California Republicans are irked by the "nanny government" proposals of Democratic legislators, Inside Bay Area reports. The article clouds more than it clarifies, lumping together clearly paternalistic measures (such as seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws) with laws that ostensibly aim to protect third parties from injury (such as an anti-spanking bill and a ban on using hand-held cell phones while driving). Even the incandescent light bulb ban proposed by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) is officially intended not simply to save homeowners money but to protect the environment by reducing energy consumption and abating bglobal warming. Such measures may be ill-advised, but it's not because they exemplify "nanny government." In any case, it's hard to see how Democrats have an advantage in this area over Republicans, who if anything are more inclined to support policies aimed at preventing self-harm caused by using drugs, gambling, and looking at dirty pictures. Is there any meaningful sense in which Democratic paternalism is more nannyish than Republican paternalism?
Jo Jorgensen: 'Requiring People To Vaccinate Their Children Is One of the Most Egregious Things That the Government Can Do'
The Libertarian ticket is campaigning against lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and the World Health Organization, in addition to the usual taxation, prohibition, and war.
"If we’re actually going to be an anti-racist school district, we have to confront practices like this that have gone on for years and years."
The accusation is often made. But it simply isn't true.
There's an easier way to lessen the impact of retaliatory agriculture tariffs: repeal our own
Some of Hunter's more innocuous emails might be checked with recipients.