So you want proof that Massachusetts is a nanny state? Well how about the recently enacted law from the Department of Early Education and Care that requires that any child in a MA-licensed daycare who eats a meal or is there for more than four hours must brush his or her teeth? I can’t make this shit up! The government is now telling you when to brush your kids’ teeth!

Now to be fair, parents can opt out, but that’s not the point. Nor does it matter that it’s a “good thing to do” – we all know that oral hygiene is important and that kids need to be brushing their teeth. But you know what doesn’t work? The government mandating that we make our children brush their teeth. These kind of “nanny state” actions, these “we know what’s best for you and yours” attitudes from lawmakers, these kinds of freedom-sapping laws that seem so hard to argue against just because there’s good intentions behind them are the things that scare the crap out of me. And if people start blindly accepting or blithely adhering to them, then that gives invasive governments more motivation to pass other, more restrictive and tyrannical laws.

It truly is, in my opinion, a slippery slope. If the government can dictate that you must have your children’s teeth brushed, doesn’t that set a nasty precedent? Can they then dictate how often you bathe them (because your children come in contact with others at state-licensed day-care centers, so isn’t it in their purview), or when they must go to sleep, or the number of hours they must stay in bed, or what kind of “play” constitutes exercise and how much exercise a child must receive? Then what? What kind of clothes they must wear (much like the bike/rollerblading helmet laws)? What music to listen to? What books to read? What thoughts to think? When do we start becoming China?

I know it sounds like I’m overreacting, and maybe I am. The simple fact of the matter is that I do not want the government telling me how to live my life or how to raise my children. It doesn’t matter how well-intentioned the law is, it’s simply not the government’s job or business. We should be making these decisions ourselves. We should be accepting responsibility for our decisions and the decisions we make for our families. We shouldn’t be ceding responsibility for our lives and the lives of our family members to the government just because we’re too lazy, irresponsible and weak to think for ourselves. That’s accepting tyranny. Even when it’s disguised as “caring” it’s still tyranny, and that’s not what our country is supposed to be about.

Yet another reason the current Health Care bill is dangerously flawed is that the tax on so-called “Cadillac” health-care plans isn’t going to impact just the wealthy (the favorite target of liberals) but the middle-class as well (who liberals say they care about). Hell…even the Boston Globe is reporting on this. I know it’s going to fuck me over – I pay for the best possible health-care plan my company offers, and it saved my ass when I had my heart attack a couple of years back, and I’m sure as shit no wealthy executive. So thanks, Obama and crew, for trying to force a bill through that is going to break the back of our country and penalize your core…good thinking.

I noticed something interesting on my ride up to the RMV and my subsequent ride to work this morning: I didn’t see a single Martha Coakley sign. I saw dozens and dozens of Scott Brown signs. I like that.

Once I got into work, I checked my email and saw another from MoveOn.Org about this MA race. The amusing bit in this email is the following line:

“Right wing smear merchants are spending $1 million or more on attack ads, and the tea partiers are out in full force for Republican Scott Brown.”

I live in Massachusetts and I watch TV. I’ve seen the ads. You know who started with negative, smearing, attack ads? Martha Coakley and her Democrat supporters. She started in when she realized, just recently, that winning the election wasn’t a lock, that she might actually have a fight on her hands, that just being a Democrat was (for once) not a guarantee of a win. She aired the first attack ad, and I remember seeing it and thinking “she’s scared, she’s getting dirty.” (more…)

During a recent debate, the moderator asked Republican contender, Scott Brown, about sitting in “Ted Kennedy’s seat” (Massachusetts’ vacant Senate seat). What did Brown have to say to that?

“…it is not Ted Kennedy’s seat, it is not the Democrats’ seat, it is the people of Massachusetts’ seat.”

If you needed a reason to vote for Scott Brown, that quote should suffice. It may have been a sound bite, but it illuminates the problem with MA politics, which is currently utterly liberal: the Democrat representatives aren’t interested in representing the people (and they have a history or ignoring voter approved measures), only in their own political careers and legacies.

As is now all over the national news, Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are in a tight race for the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy, who recently shuffled off this mortal coil, had held onto the seat as though it were his career…oh wait, that’s exactly what it was (have I mentioned I’m in favor of term limits for every public office?)…despite the fact that it was supposed to be public service. The news is the fact that Brown has pulled even with Coakley in recent voter polls. That’s not supposed to happen in traditionally liberal MA. Unfortunately, I think the national attention is actually detrimental to Brown’s campaign, as Coakley and her cronies were banking on the assumption that the liberal voters who put her in office without even thinking about it (which is a pretty safe assumption in MA where all you have to have is a (D) next to your name to make your win likely), and I’m not the only one. Now the liberal voting bloc will get involved.

How do I know the liberal voting bloc will get on the ball? I started getting emails about it from MoveOn.org. I’d signed one of their privacy petitions many years back and am on their list now, even though my politics and theirs rarely match. Still, I admire their grassroots efforts and how passionate they are about their politics. Brown was able to raise $1.3 million in 24 hours using a similar approach to MoveOn.org’s own fundraising tactics, so MoveOn.org is now pushing for the same. Here’s their wording (direct from their email):

The bottom line is, we can’t afford to lose this race. We must save Ted Kennedy’s seat and make sure we have the votes in the Senate to overcome Republican obstruction.

Ted Kennedy’s seat. Sigh. Another reason I support Brown, is the sheer arrogance of MoveOn.org and Coakley when they refer to the vacant Senate seat as “Kennedy’s seat” (and apparently there are alerts coming from BarackObama.com with the same wording). I fully agree with Brown that is it NOT Kennedy’s seat, but the people’s seat. Our governmental representatives need to remember, as do we all, that they represent US and not themselves. Brown seems to get that, although for all I know it’s just another carefully worded soundbite designed to engender that reaction in me (and other independents). I’m still hopeful that Brown will pull off the upset mostly because I’m sick and tired of the arrogance of the Democrats in this state and of one-party control in the Federal government (and yes I hated it when the Republicans were in charge too – I’m neither Democrat nor Republican).

Update: probably not a good thing for Coakley to have her aides roughing up conservative reporters either. Watch the video and you can see the aide, Michael Meehan, push the reporter what looks to be twice, knocking him to the ground. Then he “helps” him up and proceeds to block him from interviewing the candidate. Yep. That’s what concerns me about the “compassionate” party – they’re only compassionate to those who walk in lockstep with them.

I consider the United States’ War on Drugs to be an utter failure. It was a war that could never be won. Prohibition of alcohol failed with disastrous consequences for our country (the creation of organized crime, increase in prison population, rampant corruption, etc.). Why did anyone think attempting the same thing on drugs would work? Instead, we’ve created a massive infrastructure to support the “war” (Drug Enforcement Agency, expanded prisons, a Drug Czar and office, etc.) and a very profitable black market filled with gangs, cartels and terrorist groups all cashing in on producing, smuggling and selling drugs. Now we’re learning that the Al Qaeda terrorist groups are linked up with cocaine producers and operating a rogue aviation network ferrying drugs from South America to Africa, where tons of cocaine are then transported into Europe. This is raising untold millions of dollars for this terrorist network as well as enriching corrupt officials and destabilizing already fragile governments in Africa. Happily, our crack Intelligence and Government agencies have been busily ignoring this connection for the last couple of years, allowing what was a developing problem to grow into a “global security threat.” Yes, that “happily” was sarcasm.

Hey, you know what would put a stop to this? End the unwinnable drug war. Legalize drugs, even the hard drugs that are addictive and deadly. Give governmental agencies the chance to produce, sell, and tax these products, since the people want them and will get them regardless. Remove the illegality and start regulating. Use and expand our existing addiction treatment centers and stop jailing addicts. Remove the illicit nature of drugs and you immediately cut back on the allure. There will still be ways for terrorist organizations to make money, but at least this incredibly profitable option will be off the table. In fact, our governments could stand to rake in a considerable amount of money from people finally able to legally purchase recreational drugs.

The War on Drugs cannot be won. Period. And while it seems seedy and perhaps immoral for governments to be drug pushers, we already regulate the sale of alcohol and tobacco (which are arguably much worse for people than some currently illegal drugs, like marijuana) so we have precedent. We also know the failure of alcohol prohibition. Factor in the boost to the economy and the reduction in gang and terrorist crime by removing their primary income generator and it just seems like common sense to me.

According to several sources, but I’ll only link to The Register’s article, the TSA has been misleading the public about the capabilities of their new full body scanner technology. Apparently, the devices can see through clothing and create a blue-tinged image of the person being scanned. The image is effectively that of a freaky-looking naked person (though not what I would think would be a flattering photo). The TSA has been claiming that the scanners cannot store or send images, but it turns out that’s utterly untrue. In fact, according to their own specs, the device will have:

“a high capacity read/write drive… to permit data uploads and downloads.” It will also “provide capabilities for data transfers via USB devices” and support both Ethernet and TCP/IP. Field reporting data for up to a year will be stored on the hard drive.

As per usual, the people in this country could give a shit about their own privacy and would prefer to have Big Brother walk them through their lives, hands held tight. According to a poll in USA Today, the majority of people surveyed are fine with having their image scanned and stored, even if it “compromises their privacy.” Sigh. It never ceases to sadden me how uninterested people seem to be with their rights and their privacy. Apparently there’s nothing too invasive for people to accept as long as there’s a possibility of slightly improving security. Maybe they won’t be so blase once the first pictures stolen by underpaid and authority-starved TSA employees start to show up online…especially if they are pictures of their children. Yeah, like it won’t happen.

And here’s some food for thought about the “terrorist threat” from the Wall Street Journal.

I was taking a break and reading an article about work-at-home scams on the CNN website today when my attention was caught by the following (the writer is comparing work-at-home scams with Madoff’s ponzi scam to prove that people who get scammed aren’t necessarily gullible):

For example, many of the people who say they lost money in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme were celebrity actors, writers, wealthy people — people with abundant smarts.

Ummmmm…what? Talk about an incredible leap of logic. What, exactly, qualifies “celebrity actors, writers, wealthy people” as innately intelligent? It particularly galls me that this writer would assume that celebrities are somehow “people with abundant smarts.” For every Natalie Portman, there’s an activist like Sean Penn (who dropped out of community college). For every Jodie Foster, there’s a Drew Barrymore (who never completed high school). It drives me up a wall that people assume that just because someone is a successful actor that they are somehow more intelligent or well-educated than the average person (and yes, I understand that education != intelligence, but there are some correlations). This holds true for any group, including the wealthy or writers (just because someone has written a book or an article doesn’t make them more intelligent, nor does earning or inheriting a lot of money).

It just struck me as incredibly lazy journalism to make such an illogical assumption, even in such a soft and weak piece.