Americans are Tools Americans are tools. While social engineering doesn't top many surveys addressing what we expect of our politicians, folks find themselves being ratcheted into certain behaviors (or levered against others) an awful lot lately. The heavy hands that are wrenching on our lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness happen to be those of the very government we elect to ensure our hallowed freedoms. It is a most tangible thing... One need not explore too many avenues and alleyways of life to find legal barricades. Some are under construction even as we toil away a third of our daily lives. Others have been in place for decades. Still more are in the planning stages, with our own hired servants leaning over the drafting table, sleeves rolled up, blueprinting the future. Some people might say this is evidence of our leaders being good shepherds. Others visibly chafe at any perceived sign that we might be under the invasive control of a less-than-benign entity. Sometimes the government protects the corporations that feed it the most money. They couldn't save Big Tobacco, but now they are trying to intervene on behalf of the Big Mac. The U.S. House of Representatives has generated a proposal banning lawsuits against fast-food restaurants by citizens seeking compensation for obesity-related health problems. This is another fine example of what's wrong in the House; they tend to waste our time and money on stupid stuff that they know will never pass mustard in the Senate. It's called pandering. It's the only trick they do well: "We as Americans need to realize that suing your way to better health is not the answer," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), himself an obese person. "Trial lawyers need to stop encouraging consumers to blame others for the consequences of their actions just so they can profit from frivolous lawsuits against restaurants." See? Make the choir sing, and cash the fat check. Of course, the matter of who gets sued in this country and who doesn't is a Constitutional matter, a thing for courts to decide, not legislators, and certainly not presidents. We are all guaranteed the right to seek redress for wrongs real and imagined. I do agree with Mr. Hastert on the point that litigation is no panacea as obesity surpasses smoking as the leading health threat to Americans. And if I were on a peer-packed jury, convened to determine the validity of a plaintiff's claim of damages against a fast-food chain that serves a fattening product, I would side with the defendant. That's what has happened in a couple of lawsuits already. That's what we're here for. While the forces of social engineering cover for an industry that feeds the Republican Party millions of dollars in contributions, for some reason we're seeing political overkill in order to save us from smoking. Maybe that's why obesity has taken the lead in recent years – all those smokers who were harangued and taxed into quitting must have gotten their appetites back (I don't really believe that, by the way; my personal theory is that the rotten economy has forced more Americans to eat meals that cost 99 cents). Not only are entire states enacting various forms of smoking bans, now some companies have banned smoking anywhere on the entirety of their properties. Since it is not practical for smokers to drive across the street from where they work just to light up, the idea of the engineers is to get people to quit smoking altogether. It makes sense on their side of the ledger; not only does this increase worker productivity by negating smoking breaks, it also pushes down the company's health insurance costs, since non-smokers carry lower risks. It's a win-win situation for the employer and the insurance company. Personal claims and corporate costs go down (although your premiums will still go up) and you're a better tool, besides. Why do we all put up with all this social engineering, especially coming under the official watch of conservatives, who have long touted the virtues of individual responsibility? Is legislating our way to good health any more legitimate than litigating our way to it? Can prohibition of anything be a good idea, using the Constitution to exterminate those wicked behaviors that certain constituents don't like, that important contributors won't support? Or are Americans just numb? That's the general opinion in the House of Representatives. They said as much, commenting on whether or not the Department of Homeland Security has been effective in keeping us on our toes. "The general alert system only numbs the American people to the threats we face," said a spokeswoman for the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee for Homeland Security. This is how they think. We must be completely without feeling, they imagine, because we don't react to the threats that we aren't told about. They still haven't explained what it is that we haven't satisfactorily reacted to, and since nothing has happened, it could be that there were no threats at all. But that's inconceivable, because if it were true, then there would be no need for the very expensive boondoggle called the Department of Homeland Security, nor any Select House Committees attached thereto. They can't figure out why the alert system doesn't work, paying no heed to the fact that Americans aren't at all numb. We can feel plenty, and this country's incumbent social engineers are about to find out just how powerful these tools really are. Paul Heller 03/11/04 << back to the archives
	All site contents © 2004, Paul F. Heller