In Praise of the Nanny State
The state also provides for those who witness or experience profoundly disturbing events, dispatching teams of trained psychologists and grief counselors to succor those who cannot reasonably be expected to cope for themselves. One may be forgiven for wondering how our ancestors, destitute of such benefactions, dealt with tragedy. Perhaps they did not, relying instead on the unconscious mechanism of repression or reaction formation, which could only lead to adverse consequences in mental breakdown, resentment, the acting out of cruelty, and emotional instability. The current practice must qualify as a distinct improvement over the need to depend on anything so mercurial as inner resources, which are manifestly inadequate in the face of life’s inevitable calamities.
I trust the reader will forgive a personal interjection. I am both delighted and proud to report that the police force in my hometown of Montreal, acting in the interests of public safety, recently handcuffed and fined an inveterate miscreant, a certain Ms. Bela Kosoian, for failing to grasp the rubber handrail on the subway’s escalator. The force is to be praised for its timely intervention in preventing what may well have been a public disaster of inordinate proportions. The horrifying scenario of said Ms. Kosoian hurtling down the escalator steps and setting off a chain reaction resulting in the maiming, crushing, mutilation, and deaths of musing innocents beggars the imagination. Although there is no record of such a catastrophe having occurred before, the servants of the state must nevertheless ensure that its citizens are protected against the whims and eccentricities of wayward individuals.
To continue. We are well aware of the advantage of laws requiring us to buckle up when behind the wheel. Similarly, decrees being introduced against using a cellphone while operating a motor vehicle are plainly to be approved, but they are only a first step. Fiddling with the radio dials when driving at speed or in city traffic, as well as holding animated conversations with passengers, are no less distracting and hazardous and are indubitably a cause of much unnecessary distress. These unfortunate habits are certain to be addressed one day by our legislative benefactors who, it is to be hoped, will ban sound systems and install listening devices in cars to ensure conformable behavior.
One might also mention the various bylaws requiring bicyclists to wear helmets. Although such provisions may cut down on the breezy pleasures of cycling, inducing some riders to take up jogging instead, safety remains a paramount factor. Indeed, one may convincingly argue that these ordinances have not gone far enough, as has a certain newspaper letter-writer who contended that motorists, too, should be compelled to don helmets to reduce the trauma from automobile accidents — an admirable proposition. After all, who could possibly object, upon due reflection, to the profit deriving from wearing upholstered headgear every time one enters a car? There is no disputing the benefits of such civic reforms which, when all is said and done, entail only minor inconveniences more than worth the trouble.
One might go even further and suggest that the state enact legislation making it equally mandatory for lovers to strap on helmets when engaged in sexual congress. One can vividly imagine the harm done when striking the headboard in a moment of swooning inattention or the danger of serious concussion when sexual partners thoughtlessly collide in the midst of their throes. Perhaps Kevlar vests would be in order, too. This is especially the case with married and common-law couples who have major responsibilities to attend to — businesses, household affairs, and, of course, children — and who must therefore do everything in their power to ward off the menace of incapacitation. But this is merely a suggestion that concerned lawmakers might consider in the future, notwithstanding the cavils and protestations that a regressive minority of obdurate throwbacks are sure to mount.
The above is only a random sampling of the blessings that accrue to the development of the nanny state, which constitutes a demonstrable advance over all previous forms of social and political organization. The world is a dangerous and mystifying place and we must be prepared for every exigency. As with some of our latest technological devices, we must have an app for everything. One shudders to think of the alternative.
A nice take on the nanny state at the Andrew Klavan video “Why are conservatives so mean?”
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Klavan_on_culture/_Why_Are_Conservatives_So_Mean%3F/1949/
Help me I am in hell.
Phooeeey…
I wish you could find the air lock and return to your parallel yet different dimension.
bound to happen. sissy state.
Given that this is pretty close to what you will actually see and hear from our progressive citizens and politicians, perhaps you should have made it a little more over the top so that your readers would clearly understand that this is a PARODY.
I can’t wait to see “vivo” and “Pastor of Muppets” and “sheesh” chiming in with praise for this article’s reasonableness and enlightenment.
First cigarettes, then alcohol, then soda, then you…
I love the smell of snarkiness in the morning…
Nevermind behind the wheel! I’ve long advocated a 24 hour helmet law. If it’s logical when riding a bike, it’s just plain good sense, at all times! I’m against the idea of allowing them to be removed in the shower. Heck, that’s one of the most dangerous places of all.
Yes, Mr. Solway, today Canada! Tomorrow the world!
Brilliantly done. Too bad this type of work is so rare.
i hope this is parody, but given the current political atmosphere i cannot be sure…
LOL! You crack me up, Mr. Solway. Thank you for the early Monday guffaw.
Too bad some people really believe thatttttta way though. *gulp*
Ouch! I just sprained my middle finger… I’m holding it up in the air right now…rubber pads on keyboards! Mr Solway — you are great.
I hope you are writing this “tongue in cheek!”
Too bad that the 52% that voted for “Our Dear Leader” really do want the “n”th degree of risk, pain, discomfort, unpredictability removed from life.
Too bad they also don’t realize that law of diminishing returns to achieve that next “degree” of safety from the big bad world grows exponentially. But that requires something called intelligence and a willingness to view reality for what it is.
I often wonder about the wisdom of INS (Interfering with Natural Selection) and especially the long term implications for the human race. It’s anti-Darwinism – the de-evolution of man.
BEWARE OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
The Obama plan will ruin the best health care available in the world today.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/beware-of-socialized-medicine.html
Parody, but depressingly accurate. Save us from death by spinelessness!
An even greater problem than the Nanny State are the people who want it and vote for it. That’s why we are in deep trouble.
Following is a great read that tells us where we are heading.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/zealots.htm
A great read Rome. Thanks for shedding more light on the fanatics. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their busybodies.
Beware of underwear! Beware of outer wear! Beware of Anywhere ! Beware of tire wear! Beware of cooking ware.
Just sorting out some (PSA’s) PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS for AM/FM radio spots.
Great parody David.
This was satire,not parody. Forty to fifty persent of the American public school educated human resource believe this garbage. Most of the political elite are willing to sell out to it. Sheeeesh! for double-meaning on this web site.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Update-on-Recovery-Act-Lobbying-Rules-New-Limits-on-Special-Interest-Influence/
“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program”
i should be shocked..but i’m not.
Wicked good, not much can make me laugh and cry at the same time. Well done !
19.rome.doubleplusgood!thanks.
Thanks for the funny parody. I love satire and sarcasm. Snarkiness is great too, but only when I wield it – not when Jon Stewart or Chris Matthews wield it.
For the record (please make a note of this statement): Moogie is one of the few dissenting conservative voices who said “Hallelujah and amen!” to the anti-smoking legislation here in Washington state. Moogie has serious sensitivities to cigarette smoke, and is now grateful that she can go out and karaoke without coughing up a black lung the next day. My right to breath trumps the smoker’s right to pollute. End of discussion. Don’t argue with me about this.
“My right to breath trumps the smoker’s right to pollute. End of discussion. Don’t argue with me about this.”
A business owner’s right to his PRIVATE property trumps your “right” to enter his PRIVATE property. Can’t stand the smoke, stay out of his PRIVATE property.
27. Sean:
“A business owner’s right to his PRIVATE property trumps your “right” to enter his PRIVATE property. Can’t stand the smoke, stay out of his PRIVATE property.”
~
What about the children of ‘smokers’ who have no say in all of that, Sean? As someone who was a child of a smoker who was extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke, dust and other allergens, I can tell you from personal experience that people who smoke and don’t give a flying f*ck about people around them who don’t smoke are a-holes. If I drink booze, you don’t have to be forced to drink it with me. My farts might stink if I eek one out in your presense but they won’t kill you or make you break out in hives. Get it, dumb-@ss?
Sorry, but, I’m with Moogster on this one, homey.
Also, along the same lines of doing something in someone else’s ‘presence’ that might be harmful or downright rude…
A. Don’t bleed on someone if you can help it
B. Don’t shoot your load in public at strangers
C. Don’t cough into the air, cough into your arm
D. Don’t spit at people
E. Don’t piss on someone
F. Don’t puke on someone
G. Don’t purposely fart on someone [unless it's a payback foo-foo]
Thanks.
Delia
Just wait until you find out that those who hate smoking as much as you end up dying from lung cancer anyway.
My father hated smokers yet ended up dying from lung cancer at the age of 68 even after eating all the right foods, maintaining his weight just under normal, meditating, being moderate wine drinker, getting bi-yearly health check-ups, exercising daily, believed he would live to 110, took daily vitamins….he did all the correct things for ‘healthy living’ yet ended up being diagnosed with stage four terminal lung and died within three months.
Opera singer Beverly Sills died from lung cancer too!
There is a high possibility that most terminal disease is genetic but because of your stupid idea that ‘healthy living’ will prevent disease and death we are never going to find cures for those diseases which are genetically determined.
Now because my father died of lung cancer even though he hated smokers I am most likely going to die from a genetic- produced lung cancer; in other words, I will be killed by righteous hypochondriac health-nut freaks who are anti-science.
30. syn:
“There is a high possibility that most terminal disease is genetic but because of your stupid idea that ‘healthy living’ will prevent disease”
~
Have you ever seen tar-lung? HAVE YOU? Have you seen the walls of smokers? One of our renters has tar practically dripping off of her walls. -And, being happy and having a sense of humor will probably help, along with not having belly fat, getting enough exercise and eating healthy.
Just because I don’t want to smoke with you against my will doesn’t mean I want to control your life but when you blow smoke that other people have to breathe then you are taking away the choice of people around you who don’t WANT TO. How hard is that to comprehend?
-And, a child’s growing lungs don’t need chokey smoke tarring up in ‘em just because a selfish jerk of a parent wants to smoke their cancer stick [and yes, nimwad, cigarettes DO cause cancer whether your tiny, little pea brain wants to accept that FACT or not]. I ‘get’ that some people will ‘light up’ even if there is a skull and cross-bones on a black pack of cigs and that’s fine if you want to smoke with other smokers or people who really aren’t bothered by cig smoke. Drink all you want too until you fall down drunk…just please, don’t drive if ya do.
Thanks.
P.S. @ Syn [30]:
I’m all for science and finding cures for cancer but there’s a saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” and just because you ‘might’ be genetically prone to certain cancers doesn’t mean everyone should ‘light up’ and pass around cigs. That’s about as mentally retarded as telling people to have all the bed partners they want because the rare person who has their first ‘lover’ might have herpes anyhow.
I have breast cancer and uterine cancer the maternal side of my family and my paternal grandfather died of ‘blood cancer’, so I’m well aware of ‘cancer’ and genetics. Mm-kay?
this is cracked since they’re going to euthanize unproducers anyway. why nanny when you can let stupidity slaughter itself? seems more cost effective. TORTURE: paying Congress to raise taxes & write stupid laws.
I love elegant, subtle satire, it’s the best kind, and has served us well since the publication of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.”
Perhaps the best use of stealth satire is the socio-political equivalent of the “long-con,” where progressive readers in position of influence take certain “modest proposals” seriously and try to implement them. Anything that would sabotage nanny-staters through their own actions constitute the best form of succesfull rebellion.
Delia-
You completely missed what I said. I am not defending the smoker’s rights. I am defending the business owner’s property rights. No one is forcing you to enter the business owner’s PRIVATE property. No one is forcing you to bring your kids. You choose whether to enter a business that allows smoking. It should be the business owner’s right to allow smoking or not on his PRIVATE property.
If you were trying to imply that smoking should flat out be illegal, you are a supporter of tyranny and there is no point in discussing Liberty with you. Have a nice day.
Fair enough. I hate to further the digression into anti/pro smoking rights and responsibilities, but I will anyways.
Smoking should absolutely not be allowed where people are forced to be, like schools, or where people have to go through lack of choices, like airports. Saying that in and of itself, smoking endangers everyone in the world anytime a cigarette is lit within 1000 yards is self-parody at its finest.
Go to the Norita airport and walk by the smoking lounge and you won’t be able to smell the smoke unless you walk through the door… technology is a wonderful thing. Walk through the average busy parking ramp and you will be exposed to far more toxins from the entrapped exhaust fumes than you will ever be exposed to by smokers sitting at an isolated picnic table 100 yards from anyone else… yet most businesses dare not provide such a thing where I live, lest they be fined out of existence.
I used to smoke, and haven’t for years, but it is insane to say that my desire not to smoke should prevent others from enjoying tobacco wherever it is reasonable to do so.