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?
Clint Eastwood's masterful true-life drama about a wrongly accused American hero doubles as an awkward brief for Trump.
Teen activists are righteously angry—but righteous anger does not produce sound public policy.
Wisconsin College Spent $100K Investigating Instructor for Allegedly Saying Police Department Was 'Full of Racists'
The investigation was launched after the local police chief complained and reached out to the Wisconsin Department of Justice.
Want the Government To 'Defend Families' From Porn? Child Protective Services Should Be a Cautionary Tale
The new right naively thinks a government more empowered to "protect children" would be good for families. Nope.