Laws Infantilize Teens, And In Fact the General Adult Population

This was going to be two separate posts, but maybe the subjects derive from the same source.

Signs that command the reader to do something and then state: "It's the Law!" drive me bonkers. It is not that I am anti-order or pro-chaos. I do in fact respect the concept of law and believe it is one of the fundamental characteristics of our country that make it economically successful (another large topic altogether). However, to tell you to wear your seat belt because "it is the law" is insulting, autocratic and infantilizing. Insulting because the reason given should be maybe "it's your LIFE, duh" (thank you Zaina!) or some such reason based on self-interest. Autocratic because it says you should obey the law SIMPLY because it is a law. Well, legislators are always trying to find something to do, usually in an effort to run everyone else's life, and they come up with some dumb laws from time to time. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion on the reasonableness of a law. That is how laws get overturned in the courts from time to time.

This brings me to the second post topic, the infantilizing of teens. "It's the law" treats adults like children. We, the legislators, know what is best for you, so just do what we say without question. Similarly, laws telling teens not to get behind the wheel of a car until 16 nor drink any amount or type of alcohol under parental supervision at home until 21 are paternalistic and, in my opinion, counter-productive. Since when does the government have the responsibility of raising our kids? Driving is an issue of familiarization with handling a car. It used to be that you could drive the wagon-tractor-old-family-car around the farm long before you could drive on public roads. You probably ran into a fence or barn or something at some point, but you learned the mechanics of driving and developed your reflexes. What we have now is a system that puts a 16-year old behind the wheel for the first time, supervised by a stranger, nervous, and within a couple of weeks taking lessons driving on a four-lane highway.

Similarly, the lawmakers tell us it is illegal to serve one's own offspring alcohol in one's own home. Who is protected here and from what? Are they telling us the alcohol will physically hurt the "child?" Of course, too much of it would cause harm, by definition. So would too much cough syrup. Kids have to learn judgment and moderation somewhere. Home seems better than off on some college campus. Infantilizing teens and then sending them off unprepared sets them up for trouble instead of preparing them to take care of themselves.


I think there is a Puritan strain running through much of our society that engenders guilt about certain topics, one of them being alcohol. It is difficult to discuss this topic because one may be subject to social censure. But it should be discussed. Think about it. Parents can be criminally charged for giving alcohol to someone under 21 in their own home - although as has been frequently pointed out, these same "minors" can join the military, keep their college records secret (privacy protected) from their parents, and vote. Say what?

Irony on a T-Shirt

A couple of weeks ago (actually the day before Hope and Bud's wedding!!!), we were sitting in a FF restaurant when we observed some high school kids selling coupon books to raise money for some education-related cause. They all wore T-shirts imprinted with a slogan along the lines of "Education - We Support It's Cause" - with the apostrophe in the word "it's." So we support "it is cause" - so much for education.

Maybe Why Men are Babies When They Get Sick

A very short, unscientific musing. I read an observation recently, based on a reference to a scientific study of prey animals (those that get eaten) and predators (who do the eating), that prey animal are stoic and predators are big babies. I won't go any farther, but draw your own conclusions. Let me know what you think.

Business Columnist Should Leave Big Taxes/Big Government Bias at Home

Editorial content should be on the editorial page. Even though all columnists have opinions (all people have opinions, after all), their analytical writing should be kept objective.

Steve Bousquet, Tallahassee Bureau Chief of the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times newspaper, writes columns regarding business and economic issues. One of the current hot topics in Florida is the effort by the Legislature to reduce property taxes and make them more equitable among the various categories of taxpayers (homeowners, 2nd-home owners, small businesses such as motels, and other commercial interests). The Florida Senate is inclined to make moderate changes to reduce overall tax revenues modestly. The House prefers more radical changes that would dramatically cut the tax burden. The House approaches the issues from the point of view of the taxpayer (reduce the burden), where the Senate sees the problem as one of costing the Government its needed revenue.

Steve Bousquet appears to come down on the side of Government, although he would educate his readers better were he to provide them with unbiased analysis. Some quotes from two of his recent columns demonstrate his (perhaps unconscious) filter.
In a recent column, Mr. Bousquet wrote, "...the House has a much bigger appetite for tax cuts than Senate leaders. Senators have adopted a more nuanced approach to tax relief that tries to help homeowners without hurting public education and local government." (All italics are mine.)

"Nuanced" sounds like code for "sophisticated," meaning the politicians know better what is good for us than we do. Hence the caring Senators who want to help homeowners and not hurt the sacrosanct public education and local government. This “helping” involves reducing the amount of taxes the Government collects from taxpayers. Taxpayers wouldn’t need this kind of help from the Government if it didn’t take the money away in the first place. As far as hurting public services by reducing tax revenues, why doesn’t Mr. Bousquet talk about the enormous effective tax increases Floridians have suffered in the last five years? Politicians have not had to pass legislation to increase taxes (a difficult row to hoe) because the recent soaring property assessments have handed them a free bonanza of revenue. The library, public education, police services etc. functioned just fine five years ago. Why does the government now need 140% more revenue to accomplish the same services?

In today's paper (October 27, 2007), Mr. Bousquet wrote, "Men run both chambers, and boys will be boys...competitive types who hate to lose." So they are just overgrown children, I guess. How patronizing, particularly because it impugns their motives by implying they make decisions based on emotion, not rational analysis.

Also, "House Speaker Marco Rubio...he's an ideologue. Given free rein, he would wipe out property taxes altogether and jack up the sales tax. …Senate President Ken Pruitt is a pragmatist … also is not viscerally opposed to the size and scope of government." So Mr. Bousquet denigrates anyone who wants to rethink and reduce taxes or shrink government as an ideologue and admires someone willing to negotiate against the interests of taxpayers.

Provide us with a chart of revenue and spending for the last five years and let us arrive at our own conclusions.