysterically identifying every source of mortality, and the government’s purported desire to protect us from ALL of them…are unhealthy for us. Fear is distracting, and morbid fear is paralyzing. Wanting to live, and being afraid to die are two radically different attitudes. The desire to survive is natural and instinctive. The fear of death limits one’s potential for living.

When government and media informally conspire to “gin up” threats to our well-being, their well-meaning actions can result in a fearful public who is afraid to take risks. Risk taking is vital for the growth and development of a society or culture. Frontiersmen go to new territory, and the pioneers follow them to establish new settlements. If today’s tenor of fear were in place some 400 years ago, Jamestown would not have been settled, Plymouth would not have been the landing point for people seeking religious freedom, and the backwoods of Georgia would not have echoed with the sounds of convicts and debtors seeking new beginnings. Although the security of the nation is a Constitutional mandate for the Congress, the analysis suggests that their duty is to protect the country from foreign invasion….not from toys in Happy Meals. Their constant pronouncements and warnings of harm have turned us into a sniveling, quivering gaggle of cowards who find any risk to be intolerable.

One of the great concerns for patriots today is the transformation of our country from a nation of producers into a collection of people who believe that they are entitled to rewards from the efforts of others. With entitlement comes the loss of need to take risks. If one expects government and others to provide every need, it follows that government should protect everyone from every risk. So, if government decides to protect us from nuclear accidents, oil spills or disasters in deep-shaft coal mines, our lights will flicker out, our vehicles will sputter and fail, our factories will shutter their windows, and we shall all shiver through the coldest days of winter.

When the great cathedrals of Europe were built, stonemasons occasionally fell from the highest walls and the laborers who quarried the stone were frequently crushed by the massive results of their efforts. They were all simple people whose names have been lost to history, but their work…their risk-taking… attracts thousands of tourists who gape with awe at what their pre-descendants accomplished. Risk taking involves risk…sometimes mortal risk. If an idea, a dream, a family or a nation is worthy of risk, it may mean losing one’s life. When the Nanny State overprotects us, it robs us of our passion for concepts greater than ourselves. It steals our humanity from us, and causes us to behave like panicky chickens who are afraid to die and incapable of living.

Psalm 31:14—“But I trust in you, O Lord; I say ‘You are my God.’ “

Note about yesterday’s “Why Libya.” I had two huge errors in yesterday’s column: 1) I referred to “Tunisia” when I meant Libya; 2) Teddy Roosevelt was elected VP in 1900 and ascended to the presidency when McKinley was assassinated. No excuse, no alibis. I blew it. Thanks to Harold, Steve, Kevin and other careful readers for informing me.

Comments:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/