July 29, 2014

I love ice cream. I can eat a quart of it and it doesn't affect my triglycerides and the LDL readings in my cholesterol count. Not all people are that fortunate.

I love cupcakes, pies and all assortments of sweets and can eat them heartily and my glucose levels always seems to hover around 98 to 101. Not all people have that blessing.

I love red meats, white meats, white breads and baked potatoes. I can eat each on a daily basis and my blood test results always stay within normal ranges. Not everybody can say that.

The fact is, I know what I can eat and believe I can control whatever intake I so desire. But the government says differently. In fact, Michelle Obama wants the federal government to tell us what kind of food to eat.

I actually wouldn’t object if she merely used a bully pulpit to encourage healthier eating. But the busy-body crowd in Washington has a hard time distinguishing between giving advice and engaging in coercion.

So we now have legislation that gives Washington the power to interfere with food in local schools.

But not everybody is rolling over, particularly when federal rules are coercing states into banning bake sales. The National Journal reports on growing resistance to this absurd example of nanny statism from Washington. Here are some excerpts.

…states are…fighting nutrition standards that would considerably alter one of the most sacred rituals of the American public school system: bake sales. Twelve states have established their own policies to circumvent regulations in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that apply to “competitive snacks,” or any foods and beverages sold to students on school grounds that are not part of the Agriculture Department’s school meal programs, according to the National Association of State Boards of Education. Competitive snacks appear in vending machines, school stores, and food and beverages, including items sold at bake sales. …The pushback is not about students’ taste buds, but their wallets. Food fundraisers are a crucial source of revenue for schools, state education officials say. “Tough economic times have translated into fewer resources and these fundraisers allow our schools to raise a considerable amount of money for very worthwhile education programs,” the Georgia Department of Education wrote in a recent press release. …The statement called the federal guidelines on fundraisers “an absolute overreach of the federal government.”

Kudos to the Georgia officials who complained about government overreach. But don’t forget that local governments certainly are capable of overreach as well, as this cartoon illustrates:

If you think banning bake sales is an example of government run amok, then you’ll be equally perturbed by what’s happening in California.

According to the Associated Press, some residents are being put in a no-win situation of being fined by either state or local government based on whether or not they water their lawns.

I’m not joking. Check out these blurbs from the story.

Laura Whitney and her husband, Michael Korte, don’t know whether they’re being good citizens during a drought or scofflaws. On the same day the state approved mandatory outdoor watering restrictions with the threat of $500 fines, the Southern California couple received a letter from their city threatening a $500 penalty for not watering their brown lawn. …They’re among residents caught in the middle of conflicting government messages as the need for conservation clashes with the need to preserve attractive neighborhoods. “My friends in Los Angeles got these letters warning they could be fined if they water, and I got a letter warning that I could be fined for not watering,” Whitney said. “I felt like I was in an alternate universe.”

It’s not an alternative universe. Governments routinely abuse innocent people. But at least we can take comfort in the fact that governments outside of America engage in equally silly actions. Call it global collectivization, Communism, totalitarianism, or whatever anti-liberty slogan or term you choose.

I confess I’m not sure how to categorize the news that’s being reported by the BBC. As you can see from these excerpts, there’s apparently now a rule in China limiting public officials to no more than three mistresses.

We’ve heard a lot about China’s far-reaching anti-corruption campaign at the behest of President Xi Jinping. …But according to a report in the English-language newspaper China Daily, “adultery” is now banned for party members. …But just when you thought the party was taking a puritanical stand, the newspaper said that when authorities had previously accused officials of “moral corruption” they defined this as having more than “three mistresses”.

Though I wonder whether Chinese officials got any advice from President Bill Clinton before imposing these rules?

Yes, our government, Mama and Papa Obama, think they know what is best for us. And since we are like unruly little children, they will punish us for not conforming like nice, obedient kids, by taking away our goodies and limiting our play times.

It is a biological fact that most young people do grow up and mature to the point of making sensible, rational and reasonable decisions and can take care of themselves. But in this day of "government knows best" you and I will always be deemed the little kids in the neighborhood who could never be trusted to ever grow up.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.