Nanny State 911!

Author David Harsanyi dishes on "Twinkie Fascists," the death of unregulated fun, and what it's like to be a conservative affirmative action hire.

(Page 5 of 5)

reason: Was that columnists or communists?

Harsanyi: Very good. I began my career working in sports--writing for the Associated Press, the New York Daily News, Sports Illustrated Online, and Major League Baseball. I reviewed books for the AP as well. Then, at some point I began freelancing on politics and wrote for The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard, and a lot of newspapers. I worked for a short time as a press secretary in Washington. That was before moving to the Post.

reason: As someone working in print, do you think the stories about the end of newspapers are accurate?

Harsanyi: I don't know about "the end," but we're going to have to get a lot more creative and aggressive if we're going to make it work. we've started that process at the Denver Post with projects like PoliticsWest, where I blog. Then again, some of it is beyond our control. When craigslist simply destroys the newspaper classified business, it won't matter how interesting we are as journalists.

reason: What role has the media played with regard to nanny state issues? Are we seeing the sorts of contrarian reporting that focuses on the counterproductive effects of, say, attempts to police all drinking while driving?

Harsanyi: The inclination of the media - and this is natural, not a nanny-state plot - is to focus on the more dramatic and horrible things that happen to us. The media (and I hate using that term, as if the "the media" was a monolithic entity) has a duty to report the ghastly things that happen to children or the ghastly acts of drunk drivers.

Do I wish those things were put into more context? Yes. Do I wish there were more John Stossels out there, taking on sacred cows? I do. But even when the media does the right thing, the public tends to remember the negative. An example: In 2004 the Centers for Disease Control released a horribly flawed study that claims 400,000 Americans die yearly due to obesity. It was the media - mostly The Wall Street Journal - that completely debunked that report. But the initial damage had already been done. Most Americans still believe thousands are dropping dead from french fries.

reason: Thanks very much.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I am booking the next flight to Georgia for to try the Luther Vandross burger... I want extra mayo with my cheese fries while Im at it. Yeahhhhhh.

  • ||

    I agree. People own themselves. They can feast, fight and fuck themselves to happiness, or death, it is their right.

  • Jozef||

    Finally someone came out and called the nannies by their true name: fascist. I'm quite frustrated by the politically correct newspeak that came up with the term "nanny state" to replace old-fashioned fascism. The term ranks all the way on the top, along with "enhanced interrogation" in the list of most asinine terms of 2007.

  • ||

    reason: But Vandross died in his early 50s; he had diabetes and at various points weighed over 300 pounds. It seems safe to assume that his death was hastened by his blubber. Is this where America is headed? And if so, is that a bad thing?

    Harsanyi: There are plenty people in this country who are healthy. And there are plenty people in this country who aren't. It's none of my business. and it's certainly none of government's business to coerce us into either camp.


    There's two questions here; Harsanyi kind of waves his hands at the first (Is this where America is headed?) and ignores the second (Is that a bad thing?).

    The first is an empirical question Harsanyi may not be qualified to answer, so let him side-step it. The second is more interesting. The literal answer has probably got to be "no." Does anyone think it's a good thing if all Americans balloon up to 300 lbs, suffer from diabetes and die? But if we agree that it's a bad thing, and we agree that goverment coercion is a solution worse than the problem, what's the alternative?

  • ed||

    Problem is, Jozef, if you go around calling everyone a fascist no one will take you seriously, regardless of your precision. "Nanny" is problematic because of its reference to Mary Poppins, and who but a fascist doesn't love Julie Andrews? See?

  • Syloson of Samos||

    Harsanyi : I actually think my kids have a much better life than I do. I remember sitting in the lap of my grand dad in the front seat driving on the highway. I'm lucky to be alive. But I don't buckle up my kids because George Bush says I have to. I do it for their own safety. And I think any parent will tell you that. The parent that won't, well, that parent is an idiot and no amount of laws can change that fact.

    I'm curious - is there any research on this issue? Have seatbelt laws increased the incidence of seatbelt use?

  • Jozef||

    ed, but that would put fascism on par with "democracy" (code word for imperial oligarchy), "socialism" (bureaucratic protectionism) or "communism" (corrupt tyranny). Nobody takes those seriously either, and fascism is just as valid a political system as those. And of course, we don't want to invalidate Sinclair Lewis, do we? ;)

  • ed||

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    Or carrying an umbrella.

  • ||

    Harsanyi: ... I'm probably close to being a libertarian, though I suspect some of my foreign policy views would keep me out of the club.

    reason: It's not a club, it's a gang.


    HA! Funny stuff Nick.

  • ||

    Does anyone think it's a good thing if all Americans balloon up to 300 lbs, suffer from diabetes and die? But if we agree that it's a bad thing, and we agree that goverment coercion is a solution worse than the problem, what's the alternative?

    Freedom. Each person as an individual will weigh the cost/benefits of HFCS. As long as people are held accountable for their own decisions, that is the best of all possible worlds.

  • Syloson of Samos||

    Smeed's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law

    Never heard of such until I started doing reading on seat belt laws this morning.

  • ||

    I actually think my kids have a much better life than I do. I remember sitting in the lap of my grand dad in the front seat driving on the highway. I'm lucky to be alive. But I don't buckle up my kids because George Bush says I have to. I do it for their own safety. And I think any parent will tell you that. The parent that won't, well, that parent is an idiot and no amount of laws can change that fact.

    So...all the complaining about "nannyism" and yet Harsanyi acknowledges that his kids have a better life than he does? And he thinks that his grandfather was an idiot? And that somehow seat belt laws have no effect on seat belt use, even though more people use them than ever? WTF?

  • x,y||

    His kids have a better life because we're wealthier now than our parents were (new and better products and technology); not because of any government actions, i.e., wealth redistribution. Besides, the government can't redistribute wealth that wasn't created.*

    *Generally.

  • ||

    Does anyone think it's a good thing if all Americans balloon up to 300 lbs, suffer from diabetes and die? But if we agree that it's a bad thing, and we agree that goverment coercion is a solution worse than the problem, what's the alternative?

    The alternative is to educate people about the potential consequences of their choices then leave them to make their own decisions. If they die from those decisions it's their (or my)own damn fault.

  • ed||

    his kids have a better life than he does

    Yes. Because of the nannies. Nothing else.
    Your questions have been answered. You may leave now.

  • ||

    Does anyone think it's a good thing if all Americans balloon up to 300 lbs, suffer from diabetes and die?"

    Actually, I think Darwin would show that not ALL Americans WOULD "balloon up to 300 lbs... and die".

    So is it good? Yes. It's a way of fighting the otherwise dumbing down of America.

    Let them (that want to) eat cake!

    CB

  • Edward||

    Harsanyi is making much out of nothing. No one is actually interferring with his right to eat unhealthful food or engage in dangerous behavior. Even in New York people can find plenty of transfat-laden pastries to scarf down. Lots of people defy seat-belt laws without spending the rest of their lives in prison or even getting fined. So tag is banned in some school yards. Big deal. Lots of kids own guns.
    The drug laws are a disgrace, but writing about just that would be too banal, so Harsanyi sexes it up by exaggerating all this shit as though we were in danger of becoming a police state tomorrow. He should get over his parents bad life under communism. This is America where a man can make money writing silly nonsense. Oh, I guess he knows that.

  • Edward||

    his parents' bad life. Sorry.

  • ||

    His kids have a better life because we're wealthier now than our parents were (new and better products and technology); not because of any government actions, i.e., wealth redistribution. Besides, the government can't redistribute wealth that wasn't created.*

    *Generally.


    But listen to what he's saying there. Before the Nanny State, his grandfather used to drive him around unbuckled and he considers himself "lucky to be alive".

    But of course the reason he buckles in his kids has nothing to do with the government's efforts to make seat belt use more widespread. He couldn't admit that. It's because he's smart, and his opinion that seat belt use is a good idea was developed totally on his own.

  • ||

    Does anyone think it's a good thing if all Americans balloon up to 300 lbs, suffer from diabetes and die?

    Does anyone think this is even possible in the most remotest of fashions? But hey, just think of all that cheap real estate up for grabs now that everyone has shuffled off.

    Just for the sake of argument: If it's me, yes, it's bad. Someone else? It's bad for someone else. How is that my problem, assuming it's not my own kid or something?

    Your right to swing your morality ends at the tip of my nose.

  • ||

    Dan reTard,

    (huh huh huh I is funny) chances are when his grandfather was driving him around, there weren't even seatbelts in the car. There was a long period in the 40s and 50s where people were terrified that wearing a seatbelt during a crash would trap them in the car and leave them drowned or burned to death.

  • ||

    Uh... my parent's bought seat belts for our cars BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED THEM. They were an option, offered by the automobile manufacturers. My parents bought them so that their kids would be safer in a crash.

    Anomaly? I don't think so. They were smart. Didn't need anyone telling them what to do. As an interesting aside, they lived long enough to reproduce even WITHOUT SEAT BELTS AT ALL!!! How on Earth could THAT have happened?

    CB

  • ||

    Just for the sake of argument: If it's me, yes, it's bad. Someone else? It's bad for someone else. How is that my problem, assuming it's not my own kid or something?

    It's your problem because you depend on other people, just like other people depend on you. It's that pesky little thing called civilization.

  • ||

    Uh... my parent's bought seat belts for our cars BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED THEM. They were an option, offered by the automobile manufacturers. My parents bought them so that their kids would be safer in a crash.

    Anomaly? I don't think so. They were smart. Didn't need anyone telling them what to do.


    Congratulations on having smart parents. But not everybody is so smart, so I think the government was right in stepping in and mandating their use - especially since there's no compelling argument not to wear them. Your liberty is hardly compromised.

    There are a lot of areas where government interference is either unecessary or counterproductive, but seat belt laws are actually a great argument FOR the nanny state - they've produced good results for a minimum of intrusion. The people who are so lacking in perspective that they think they're some kind of victims in this case really just need to get over it.

  • ||

    Do YOU exist for the state, or does the state exist for YOU? It's a simple question that all should ask themselves prior to advocating govenment lifestyle intervention.

  • ||

    The "minimum level of intrusion" for seatbelt laws (now in many states a primary offense, i.e. you can be pulled over for it alone) include the increase in gestapo-style checkpoints, illegal search and seizure of vehicles, and financial and legal consequences for people who were hurting no one but themselves.

    P.S. sorry for the Dan reTard thing, I've just wanted to use that insult for a while.

  • ||

    But of course the reason he buckles in his kids has nothing to do with the government's efforts to make seat belt use more widespread. He couldn't admit that. It's because he's smart, and his opinion that seat belt use is a good idea was developed totally on his own.

    Uh... yeah. I don't need the government to tell me that flying through a windshield at a high rate of speed is bad for me. Kind of worked that out for myself.

    It's your problem because you depend on other people, just like other people depend on you. It's that pesky little thing called civilization.

    I can't recall the last time I depended on a 300lbs plus fat ass for anything. Unless you count the Cowboys o-line.

  • ||

    It's your problem because you depend on other people, just like other people depend on you. It's that pesky little thing called civilization.

    The only pesky thing I know is you Dan.

    The butcher cut off his finger, the baker gave himself a concussion on the oven door and the candlestick maker caught himself on fire! Oh noes! What to do??

    Oh wait. There are about a bajillion other people doing these things too. I didn't even notice.

  • ||

    There are a lot of areas where government interference is either unecessary or counterproductive, but seat belt laws are actually a great argument FOR the nanny state - they've produced good results for a minimum of intrusion.

    It's not that intrusive. Unless you count using an unbuckled seatbelt as a pretext for pulling over and searching a car as intrusive.

    Again, alert me to the danger, give me the facts and let me make my own call. Maybe not wrinkling my shirt is worth risking death and disfigurement to me. Probably not the brightest choice, but it's my call.

    When it comes to Kids you can always stick the parent with child endangerment or manslaughter. You can also educate (scare the shit out of) kids about the dangers of not using seat belts.

  • ||

    No doubt - we should be free to do to ourselves what we want. The problem is who pays for the screw-ups? I guess there was a time when hospitals would refuse service if you did not have the ability to pay.

  • Mike Laursen||

    But not everybody is so smart, so I think the government was right in stepping in

    Dan T., would you say that our legislators have better judgement than the population in general? Is the average citizen better off having our legislators make decisions for him rather than making decisions for himself?

  • ||

    Dan T., would you say that our legislators have better judgement than the population in general? Is the average citizen better off having our legislators make decisions for him rather than making decisions for himself?

    Some decisions, yes. Others, no.

    In fact, I'd consider not having to make every single decision myself a feature of living in civilization. I'm glad that the government mandates certain safety standards in cars, for example, as it saves me the trouble of having to become an expert in that field myself.

  • ed||

    Dan confuses the benefits of division of labor with alleged benefits of being told what to do by people who think they're smarter than you.

  • ||

    Dan strkes me as the kind of guy that would come to your school, start bullying everyone and then tell you to leave if you don't like it.

  • ||

    """Some decisions, yes. Others, no."""

    The problem is who should decide? Elected officials that are hypocrites, that will tell you to live life a certain way and think they are exempt? Government is too screwed up to be telling anyone how to live.

  • ||

    Well, I've been living in Taiwan, and I noticed the missing element in American "freedom". Despite some bad (mainly due to US influence) laws, people here are very free, because most people here mind their own fucking business.

  • ||

    If were talking about laws which require children to be buckled in, I have no problem there. Kids can't make an adequately informed decision to assume the risk associated with driving around unbuckled. I disagree with such laws for adults though.

    My general arguments against paternalistic treatment of adults are threefold:

    1 - A paternalist puports to impose restriction in order to make the restricted person objectively better off overall than he or she would otherwise be. But its not clear that always is such a thing as objective better-off-ness. Certainly we can say that some lifestyles are objectively healthier than others or objectively more likely to result in a longer life. But such lifestyles often involve foregoing certain forms of enjoyment and/or engaging in activities the person finds unpleasant; and there is no obvious way of determining how much enjoyment is equal to how much extra time alive or reduction in long term health risks.

    2- To the extent that there is such a thing as objective better-off-ness, the optimum way of life probably varies from individual to individual according to personal preferences. And each person has a unique form of direct access to his or her own experience that an aspiring paternalist cannot have. Science can show that certain activities involve certain risks, and those risks can be explained to an adult of normal intelligence. That adult can consider those risks just as well as the paternalist can. But that person also has a direct knowledge of how much he or she enjoys such activities, if at all. The unique knowledge of one's own experience is a piece of information that will factor into the cost-benefit analysis for one's own decisions more accurately than if someone else made the decision for that person.

    3 - Even if we could identify certain cases in which a paternalist could make an objectively accurate claim that certain acts are always against the interests of those who wish to perform them (a type of case I think is highly unusual at best); I might consider freedom to be desireable in itself. A crude analogy to the type of thing I'm talking about might be Robert Nozick's "experience machine" thought experiment. Basicly, imagine a matrix-type machine that gives optimal subjective experience or most enjoyable quality of existence. But if you're in it, you don't actually do things or know whats going on in the outside world. Most people say they wouldn't spend their life hooked up to such a device; presumably because they consider actually relating to people/knowing about things/etc. to be abstractly good. I'm thinking of freedom as possibly an abstractly desireable end in itself (in addition to being an effective means to get other desireable things).

    There are probably other arguments from pragmatism, unitended consequenses, etc. This post is already kind of long though so I won't explore them now.

  • ||

    """ Kids can't make an adequately informed decision to assume the risk associated with driving around unbuckled."""

    Isn't that the parents domain?

  • ||

    In fact, I'd consider not having to make every single decision myself a feature of living in civilization. I'm glad that the government mandates certain safety standards in cars, for example, as it saves me the trouble of having to become an expert in that field myself.



    I think you're conflating two (at least 2) different types of situations. There is a difference between saying "I don't have all the relevant information needed to make a decision" and saying "I can't correctly determine what is in my best interest when given all the relevant information".

    If, for example, you judge that it is in your interests to get a car that meets at least a certain standard of safety when you buy one; it is perfectly rational want to minimize the amount of time, money, and effort you have to spend finding out which cars meet that standard and which don't. To the extent that government mandated safety standards do that; they benefit you not by protecting you from your own decisions, but by giving you the option of getting what you wanted anyway with less input.

    If there were a policy in place that got you the relevant safety information, but didn't rule out the option of buying a less safe car (for example some type of full disclosure/informed consent policy); it would provide you with the same benefit you get from the safety standards you mention. You would know which cars don't meet your desired standards; and if you don't want such a car you could simply not buy it.

  • ||

    ""There is a difference between saying "I don't have all the relevant information needed to make a decision" and saying "I can't correctly determine what is in my best interest when given all the relevant information"."""

    And there is a big difference between the above and "I have no choice."

  • ||

    TrickyVic

    I'm not sure where I'd draw the line between between parental discretion and government protection of children. I regard it, though, as a different kind of issue, in principle, than adult self-determination vs. paternalism.

  • Ska||

    When it comes to Kids you can always stick the parent with child endangerment or manslaughter.


    That same law makes it illegal to give your 16 year old child a glass of wine with dinner.

    Just sayin'.

  • ||

    And there is a big difference between the above and "I have no choice."

    I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at.

  • ||

    "In fact, I'd consider not having to make every single decision myself a feature of living in civilization. I'm glad that the government mandates certain safety standards in cars, for example, as it saves me the trouble of having to become an expert in that field myself."

    The problem is that tradeoffs are eliminated. We are to presume that maximizing the duration of life is the only value people should care about. For instance, what is the logic behind mandating seatbelt use, but permitting any human being to ride a motorcycle?

  • ||

    Kids can't make an adequately informed decision to assume the risk associated with driving around unbuckled.

    [SNIP]

    That adult can consider those risks just as well as the paternalist can.



    Do you really believe that no kid can make an adequtely informed decision but that every adult can? It would seem more likely there is a continuum among both groups, with some kids and adults able to objectively weigh risks and benefits, others unable to. If you justify limiting the freedom of kids based on their membership in a group that includes some individuals who need protection from their own ignorance, which can't you justify limiting the freedom of adults on the same grounds?

  • ||

    One of the biggest problem with limiting unhealthy food is as much as we think that we know what foods are more or less healthy we do not.

    It's the amount of calories that you eat! Not the type of foods you eat.

  • ||

    parse

    The fact that kids are "in a group that includes some individuals who need protection from their own ignorance" is not by itself the justification for limiting the risks they can take. Government action protecting children from certain risks should be calculated to make it the case that, upon attaining mature intellectual/psychological facilities and being admitted to legal adulthood, the person will still have access to his or her full natural range of options (those options not having been precluded by actions undertaken during childhood when the person did not have adequate judgement capabilities).

    So for example, I don't think a child should be free to get a sex change operation. The reason is that a child requesting one has not had the opportunity to consider the matter with fully developed mental facilities. If his (say its a guy for argument sake) sexual organs are removed, and the he decides in adulthood that he'd have prefered to keep them; he will have lost the ability to have very important experiences without ever having given fully valid consent to that affect. If, on the otherhand, he is restrained from such an operation until adulthood, and then decides he still wants the operation; he still has the option of having it and getting whatever benefits come with it.

    An adult I the other hand I believe should be free to get a sex change procedure (though I have no problem with temporarily delaying such a procedure to perform psychological evaluations, give extensive disclosure about the procedure, take substantial measures to ensure informed consent, etc). Although the adult is also losing the ability to have certain experiences, he has given fully vaid consent thereof. Thats the crucial difference.

    As for the continuum argument, I agree there may not be a single exact age when people suddenly have an epiphany and become adults fully able to make their own decisions. If its feasible, I would support some kind of mental competence test instead of a cutoff age. In the absence of such a test, a semi-arbitrary age is preferable to either:

    1 - Letting toddlers drink and smoke all they want.
    or
    2 - Permanently making everyone subject to paternalistic treatment.

    The age of majority system may act paternalistic towards some people who objectively should be free to make their own decisions, but such treatment is only temporary.

    Also, I would, in some cases, support protecting insane or severly mentally retarded adults from themselves.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Some decisions, yes. Others, no.

    Do you have some way of distinguishing the two cases?

    (I mean before the fact, of course. We can usually tell, of course, that a decision was boneheaded as we're sweeping up the aftermath.)

  • ||

    """I'm not sure where I'd draw the line between between parental discretion and government protection of children."""

    The government protection of childern is basically them acting a parent because government does not have faith in your parenting skills. It boils down to how much parenting should the government be allowed to do, or is parenting reserved to the parents unless proven incapable to a judge.


    """I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at."""

    You were talking about the decision making process, which is basically none when government decides for you. My comment was directed at the fact that the decision making process becomes irrelevent when government decides for you.

    In some cases of bad parenting, the government may need to take over. But that shouldn't happen on by a pre-emptive scheme that considers everyone's guilty first. Children are the parents responsibility, not the governments

  • ||

    TrickyVic

    Ok, I see what you're saying. My comment on information and decision making processes was to address Dan T's argument about alleged benefits of paternalism. I agree that your decision process doesn't matter if the government is making the decision for you.

    In some cases of bad parenting, the government may need to take over. But that shouldn't happen on by a pre-emptive scheme that considers everyone's guilty first.

    Ok, fair enough. I don't think the state should remove kids from their parents' custody unless there is a good reason to believe that there are serious problems. But there are certain acts which I don't think kids should be allowed to engage in, even with parental consent. For an example, see my above comment about children requesting sex changes.

  • big daddy||

    the ninth amendment to the constitution quote "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." means that i can smoke on public property because the founding fathers did it before the writing of the constitution. any right the people exercised in common at the time of the writing of the constitution were unenumeration and therefore protected by this amendment. no one can prohibit me from eating fatty or other unhealthy foods that the founders consumed. if people would take government to task and contest these unconstitutional laws the libs would leave us alone.
    macisbac

  • Russell||

    Wait a minute -- Governeur Morris is the skinny fellow seated next to his more spherical brother Bob. Seated because only had one leg, having eaten the other on growing peckish while waiting in line to sign the Declaration of Independence.

    Thanks for the recipe though-- I'll ask Bartley's Burger cottage to replace the bun in their already ample Al Gore special with a Krispy Kreme

  • jkii||

    Harsanyi is right on about seatbelt and helmet laws being the first point at which the government stuck its foot in the door of your personal safety decisions.

    I remember John Chancellor on the VHF teleset making some bizarre calculation during his end-of-cast commentary one night to the effect of the 55,000 lives lost in Viet Nam will be made up by seat belt laws that will prevent at least as many fatalities on our nations hiways each year.

  • JDL||

    Edward,
    No, we are not in danger of becoming a police state. We are so far past the threshold of police-statism that I (at 47) can barely remember a time when most fun/dangerous/unhealthy things were not regulated, or just outright banned.

    And what's worse than the gummint's overbearing maternalism is the fact that we've successfully programmed the vast majority of an entire generation (of fatass thumbsucking dumbasses)to believe that the moment gummint steps OUT of our lives all hell will break loose....and....of course....require some new gummint institution charged with getting things back under control.

    Viva la Danger!

    JDL

  • ||

    JDL > Hence my nom de keyboard.

    Dan T,

    Free will, and liberty, boil down to self-ownership. I own my body, and my labor, and my health. If someone depends on my productivity to survive, that is their problem, not mine. Otherwise, I wouldn't have the right to quit a job I hate, because my non-productivity would harm others. Self ownership is the building block for all other rights, and if you do not understand this, you should not be arguing on a libertarian site. Anyone who is not me cannot possibly have the proper information to make specific choices for me, whether those choices are what I eat, what drugs I take, how my (consensual) partner and I fuck, etc. What next, Gov't mandated sleep times? Federal Calorie Intake Laws?

  • ||

    I think it would be smart if some of the posters here would educate themselves on "obese" people before throwing around uncalled for insults.

    A good place to start is Junkfood Science, which has a libertarian bent to it. Just put the title in a search engine, and you'll find the blog.

    I also advise reading "The Obesity Myth" by Paul Campos.

    Maybe we should try acting like reasonable people, eh? Or are we all too cool to show any decency toward others?

  • ||

    Alas, Mulligan's - home of the Luther burger and hamdog - is no more. It shut down several months ago for reasons not having to do with serving 'bad-for-you-food', but for owner/landlord issues.

    Many nights (for the two or three years it was open) my punk band, the Crumsy Pirates, played to a full house of folks drinking, shooting pool, and gulping down hamdogs. They also served fried Twinkies.

    Of course, if you wanted to smoke, you had to go outside...and you can bet that Decatur police officers 'dropped by' several times a night to make sure that you BEHAVED.

    I miss Mulligan's! A slice of punk rock heaven 10 minutes from downtown ATL...R.I.P.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement