Having read Gabe and Todd's visions of the future, I am not quite as optimistic as the two of them. Gabe's view seemed the more optimistic of the two, and Todd's did allow for a window of optimism before returning to the same douche bag planet that we mostly are.
Without further adieu, I present to you the nanny state. Webster defines the nanny state as a government that is too controlling or interfering. In the things I've read and observed about the nanny state, it seems to be a people or a government prone to extremes and afraid of tension.
Tension is a state of moderation. It's the center of the spinning top. It's the point in which the most forces are tugging and pushing on you, and requires the most effort on your part to stay where you are. It's not the easy position to maintain, but it is ideal. A nanny state would occur in the extremities, where everything is fully one way, and there is no room for contradiction. Because in this state of existence everything is fully one way, the nanny state is forced to push everything in that direction so that they don't compromise their position. Often, the nanny state position or attitude is adopted in interest of “protection,” and like all protection, it's stemming from a source of fear. Though in the nanny state, it's more fear than interest of protection.
So that all sounds very negative and browbeating. But let me produce my evidence.
Anyone remember a particular lady in a particular McDonald's that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued McDonald's (and won) when it's no surprise that coffee is a hot drink. What you should do there, as judge, is laugh at her, in court. Like literally point and laugh at her, and then ask her, “ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND! GET OUT OF HERE AND STOP WASTING MY TIME!” and then the judge should personally kick her out of court with a giant novelty sized shoe that reads “court stompin' shoe.”
When I worked at Gamestop, a little game I like to call Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was removed from the shelves because someone found a hack to make the people naked. You might think, “hell yes! Remove that naked filth from our shelves!” but you're probably unaware of how this hack works. First, you have to buy the hard drive for the PS2, which is a paltry 100 dollar accessory, then you'd have to have the knowledge to make your PS2 a, essentially, mini PC so that it can browse the Internet. After you've done that, then you can locate the correct site with the correct hack. This was done in interest of “protecting kids” which is pure crap. Mostly, if your kid is playing GTA in the first place you've either failed as a parent, or your kid is an adult. Either way, they have cheaper and more realistic ways of finding real naked people. Meanwhile, Sony releases a game in which you have interactive sex with goddesses (I mean, just one part of the game, not the whole thing), but these same watchdog groups do nothing. Now, here's what you should do: probably nothing. The GTA hack is ridiculous to achieve as it requires an expensive accessory that most PS2 owners don't even have, and it requires a technological expertise that most people can't even muster together to use against their VCR's conspired clock blinking.
American's are fat. It's like a national past time for us. And yet, so people would consume less, we address the symptom instead of the issue and make the fast food joints stop serving their larger sizes, when (mmmder), it just means that people will order more food. How about you address the actual issue which is this: America's lost her mind and her self control. How about you work on getting those back, eh?
Smoking. OH HOLY FUCK THERE'S CANCER OUT THERE! SON OF A BITCH! Excuse my expletives (but I like that line). Essentially, this is the one issue in which the liberal and conservative views have coalesced in one unholy union. Smoking kills. Once again, we're addressing the symptom and not the issue. And how about those jackass Truth adds? Few things make me want to go on a brick-throwing-flipping-cars-over-and-lighting-them-on-fire rampage quite like a couple of asinine commercials that portray the tobacco companies as somehow having the arcane talent of bending the very will of the populace, completely negating the fact that every smoker chose to smoke. Additionally, there's the smoking ban. Doesn't that seem a little, oh, I don't know, freedom abridging? How about you let the establishments decide? How does that sound? Probably marvelous, as it should. Each establish decides, and then those Truth assholes should put their energy to good use. Tell people if they want to smoke, because you can smoke and die of old age before you die of cancer, to pick up pipes and cigars, or to stop inhaling, or tell the tobacco companies to stop putting so much crap in the tobacco. Seriously. American tobacco should be the best (a good portion of our olde timey economy was founded on it), but it has the greatest number of pollutants in it. Ridiculous.
Offense. Tolerance. Holy crap is that a pain bigger than it's worth. Listen, if something offends you, evaluate the statement and confront the individual. It's possible that the thing they just said is true, and therefore, there should be some action of change on your behalf. SO CHANGE! If it was an asshat remark, then tell them to stop being an asshat like civilized people should. Instead, we have to go tell mom.
Seatbelts
Helmets
Now those two are simple and lifesaving, but ridiculous. I mean, come on: helmets look ridiculous. Or the whole safety pad nonsense. That's just negating risk on an asinine level.There are also discussion of laws to prohibit you from eating, drinking, talking on cell phones, and even listening to the radio.
And this list is partial at best, and I'm certain every person who reads this will be able to add on to it, but I do feel it shows a trend that should inspire concern at the very least. Part of this nanny state is a lowering of standards. In 1950, the average high school graduate had a vocabulary of 50k+ words. Now the average graduate, if he can even pronounce graduation correctly, has a vocabulary of 14k+ words. As standards lower and responsibility is diverted from the people ACTUALLY responsible, systems have to be put into place to, mostly, protect us from our retarded selves.
Life should be about risk management, not risk avoidance, and the nanny state takes away that choice.
“Now class, take out your circles of paper and your safety pencils.” - The Simpsons
2 comments:
Hi - I stumbled across your blog this afternoon - I just wanted to make a quick comment regarding the McDonalds lawsuit. If you actually read the opinion (as I have) and know the facts of the case without jumping to conclusions based on what you have heard on the radio station or from friends (or however else this story passes from one individual to another), you'd know that 1. the woman's claim DID actually have merit, and 2. she did not end up actually getting more than a paltry amount of recovery from the fast food chain (rather than the millions Americans assume she 'won'). I dont mean to come across as rude or bitchy, but as a lawyer myself, I have a problem with people assuming things such as this, and going so far as to joke that an elderly woman with 2nd degree burns should be kicked by a giant shoe.
Thank you.
thanks for the comment, and assuming everything you said is true, i apologize for not having done my due diligence. and again, my shoe comment is a sarcastic joke, and isn't meant, moreover, if i knew it was an old woman, i wouldn't have said it.
thanks for stopping by. i apologize that you don't see me at my "true form," if you will. i rarely venture into political matters because i'm as deft at politics as an elephant is at shuttle weaving.
i just went and read about the case, and i didn't know she was so old and that the damage done to her was so extensive. nevertheless, there are a couple of things that make you sort of stare into dead air like the proverbial deer and headlights.
first, her lawyer sued because of defective merchandise. no. again, coffee's meant to be hot, and when you try to pry open a lid by placing it between your legs, that's an error of extremely poor judgment, and in no way the company's fault.
second, out of simple human compassion, when mcdonald's learned what happened, they should have said, "hey, we're a huge company, and this lady's old. let's do the gentlemanly thing and foot the doctor's bill." did they? no. should they have? yes.
third. instead they offer her 800 bucks as if that will put a dent in her 11,000 dollar skin graft job. don't be a dick mcdonalds. don't even insult a person like that. if you know a person's need, and you know you can meet a need, meet it.
next, she takes it to court. again, i don't think she has a legal reason to sue, especially since the lawyer's reason is imaginary. nevertheless, the lawyer seeks an out of court settlement, which mcdonald's doesn't take. even from the mouth of Jesus, if someone seeks to settle out of court, DO IT.
lastly, her initial lawsuit was for 11k, the cost of the operations. that's fair. the amount settled on by the court was some 640k, almost 66 times that of the initial claim. however, the two parties settled on an undisclosed amount less than 600k. so, we can assume it was the initial amount, or something in between. if it was anything more than twice the initial amount (to cover legal fees etc.), i think we've crossed the border into "ridiculous" territory.
all this isn't to say that, now that i know the truth, i don't empathize with the woman. i just don't think that the whole lawsuit route was the best one. mostly, when mcdonalds as a whole (whoever that includes, whatever that means), they just shouldn't have been such douche bags. man was that a long response.
Post a Comment