What Exactly Is Wrong With This Country

Warning: Rant to Follow

Over the past few weeks, new or proposed policies from local and federal governments have been encroaching upon unsuspecting citizens that are so far beyond the bounds of rational thought I cannot contain myself.

What follows is a brief compilation of the most asinine ideas locally and nationally that I’ve heard of lately:

1. Increased Millage for the Detroit Zoo. Now, mind you, just under 2 years ago, the Detroit Zoo was threatened with closing. Detroit City Council officials took offense when a non-profit zoological society offered to take over for them. They refused and then planned a shutdown instead. “If we can’t have a zoo, no one will!” Real mature guys. This never happened, thanks to the generosity of the tri-county Metro Detroit local governments.

However, sadly, the zoo is still a losing proposition and in a few short days, the fair taxpayers of these counties are going to be asked to vote to increase millage for the zoo. Outrage doesn’t accurately express how I feel. When a city cannot manage itself, as Detroit has proven time and time again, and when non-profit and/or private organizations are ready and willing to take over, you should let them! The price to pay is no zoo for Johnny and Susy. Oh, unless we can just tax everyone and forcibly take their money. Apparently the millage amounts to about $10 a year. Fine. Dandy. I’m happy to pay. I will write a check direct from my bank account today if someone would promise to take this item off the ballot. My neighbor can barely walk. Do you think he goes to the zoo? Why should he be forced to pay for someone else to go????

2. Mandated Purchase of Digital TVs. “It’s a new law!” I keep hearing on TV. I barely watch TV, so I thought this commercial was an SNL skit. I thought, “Oh, come on. No one is going to believe the government would make everyone buy a new TV!” Tragically, I am mistaken. WTF??? I cannot comprehend the insanity this is going to cause, not to mention incredible amounts of waste.

3. California’s Ban on Tobacco Sales in Pharmacies. If you need a visual, right now I'm pulling my hair out. The senator who designed this legislation has no concept of private property rights. Pharmacies should be able to determine what they choose to sell. But Milena, what if they are selling something a large group of people finds reprehensible? You are in luck my friends, there is a solution that doesn't involve legislation if you can believe it! A consumer who disagrees with something a private organization does can easily walk their dollars elsewhere, heck, even start a blog (http://www.dontpharmtobacco.com/ was available as of this posting) and get all their friends to boycott the establishment, and then the value might be seen and change effected!

If there was a true demand for banning sale of tobacco in pharmacies, it would have happened organically. It should not come from over-zealous politicians and their lobbyist friends keen on moralizing, resulting in a blatant obstruction of rights. The senator claims that pharmacies are places people go to get healthy, and cigarettes are antithetical to that end. Well then, I suppose they’ll have to stop selling candy and snacks (to stave off heart attacks!), alcohol and lottery tickets (delinquents!), condoms and nail polish (sluts!), comic books and trashy magazines (rot the mind, don’t you know?), and more! Ironically enough, where will these people get their fix? Gas stations better start buying by the truckload! Let’s hear it for Big Oil!

4. Los Angeles’ One Year Moratorium on New Fast Food Restaurants in Poor Areas. I seriously hope there was typo in the Wall Street Journal today because I don't understand this. Do you want to starve the poor? I mean, I get it, fast food is unhealthy, but I am hearing a modern day Marie Antionette cry, “Let them shop at Whole Foods!” Seriously. Furthermore, the moratorium won't be introducing organizations who can provide healthy food at comparable prices or anything, just withholding supply from citizens who demand it. Talk about immoral.

I worked in a food shelter for the homeless, nutrition is not their problem. They need calories first and foremost. If a Big Mac is the cheapest, most readily availabe food source, that is fine. I know a bowl of mesclun salad with poached pears and cherry-balsamic drizzle is tastier and healthier, but this is insanity. Furthermore, McDonald's and other fast food restaurants are hearing the voice of their consumers, they are offering more and more healthy options. Again: let the people decide what they want (and can afford!)

18 Comments:

  1. I hear ya about the tobacco laws. Random question: are you a libertarian? I find myself agreeing with most of the party's ideas.
    ReplyDelete
  2. @Monica O'Brien - I'm a "small-l libertarian." What that means is that I am a big fan of religious, social, political, and economic freedom, limited government within the bounds of the US Constitution(everyone mistakes me for an anarchist!).

    I'm a huge fan of CATO and some of the writers at Reason and the National Review though I don't necessarily agree with everything the Libertarians online talk about - a lot of them are pro-drug and anti-religion, which I'm not. (I believe in legalizing drug use, but I don't use them myself and don't think it wise to do so!)
    ReplyDelete
  3. Melon, you make me laugh! I've seen some of the articles about the fast food ban in South Los Angeles, I'm definitely not totally educated on the matter but part of the issue seems to be that %73 of the restaurants in the South LA area are already fast food. And I believe it's just a one year moratorium on new fast food builds. Whether this does any good, who knows, but the area is definitely not lacking in fast food. Plenty of access to it. So maybe it's a good thing. It will probably force a bit more change in the fast food industry. They have been offering more health options for their menus as of late and maybe this 1 year ban will cause them to get even a bit more healthy and keep their low prices.

    Now, what do you think of this one? I know you have a bit different views on things :) but the State of California just passed a law to ban all trans fats. Select cities have done this already but California is the first state to do it. I think it's a good thing. And I think they're trying to ban plastic bags too. Whole lot of banning going on in California!
    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh and about the HD thing. You don't have to buy a new TV. Here's what's going on. If you already have an HD capable TV obviously you're fine. If you don't have an HD TV and you have a standard digital cable subscription, you're fine too. Now if you have an analog TV and you're using an antenna to watch local channels, these are the viewers who are affected. And I think you are one of those people. But don't panic, no need to throw your TV out the window, but you will need a converter box, to convert the HD digital picture back down to an analog signal.

    Now apparently the government is offering vouchers, 2 per household, for a free converter box. I guess they go for around $40. I don't know the details and if you have to qualify for it. But that's the scoop. Unfortunately, ou may have to go out and purchase a converter box. Which I know is still unfair to a lot of people but at least you don't have to get a whole new set.

    here's a site about the voucher thing.
    https://www.dtv2009.gov/
    ReplyDelete
  5. @Sasha – First of all – your heart is in the right place. I get why the bans seem like good ideas. Smoking and eating crap sucks. We know that more than anyone.

    However, I’ve got to get back on my soapbox because you said it best: "Whole lot of banning in California!" Soon you will be mandated on how much exercise you get and how nice you are to strangers!

    Now you are making me laugh! I am one of those people with the antenna! I'm talking about principles. The government shouldn't be mandating changes to TVs, nor should they give out vouchers to help support a bad idea.

    As for banning trans-fats - I'm all about it if a restaurant or food producer bans themof their own volition.

    However, the government was not created to police our digestive tracts! They are to protect our streets, our rights to liberty, our rights to private property. One cannot continually redefine "rights" to include whatever personal tastes they have.

    I mean, I think my life would be improved if I had an iPhone, and in fact, if all my neighbors had iPhones, I think they'd be happier too! Sounds like an idea ripe for legislation to me!

    When we begin to allow the government to make these kinds of decisions for us, we are expanding their powers. I know I don't need to mention how dangerous that is. Just look at the former Yugoslavia. Socialism has destroyed their economy.

    I think the biggest error in thinking for those who support these types of bans that seem benign, or even beneficial is that because it is something they want or provides them a benefit, that it is fair. "What I like" or "what benefits 80% of people" doesn't equal "fair." That is faulty logic. What about the 20% who like smoking and getting fat? Don't they have rights too?

    Also, I think it is an insult when people use the argument, "But people don't know how bad it is for them!" Do you really mean to tell me obese people don't know their habits are killing them? Do you have to point out that the cigarettes, chips, crackers, dips, and burgers are bad for them? Unless they also have a mental deficiency, they can make their own choices about their health.

    Also, I think that those in support of bans don't consider other equally effective options like: not shopping or eating at places that carry items you find gross. Spread the word and others will follow suit. It's really that simple. You have a lot of choices. You don't need laws to make them.
    I understand where the impetus comes for these laws, and I agree with the premise. You know I hate smoking - probably more than anyone I know! You know I care about my health too. However, I care equally as much about protecting personal freedoms.

    (Hold on...I've got to cue the Star-Spangled Banner and release my white doves...)
    ReplyDelete
  6. One more thing. The only good thing about the Cali-bans is that they are in Cali. If this was a federal parade, I'd be really ticked off.

    I suppose another way to look at it is that people can vote with their feet - they can go to the state that bans the most stuff if they'd like! (Though I still disagree in principle!) : P
    ReplyDelete
  7. I am totally on your page, woman! The government WASN'T created to police our digestive systems. I'm sure, if the founding fathers saw what a circus this government has become, they would try to found a whole new country.

    I like Reason too, BTW. I am not quite as informed as you about what's goin' on with all of these things, but I know how I feel about them, and how I feel is...what you said.

    The less government, the better. That's my thinking. I'm sure that probably aligns with some political party, I'm just not sure which one...
    ReplyDelete
  8. @Stephanie - whoo hoo! Nice to have you here. Well, the Libertarian party is the closest thing I think you'll find! Check out Ron Paul, - he is the best and has really reliable opinions, which I find hold up very well against opposing views whether they are coming from traditional conservatives or liberals.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Melon, I can get down with your viewpoint. I dig Ron Paul too. I wish he was still getting some face time during the elections to stir up the pot. It's too bad other parties don't have bigger voices in the US.

    Since I don't know that much about all the details of liberatarianism. (Did I spell that right?) What about the laws banning talking on your cell phone in your car, only hands free allowed? Of course it's not a federal law, it's happening state by state. Are libertarians down with that kind of ban? Because aren't you possibly putting someone else's life or physical well-being at risk?

    Although, you can still text message and that actually seems more dangerous and I see all kinds of other crazy things while driving. People on laptops, reading books, and newspapers, not paying attention.

    Maybe people are just stupid! and there is no law to save people from their own stupidity.

    And back to the HD thing again. You know me and my love for technology. I love HD and everything in 16 x 9 format, it really is beautiful but that's the line of work I'm in and it's a very small percentage of people who even care about picture quality. I don't even have an HD TV yet but I do watch HD programming on my laptop. But I agree it should definitely be a choice. I don't know why they can't keep both and you just choose, like you have been able to choose between standard and digital cable service. It seems like a whole waste of money and manpower to have a governmental agency dealing with vouchers for people's TV sets in their home. How about the deficit? Or the fact that they just put a new higher cap on it. I think 10.6 trillion now is the new goal we can reach?! How exciting! It was squeezed into the new housing bill. Obiviously a necessary evil with the way the economy is at the moment but where's the concern for that. Sorry, just listening to the official reports on economic growth this morning. Sounds kind of dismal.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Ryan loved Ron Paul and I totally wrote him off because he was a Republican...
    ReplyDelete
  11. @Steph - heheh. Not all Republicans are created equal.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, I get the gamine thing. Not the big nose thing, though.

    There's a girl at my work who is a major biatch, but she's gorgeous in a way that interests me, and so I look at her a lot. She has jet black hair and black eyes and she's pale. One of these days I will have to ask her what mascara she uses because her eyelashes are just scandalous. I look at them through squinty eyes and then look too long and have to look away lest she catch me.

    Oh, the art in our everyday lives...
    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi,
    You aren't going to have to buy a new digital TV, but you will have to buy a converter. The government is reimbursing the cost

    There are 22.25 million coupons available.
    You can apply for up to 2 per household here.
    https://www.dtv2009.gov/

    Ironically, the people who most need the help paying for a converter, probably aren't online.

    Aside from the corporate windfall, I don't understand why tobacco is legal. Are there any health benefits to nicotine/tobacco consumption? You can at least make an argument for the medical use of marijuana.
    ReplyDelete
  14. whoopsy, didn't read all the comments before I posted the digital converter link
    ReplyDelete
  15. First, love the blog, Milena! Avid reader from BrazenCareerist, have you on my RSS feeds.

    Second, not to justify it, because it is certainly debatable whether the gov't should be involved in it at all, but they actually legislated the change to digital TV so that they could put TV channels on a MUCH smaller portion of the radio spectrum by making it digital, using some of that regained space for Emergency Services communication and the like, and then auctioning off the rights to use the newly opened portions of the spectrum to companies like Verizon, Google, etc to use or innovate around. It *is* a whole lot of extra "stuff" that perhaps the gov't shouldn't be involved in (I agree pretty whole-heartedly with your politics), but since they did get into the business of regulating radio waves, it's not necessarily a bad idea to change it up now. And the auction should pay for the costs....at least in an ideal world....

    Thanks for the rant, though, it pretty much captured my thoughts perfectly, too!
    ReplyDelete
  16. @zak - yeah, the TV thing is a principle issue for me. As for why tobacco is legal, why not? If people want to grow a substance and shove in their body to their detriment, who am I to say they cannot? I mean, why is sugar legal? It's really bad for you too, no real health benefits. Fruit is much better.

    @Nichole - well thanks! I'm glad I have an ally! Well, thanks for adding that the conversion includes a deregulation feature! Whoo hoo for that. And yes, the government shouldn't have been involved in the first place, but if this measure gets their hands out of the airwaves, it makes it more palatable!
    ReplyDelete
  17. Some additions to what's wrong with this country...

    How about the news story about the 9-year-old who's not allowed to play little league because he pitches too well? Or the youth soccer league in Fairfax, VA, where kids aren't allowed to win games (every time a team goes up by two goals, they have to give up a player)? Aging hipsters are not letting their kids and grandkids learn the valuable lessons of winning and losing, and winning well and losing well.

    And Margaret Sanger's work had a terrible impact on our society (but not in the way you usually expect to hear). It's the smart people who use birth control in today's America, and it's the people who either can't afford kids or who don't have the slightest clue about how to raise kids that just keep breeding. I see it every time that I have a motion day in juvenile court. Natural selection has been derailed! In all seriousness, what I see is pretty darned sad.

    Then again, where would I rather live? ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE ELSE!

    I love your blog; I really need to get back to work. Damn you for keeping me from billing hours to clients.
    ReplyDelete
  18. @robinoakapple - heheh. Thanks for loving the blog. It loves you too.

    Wow, the best players don't get to play? Ouch that's backwards if I've ever heard it. In fact, let's ban the Olympics, it's making me feel bad. I mean, I run around the block every few weeks, don't I deserve a medal too?
    ReplyDelete

I'm curious to see what you are thinking...