From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Rewriting History
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:46:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.peeves
Organization: 509th Composite Group, Tinian, Marianas
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <1992Oct1.231746.25514@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com 
(Don Baldwin) writes:

>MegaPeeve:  People who fuck up and cause problems, giving the safety
>fanatics an opening to exploit by making more idiotic laws.

That's a contributing factor, but only that.  There've been BDIs and
fuckups since time immemorial, but this epidemic of overregulation and
safety fanaticism is a recent thing.  The fuckups deserve to be hunted
down und slaughtered, `tis true, but we'd be somewhat wide of the mark
if we RTIs (Right-Thinking Individuals) concentrated the lion's share of
our attention on them.


>ObInsaneLaw:  Supposedly, some state back East has banned flashlights
>taking more than 3 batteries because they can be used as weapons.

Gotta be Massoftwoshits.  This is the first I've heard of this, but from
what I know of the place, that'd fit.  After all, look at the way Boston
banned Super Soakers.

Something that disturbs me, and that's another facet of the overregulation
thing, is the difficulty of turning politicians off once realistic regulatory
limits have been met.  Take the CAFE regulations, for example.  The
government has mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to which the
auto manufacturers must conform, or else pay fines in relation to the vehicles
they sell which fail to meet the magic numbers and bring the company's average
down.  

Because of political zeal and careerism, the anticipated, ever-higher 
standards have gotten so tight that now the safety of future vehicles is 
questionable, because the laws of thermodynamics being what they are, the
things would have to be made of tinfoil to be light enough to meet the 
standards under consideration.  But it's politically correct (in the most 
literal sense of the term) to push for higher fuel economy standards right
now because the private automobile is the political whipping boy du jour.
But because of the rise of careerism at the expense of representation, no 
politician has the balls to stand up and announce that the emperor's stark
nekkid.

Automobile air pollution is another example in which federal regulations
are becoming ever tighter.  California has *really* gone off the deep end
with that stuff, mandating stricter standards than in most of the rest of
the country.  But how far is this going to go?  I submit that the air is 
clean enough.  After all, certain concessions must be made to the fact 
that we live not in some mythical Garden Of Eden, but in a modern industrial
society, and that there is, after all, such a thing as a point of diminsishing
returns.  The money and bureautic energy being spent on making life difficult
for the average Jane and Joe, with bothersome horseshit like mandatory 
automobile smog checks, could better be spent on forward-looking programs  
like the development of alternative fuels.  

After all, anyone with an ounce of perception realizes that private auto-
mobiles aren't going to go away.  Now that people have become accustomed 
to the convenience, safety and privacy of having their own vehicles, they're 
not going to be easily coaxed into mass transit, so government might as well
get used to the idea.  (Or more specifically, only the most extreme members
of the guilty liberal/tofu-eating set will willingly go along.)  Again, 
though, it's considered politically wise to introduce legislation that turns 
the screws ever tighter on the automobile, no matter how unrealistic that is.
What we need is a way of saying, "Oka-aaaay, that's enough!  Go focus your
attention on something else now!"


>ObWeapon:  12 gauge loaded with Dragon's Breath.

What's Dragon's Breath?  I like the sound of it.  Can you get some for the
next time we go to the skeet range?


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
          "Please don't follow up to dac, Jack."  -- J. Garcia
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-