Posted by Redhawk19 at 7/23/08 11:42 a.m.

It's called Fascism. When Government officials dictate everything you can and cannot do in an effort to "steer" their citizens to be the "ideal" resident.

Posted by jazna1 at 7/23/08 11:47 a.m.

While I loathe the nanny state, I understand that the city govt is trying to take the role of educating and influencing public behavior since so many people seem to have been raised by parents who dropped the ball when it came to teaching their offspring the niceties of public behavior: responsibility, civility, etc. For instance, instead of club goers enjoying themselves in a responsible manner, they exit clubs like a pack of kindergartners - loud, rowdy, barfing on sidewalks, shrieking and walking into traffic. Sadly, the city's response is to regulate behavior by oppressive laws. It's lame but it's better than letting the savages ruin the city. (When I was younger and we went to clubs to be wild and have fun, we'd have our good times indoors and then leave quietly, hoping not to attract the attention of disapproving neighbors and police. We were actually afraid of the disapproval of "adults". Apparently that's a quaint notion.)

Posted by Wyo at 7/23/08 11:50 a.m.

I'd like to think myself a progressive, but Seattle is ridiculous. I've met as many boneheaded reactionary people here as I've met in the rural red backwaters of the mid-west and south, gun racks in pickups have just been replaced with bumper stickers on Subarus... I see no difference in the overall intelligence of the populous.

People here go along with whatever poorly thought out idea may be the darling of their current eco-friendly non-profit without nary a thought as to if its effective and/or necessary... campfires on Alki contributing to global warming, anyone?

Seattle is a nanny state, run by admittedly well-intentioned people, but unfortunately without a brain cell between the lot of them.

Posted by DAVIDRF at 7/23/08 11:50 a.m.

To be fair, it was the voters of WA who approved the smoking ban, not the state.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/23/08 11:51 a.m.

you know, the First Amendment still protects your right to travel somewhere else if you don't like it here

Posted by Wyo at 7/23/08 11:56 a.m.

you know, the First Amendment still protects your right to travel somewhere else if you don't like it here

my point made... 1st Amendment does not regulate travel restrictions, actually it has nothing to do with residency or citizenship.

Posted by Hiltonbaas at 7/23/08 12:05 p.m.

London is a far worse nanny state than Seattle is.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/23/08 12:16 p.m.

Yes, if you think we have a "nanny state" here, it only means you don't travel much.

But then again, half the people who move here think they're moving to Montana. (The other half think they're moving to LA.)

Posted by kingmob at 7/23/08 12:23 p.m.

Aside from a few years when I leaved back East, I've spent my entire life in this area. But it's getting to be hard to take. I just want to be left alone to live my life. I recycle. I take the bus. Blah blah blah. But those are my choices, which is, I thought, what liberty is all about: the ability to make your own choices in how to best live your life. Seattle is taking choices away, restricting my liberty. I don't know how much longer I can live here and remain somewhat sane. It's sad. I think the transplants have taken over our city and brought their loopy California version of lifestyle with them. I wish they'd all go back, or join the rest of the losers out in the suburbs.

Posted by c0nversazi0ne at 7/23/08 12:31 p.m.

Why don't we restrict the dangerous things? Who cares about plastic bags when a 14 year old can get pot on Pike Street?

Posted by unregistered user at 7/23/08 12:36 p.m.

The funny thing about government regulation is the laws of unintended consequences. I don't know what they will be, but I am sure there will be negative consequences from the plastic bag ban - paper shortage, land devastated by increased cotton demand, who knows really. Nearly all of these Nanny laws are based on preferences and hysteria. The funny thing about preferences and hysteria is they change over time, and you end up with laughable laws on the books like this one:

"In Memphis, Tennessee, a woman is not to drive a car unless a man warns approaching motorists or pedestrians by walking in front of the car that is being driven."

Posted by unregistered user at 7/23/08 12:38 p.m.

Actually, the First Amendment protects Wyo's right to talk about how rediculous some of this stuff is and the right to point out when someone doesn't know that the first amendment discusses freedom of speech, not your right to live or move somewhere (which I do not believe exists in the constitution).

Posted by beirdo at 7/23/08 12:41 p.m.

Sorry, can't let this one go.

cOnversaziOne - Since when is pot "dangerous"?

Posted by telemark at 7/23/08 1:22 p.m.

ROFL -no comment

"In Memphis, Tennessee, a woman is not to drive a car unless a man warns approaching motorists or pedestrians by walking in front of the car that is being driven."

Posted by Hiltonbaas at 7/23/08 1:28 p.m.

"cOnversaziOne:

You are an idiot. Why would a 14 year-old go to Pike Street when they probably get better pot at their high school?"

Her High School teacher, more like! Doesn't anybody watch "Coronation Street"? ;--}

Posted by beirdo at 7/23/08 1:28 p.m.

She should just run him down. According to their own logic he would have to be retarded or committing suicide to walk in front of her, so she should get off without a hitch.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/23/08 1:46 p.m.

In reponse to City_gal and beirdo
Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections.
- Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7 (June 1993)

A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked.
- New England Journal of Medicine 318: 347-51 (1988)

Posted by City_Gal at 7/23/08 1:51 p.m.

Unregisterd User:

Not if you eat it!

You should go crawl back in your cave, too!

Posted by unregistered user at 7/23/08 3:01 p.m.

city_gal,

what the hell does living in a cave have to do with anything? my cave is furnished quite nicely i might add.

Posted by City_Gal at 7/23/08 4:34 p.m.

Unregistered User:

It's in reference to conservitive troglodytes.

For your reference-

trog•lo•dyte /ˈtrɒgləˌdaɪt/ [trog-luh-dahyt] –noun

1. a prehistoric cave dweller.
2. a person of degraded, primitive, or brutal character.
3. a person living in seclusion.
4. a person unacquainted with affairs of the world.
5. an animal living underground.

Posted by Master Sergeant at 7/23/08 4:38 p.m.

What is Stupid [Seattle] going to tax, ban, require and DICTATE next? Oh, I'm sorry, they're lenient on drugs, vagrancy, petty crime, vote fraud and protestors who infringe on the rights of others to freely move about the city, so I guess they can't be all that bad…huh? Thank God I don't live and pay taxes in what used to be a decent city but has now devolved into a sad parody of "for the people, by the people", unfortunately I'm sure a large percentage of my state taxes go to bolstering this "progressive" fascism.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/23/08 5:21 p.m.

Most people don't mind banning things until the things that get banned means something to them. So all of you here that like plastic bags banned, what's your ox to gore? Shorts that are to long? Beer made from non-local hops? Sandals without socks? Public affection? The more you let government ban perfectly logical things (like paper bags) the sooner they'll get to what you like, love or rely on.

Me, I don't really care if bags get banned or if we have them (I'll work around) but the act of banning disturbs me greatly. And I guess that is why people who don't want bans, even if they particularly don't like whatever it is, are more tolerant than people who need to ban "for the common good". So you have to ask, "common good" according to who? But I guess that as long as it's the other guy's rights you are restricting its OK. Right? Pretty damned sad folks.

Posted by vinella at 7/23/08 8:57 p.m.

Last UnReg,

Exactly! It's not the rationales behind the bans but the bans themselves. I argued this point in utter frustration with my step-daughter this past weekend. She claims to worry about the erosion of individual liberties but doesn't mind at all if cameras at the ferry terminal take pictures of every license plate and the state police run background checks on them. To her - and I'm sure I'll hear this in response here - if you're not guilty of anything, why would you care? Well, I'm not guilty of anything and I DO care, passionately. We're supposed to be free to travel without supervision in the USA - anywhere. We've already surrendered our freedoms at every airport in the country. Quick: what was the stated goal of the Al Quaida terrorists after 9/11? Answer, as given by their own leaders: To force Americans to live with as much uncertainty, fear, and disruption as they live with every day. Well, by that standard, they won, BIG TIME. They got exactly what they wanted and the TSA gives it to them in spades, every single day.

People like me, who regard every tiny incursion into my civil rights as the ultimate evil, are considered hopeless idealists today. We're laughed at behind people's hands. Or openly. "We're only truly free if we're safe!" the compromisers cry. And they never see something as small as the plastic bag ban as just another example of the governments - local, state, federal - taking a fundamental choice out of our hands. I firmly believe, like George Carlin did, that mankind is already doomed. We will soon become so disenfranchised and manipulated that we'll enter a time of wars after wars, started by nothing more than our inability to achieve anything by reasoned dialog. We'll unleash nuclear or biological holocaust and bring about our own extinction. It's already in motion. Nothing anyone can do about it because people have stopped listening to reason. "I know how I feel and I don't need to 'think about it'!": it's the new rallying cry of those who have become so befuddled that they can't see past a momentary fear or desire.

This issue is just a symptom: what does it really matter what grocery bag you use? It doesn't, except in the minds of people who have already drunk the Kool-Aid, those who will barter off our rights for a momentary - and entirely false - sense of security.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/24/08 8:23 a.m.

The government SHOULD regulate our lives. That is the POINT of having government. Far too many people do not know how to live proper lives. They lack college educations and don't even read the newspaper daily. The people who most need regulating are those religious nuts in the countryside. Obama was right when he said people in rural areas cling to bibles and guns because they don't know any better on how to live. I wish we could extend Seattle's regulations to them.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/24/08 9:01 a.m.

"The government SHOULD regulate our lives. That is the POINT of having government. Far too many people do not know how to live proper lives. They lack college educations and don't even read the newspaper daily. The people who most need regulating are those religious nuts in the countryside. Obama was right when he said people in rural areas cling to bibles and guns because they don't know any better on how to live. I wish we could extend Seattle's regulations to them."
============
Do you understand how dangerous that line of thinking is? To dislike another person's way of life is fine, but to sanctimoniously berate them en masse and then declare that they must conform because you disagree with them...and then push for LAWS as such...that comes right out of every totalitarian government's handbook.

I'm a center-right guy and all of my friends are left to ultra-left. We get along famously because we know where to draw the line. We disagree constantly, but we know that the compromise of ideas will win out. We understand that there MUST be a balance between going after ideas with zeal and listening to the opposite opinion, even if you think it wrong.

When you use government power to enforce the political ideals of any persuasion, you'll then understand why there is a 2nd Amendment.

I'm also willing to admit that you may be demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. Is that the case?

-Brent Diskin

Posted by unregistered user at 7/24/08 9:43 a.m.

No Brent, I'm serious.

Last year we tried organizing a 10K run out in southeast King County and we wanted to do it on a Sunday because it would not interfere with traffic as much. Our course took us past a church. The church argued that our course would lead to a road closure on Sunday morning and they had the county block our permit. It was JUST ONE SUNDAY. I pay for these roads and I should have the right to use them as I see fit. And speaking of fit, we were doing something much more useful by keeping ourselves physically fit than sitting around in pews all morning.

I also go biking (bicycles) in rural areas for exercise and I am incensed to see such neolithic farming practices. There is a stench of chemical fertilizers that is just appalling. These bumpkins need to learn the benefits of organic agriculture. And try finding a good ethnic restaurant in the countryside! Impossible.

I'm getting sick of seeing Rossi signs all over eastern King County.

And as for the 2nd Amendment, it was meant to support the creation of a STATE militia, not for the so-called "individual." That last Supreme Court ruling was horrible. I am sure, though, that Seattle will find a way to slow down the registration of guns if they can't ban them. And who says they can't ban ammunition?

Posted by unregistered user at 7/24/08 9:59 a.m.

What you are advocating is basic totalitarianism, though. So the church had your permit blocked. It WAS Sunday and while I'm not religious, others are and religious rights ARE upheld by the constitution. Besides, the local parishioners also pay for the same roads and I'm sure their preference was different. Better? Not for me to judge - nor for you.

"Neolithic" farming practices are the only way small farms can afford to stay in business AND are largely the only way we as a people can feed the 6+ billion of us. If we could use total organic procedures, I'd be for it...but we can't. There are a plethora of roads in rural areas that don't pass by these farms. Take those routes. It's like the radio. If you don't like what's on, change the station.

Rossi signs in eastern King County...well, it's their right...just as much as it's yours to put a Gregoire sign in your yard.

I won't get into a 2nd Amendment debate - that'll take us off topic. ;)

I understand if you disagree with people - even vehemently. I also get it if you want to change the way things are done. That's great! You're involved! Here's the thing, though, UR - you can't win over hearts and minds with angry rhetoric and threats of government force. For example, if you got together with some local organic growers associations and visited these farms that you dislike...maybe talk with them about different growing practices that might be even more economical than what they are using, you may win a few of them over. Just don't call them names.

On the 10K: It's too bad the church blocked your permit, but would a Saturday have worked, or a route change?

I really like the fact that you're involved in your community, but try the carrot rather than the stick. More people may listen.

-Brent Diskin

Posted by vinella at 7/24/08 6:05 p.m.

Post #154834 makes my point far more eloquently than I ever could. We have a whole stratum of our society that has never found itself on the wrong end of an injustice and can see no circumstance in which the government might not be acting correctly. Funny how they change that tune instantly when fate deals them a dirty blow. I have a close friend in Knoxville who was a staunch Bush supporter. He's of German and Native American extraction but looks very semitic. He was detained for seven hours in the Dallas airport, based on nothing more than a complaint from another passenger who was made "uneasy" by his appearance. The TSA pried his entire life open like a can of clams and even refused to let him go when they found out he's never even left the country!

Now, he's an Obama backer. It can happen to ANYONE. YOU, Mr. 154834, can be victimized by these same laws you so blithely endorse. Don't bother saying it won't happen. It probably will. And your haughty dismissal of entire segments of our society is something you might think VERY hard about saying around anyone other than your mirror. I think you'll find that your friends will start mysteriously vanishing when they find out that you're talking such bigoted trash. In case you didn't get the memo, outright discrimination against ANY group is no longer fashionable.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/24/08 6:21 p.m.

I've lived in five states and traveled extensively, and nowhere have I met more closed-minded people than in Seattle. Strangely enough they call themselves "liberals" which should mean they're open to different ideas, but instead they refuse to think about anything that might go against their (often silly and trendy, and often nannying) left-wing ideology. I'm a liberal myself, and I never ceased to be amazed about it.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/24/08 6:29 p.m.

#154834, you scare the hell out of me. Now you want your own opinions of what's best forced on everyone in the country.

Why not make it the world? Hell, why don't we all just ask you for instructions every time we need to make any decision, as you clearly believe you're smarter than everyone else in the country.

I come way from this discussion truly disturbed at the vision of the future...

Posted by unregistered user at 7/24/08 6:31 p.m.

Ummm...the supreme court says they can't ban ammunition. Very clearly.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/24/08 9:27 p.m.

Ahoy again!

#155176...that was my thought too, but after a few hours away from the conversation, I got to thinking...

I am HAPPY about this discussion! Really! This, right here, is why we are here. The person I call "U.R." is well within their rights to voice how they believe. I'll disagree with them 'til the end, but we ARE talking about these kind of things.

Consider places like China, North Korea, most middle eastern caliphates...the very idea of what we're doing here is a anathema to the government "society-builders" there. ...and here we are..in the po-dunk pacific northwest, really talking about greater issues like this. In more restrictive places, we'd all be in jail for this.

Soooooo...yeah! Rejoice in disagreement! Really! From the disparate ends comes consensus; e pluribus unum, after all.

In this and other big idea debates, I have a thought to toss to everyone; relax. Understand that the guy you think is a wacko also has a vote and a thought. Engage them! Talk with them! Befriend them! You'll be surprised in what the two of you can accomplish!

-Brent Diskin