The Knee-Jerk Idiocy Meter

I should really stay away from CNN.com and their Knee-Jerk Idiocy Meter, i.e. their "Quick Vote" polls. The poll I see this morning: "Should texting while driving be banned?". The results: 92% Yes, 8% No.

By all means, let's encourage the idiots in Washington to pass another unenforceable law just so they can justify their existence and get re-elected year after year.

This isn't the first "Quick Vote" that has irked me. Almost every one of these "pulse taking" polls contains a carefully calculated question just begging for the knee-jerk answer. What typically follows the results of these polls is a CNN.com article claiming, e.g., "Majority of Americans Want Texting in Cars Banned". Irresponsible "journalism" like this just provides fuel for more of the knee-jerk legislation that is eating away at our liberties.

We are a nation of childish morons.

Cartoon from The Daily Scoff, along with a humorous related article.

Just Call Me "D-FENS"

Do you remember the 1993 Michael Douglas movie "Falling Down"? You know, the one where he plays a laid off defense contractor who's fed-up with the state of our country and his life, which leads him to ultimately lose it and go postal on a convenience store after the non-English speaking clerk won't give him change for the pay phone? Well, dear readers, according to my nephew(who is only 3 years my junior), I am that guy.

See, my nephew and I try to go out and have a beer every couple of weeks, just to keep up with each other, something we haven't done too well until last summer. Last week, we get on the subject of politics and the new anti-smoking legislation being proposed by the Republocrat nannies in Austin. Anyone who's been around me for more than five minutes knows this is a hot button for me. And it's not about the smoking(I'm a "small-s" smoker), it's about the loss of liberty and my frustration with the politically mindless proponents of the ever encroaching Nanny-State. I get worked up about our daily loss of liberty, and I'm passionate about the subject.

My nephew, an intelligent, successful guy, is one of these politically mindless proponents of the Nanny-State and Big Government. His attitudes towards liberty, voting, and the role of government in our lives encapsulate all that is wrong with today's voters. He doesn't understand, or, he even admitted, care, about the concept of "unintended consequences". Since HE doesn't like smoking, he's all for smoking bans. Even though I pointed out the endless potential unintended consequences of such bans, he flat out said he doesn't care. He'll "deal with it and adjust when and if he crosses that bridge." "When it comes to government, I'm only concerned with the here and now," says he.

Now, I'll admit, my nephew has a healthy attitude about change. When he has to wait five months for gall bladder surgery at the Clinton Memorial State Hospital, at least he'll have adjusted and accepted the excruciating healthcare delays. Assuming he survives the wait AND survives the surgery, he'll be much more mentally prepared to wait in the ten block long line to receive his monthly soylent green rations from the U.S. Department of Plenty. And admittedly, he'll fare much better than I when the Jefferson Memorial in D.C. is demolished and replaced with the Marx Memorial.

Me, I'll take the horn-rimmed glasses, the crew-cut, and the license plate that reads "D-FENS", thank you.

The Fat Police are Comin' for Ya

So I'm reading a CNN-Online article about the new round of Nanny-State taxes being proposed by the governor of New York(aka the Nanny-State Mother Ship), David Patterson...I'm sure you've all heard about this by now. He's wanting to tax sodas containing sugar to help stop the "epidemic" of obesity, using the laughable "logic" that high taxes on cigarettes reduced the amount of smokers. Ask any cigarette smoker and they'll laugh hysterically at the idea that higher taxes would keep them from their smokes.

But I digress. While the notion of any nanny-state taxes, ordinance, or other gets me riled, what really got my goat was the reader comments from the "Healthier-Than-Thou" crowd condemning fatsos like me and blaming The Donut Nation for high health insurance premiums. They applaud the governor for his fatty-tax and offered up even more suggestions to punish the metabolism-impaired, like charging "obese" airline passengers double airfare because their disgusting love-handles might ooze over into adjoining seats on the plane. "Why should I pay high insurance rates because YOU are OBESE?!?"...they scream.

Well, never mind that they don't consider who defines "obese"...the same simple-minded mentality that's in favor of heavily taxing "The Rich"...don't get me started on that. Those that set the insurance rates are concerned with risk, nothing else. So yes, those of us in The Donut Nation do engage in risky behavior. Therefore, we should be taxed to discourage our risky behavior, right? Stop and think carefully about that one before you start enthusiastically nodding your head. I'll give you Fatty-Tax supporters a moment to digest the thought.

*Scarfs another donut*

Risky behavior. Yes, even you Healthier-Than-Thous engage in risky behavior that affects MY insurance premiums. When you're jogging downtown sucking in car farts, rock climbing, playing rugby, cycling on the busy streets of Fort Worth...putting yourself at RISK. Should we tax your ten-speeds or issue you traffic tickets to discourage where you ride? How about imposing taxes on your rugby league? Here's a citation for choosing to jog within 100 feet of car exhaust fumes.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Well folks, those are the doors that get opened when you support "behavior taxes"...not so gratifying when your behavior is being targeted, now is it?