nanny-state

still-thinking-one asked:

Can you explain how California is a Commie or Nanny state?

  1. California leads the U.S. states with $778 billion in state debt, mostly as a result of the state’s $584 billion unfunded public pension liability.
  2. California citizens regularly vote to expand government beneficiary programs.
  3. A Californian city council called one Vietnamese business owner’s factory a “public nuisance” and sought to shut him down.
  4. Dianne Feinstein
  5. L.A.’s Terrible Streets Are Because of Bad Management, Not Lack of Money
  6. A Southern California couple who scaled back watering due to drought received a letter from the city of Glendora warning that they could face fines if they don’t get their brown lawn green again.

  7. the LAPD
  8. California Assembly Bill 2201 — Almost every male between 18 and 26 years old who applies for a driver’s license or for a renewal at the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would be automatically registered with the federal Selective Service System (SSS)
  9. CA state correctional facilities found guilty of illegal sterilizations of female inmates
  10. Police corruption
  11. More police corruption
  12. So many fucking taxes
  13. Drives business away
  14. Senator Yee, extreme anti-gun Democrat from California gets picked up on corruption charges and then a sworn affidavit comes out about his alleged involvement in gun trafficking
  15. Seriously unshakeable police corruption
  16. LAPD Cops Sabotaged Equipment Installed to Monitor Them

So for those keeping score at home, California is second worst in tax burden, second worst in economic freedom, fourth worst in personal freedom, worst in regulatory freedomworst in civil liberties, worst in “nanny” lawsfifth worst in liability lawssecond worst in occupational licensing, worst in labor and occupational freedomthird worst in property freedom, has the strictest gun control, and has by far the heaviest debt burden (more than double the second worst state). Oh, and cost of living is among the highest in the country, especially in L.A. and San Francisco

Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about [the millennial] generation being lazy and not working for their money. Here’s a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they’re told to stop?

RIP Phrosties 

First, he came for our Four Loko, and we said nothing. Then, he came for powdered alcohol. Now, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is coming for Phrosties, the clandestine alcoholic slushy delivery service that has taken off across the five boroughs over the past few months.

“A 12-year-old can probably buy these ‘sloshies’ online, get it, and enjoy it because it’s filled with fruit juice and fruit punch and all the things that taste sweet and nice,” Schumer said at a press conference Monday. “A few weeks ago, I talked about powdered alcohol. I’m making an effort to prevent that from being sold. I would like to see the same thing happen to these ‘sloshies’” if they’re not regulated.

The remarks, coupled with the news that the New York State Liquor Authority is investigating the “unregulated and unlicensed” slushy merchants, has scared the creators of Phrostie out of business, or at least driven them deeper underground. By Tuesday, thePhrostie Instagram account had been scrubbed clean, its delivery contact details replaced by the warning “WE DO NOT DELIVER.” After that, my texts to the previously listed phone numbers went unanswered, until Wednesday night, when I got a reply from the Brooklyn delivery service saying that if I wanted any more Phrosties, I would have to order “ASAP.”

Twenty minutes later, a delivery guy showed up and handed me a black grocery bag full of slushies. “That’s it for the Phrosties,” he sighed. The service, he explained, was selling the last of its inventory and closing up shop, thanks to “Schumer and the regulations, I guess.”

Continue

Child services and police harassing couple for letting their children play outside

This is a very troubling story that isn’t getting much attention in the mainstream media.  We need to change that. 

from Reason:

Dear Reason: On Monday, a Montgomery County child protective services worker went to my children’s school and interviewed them without my knowledge or consent. Why?

Because last month we’d let them walk home from the park by themselves. It’s a mile away. They are 6 and 10. We live in suburban Maryland. Let me recap the story and then tell you where we’re at.

On a Saturday afternoon in December, my husband, Alexander, gave our kids permission to walk home from the local playground. I was out of town at the time. When they’d walked about halfway, a Montgomery County Police patrol car pulled up. A “helpful” neighbor had called 911 to report unaccompanied children walking outside. Our kids were brought home in a police cruiser.

At the door the police officer asked to see my husband’s ID, but did not explain why. When he refused, she called for backup.

A total of six patrol cars showed up.

Alexander then agreed to get his ID and went to go upstairs. The officer said—in front of the kids—that if he came down with anything else, “shots would be fired.” She proceeded to follow him upstairs, and when he said she had no right to do so without a warrant, she insisted that she did.

Our 10 yr. old called me crying and saying that the police were there and that Daddy was going to be arrested. Alexander stepped outside to continue the conversation away from the kids. When he disagreed with one of the officers about the dangers that walking alone posed to children, she asked him: “Don’t you realize how dangerous the world is? Don’t you watch TV?” They took notes and left.

Two hours later a CPS worker arrived with a “temporary safety plan,” which she told my husband to sign. It stated that he would not leave the children unsupervised at any time before Monday morning, when someone from their office could contact him. He refused to sign it. She informed him that if he didn’t, she would instruct the police to take the children away immediately. He signed.

We were then contacted by a CPS social worker named W. Don Thorne who made an appointment for us to come to his office on Friday,  Jan. 9. A little while later he called back saying that he needed to come to us, so that he could see our house. We told him we would meet with him at his office, not our home. He said he would speak with his supervisor and call us back.

On Monday, Mr. Thorne showed up at our door unannounced, accompanied by a police officer. He insisted that he had the right to come into our house without a warrant. I said that I was invoking my Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted search, and would not let him in, but repeated my willingness to go to his office to answer questions. Then I noticed that he had a visitor’s sticker from my children’s elementary school on his jacket. Had he been to my children’s school to interview them?!

He didn’t answer that question and they quickly left. I have since learned that he visited my children’s school and spoke to my children without my knowledge or consent.

We do not know what actions CPS will take next.

read the rest

I think, in this situation, I would move out of Maryland to a state with a little more respect for parental rights. 

As I said before, this story needs to get more attention.  Please share it on Facebook and show support for these parents and their right to raise their children as they see fit.  The more light we can shine on the Montgomery County CPS and Police Department, the better chance the Meitivs have of winning their battle to raise their own children as they see fit.

Also, if you live in Maryland, contact your Congressman and Senators and make sure they are aware of this couple’s plight.  Enough is enough.

The Seattle City Council passed a new ordinance Monday that could mean $1 fines for people who toss too many table scraps into the trash. […]

Under the new rules, collectors can take a cursory look each time they dump trash into a garbage truck.

If they see compostable items make up 10 percent or more of the trash, they’ll enter the violation into a computer system their trucks already carry, and will leave a ticket on the garbage bin that says to expect a $1 fine on the next garbage bill.

Composting and not wasting food are obviously good things, but:

1. Kinda creepy. Obviously there’s not really a reasonable expectation of privacy with garbage, but we also don’t expect the garbage collectors to be actively rooting through our trash. Especially if you’re tossing medical stuff, like empty prescription bottles.

2. It’s difficult to imagine that this won’t eventually be abused. Trash can tell you a lot about someone’s life. In our “see something, say something” society, the garbage men may become de facto, warrant-free eyes and ears for the police department. Pot is legal in Seattle, but other drugs aren’t, and it’s especially easy to see how this policy could be a boon to the drug war. 

3. 10% could be awfully subjective. A dollar fined here and there can add up for a city budget, and there will be no real way to contest these fines. The fines will be based entirely on the garbage collector’s very quick estimation, and by the time the citizen finds out, their trash will be long gone. Even if the trash collectors estimate honestly to the best of their abilities, it seems naive to think that people won’t get fined unfairly.

4. If our garbage is up for review, what next? The crux of the issue here is not whether people should be responsible and frugal with their food and food waste. I think everyone pretty much agrees with that, even if they don’t necessarily practice it. Indeed, there are a lot of good things to do which we don’t let the government mandate, because we understand that adults should be able to make their own decisions. But if our trash is fair game for government review, what other surveillance powers might the government claim to make us “better” people?

11 Ways You Know You Live In A Country Run By Idiots

1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.

2. If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.

3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt, you live in a country run by idiots.

5. If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.

6. If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.

7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.

8. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of grade school for saying his teacher’s “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable,you live in a country run by idiots.

9. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones, you live in a country run by idiots.

10. If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work, you live in a country run by idiots.

11. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

Lawmakers look to ban powdered alcohol before it hits the shelves

When in doubt, ban it. It’s the government way.

From Yahoo! News:

Powdered alcohol hasn’t even arrived in stores yet, but states already are moving to ban the product touted by its inventor as an easy way to mix a drink on the go.

Colorado is the latest state considering prohibiting “Palcohol” amid concern it will increase underage drinking. The product is marketed as an ounce of rum or vodka in powdered form, which is then added to water.

Each serving is the equivalent of a shot of liquor, according to Lipsmark, the company that owns Palcohol.

"I think being proactive and jumping out in front of the problem is probably the right thing to do," said Chris Johnson, executive director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado. "It really doesn’t have any place in our society, powered alcohol. We have enough problems with the liquid kind."

Johnson said he fears powdered alcohol will make it easier for children to “sprinkle it on top of their Wheaties for breakfast” and increase the potential for alcohol poisoning.

"It can be a very dangerous thing," he said.

Read the Rest

It should be illegal because it might be dangerous? I suppose we should ban swimming pools, fireplaces, sports, sex, amusement parks, eating, staying home, leaving homesleepingnot sleeping, pets, tractors and peanuts while we’re at it. Any of those things might be dangerous. Or, you know, we could let free people make their own choices and live with the consequences. That might work too, right?

As a teetotaler, I have some objectivity when it comes to this issue. I personally think it is unwise to purchase a substance that can be easily misused and could potentially have horrible consequences. That’s not a good combination. But you know what? It’s none of my business what others do. I can give what I believe to be sound advice, but I am not arrogant enough to think that I have the right to coerce anyone to do, or not do, anything, so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others.

As usual, let’s remember the immortal words of C.S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Bill Would Ban Connecticut Childcare Providers From Serving Whole Milk:

A new bill making its way through the Connecticut legislature would ban daycare centers and home childcare providers from serving whole milk or 2% milk to the kids in their care. […]

[But] doesn’t it just make sense that giving kids milk with less fat and less calories would help them avoid unhealthy weight gain? Well, good thing we have research looking at exactly this question in actual kids. A longitudinal Harvard study, published in 2005, found drinking skim or 1% milk was associated with weight gain in 9- to 14-year-olds, while drinking whole or 2% milk was not. A 2013 studyfound the same associations for pre-schoolers. 

So in addition to infringing on personal liberty, the Connecticut bill—”An Act Concerning Nutrition Standards for Child Care Settings"—is based more on some legislator’s harebrained idea of how nutrition and diet work than any actual nutrition or dietary science. 

If you want a clear explanation of exactly why skim milk is absolutely disgusting and terrible for you, read the rest of the article which I left out here for brevity. Spoiler: It involves a stage when the skim “milk” is bluish gray.

Also, civil disobedience idea in case this passes: Start serving heavy cream instead. Hey, it’s not whole milk!