I agree that these advances in technology are inevitable. The important thing is that we try to get the policy right before, for example, there are tens of thousands of drones flying over American cities (I learned recently that the governor of my state wants the state to be the proving ground for these drones). Proponents of these drones say they will be great for search and rescue operations and hostage or terrorist situations…if this is ALL they do, I don’t have much problem with that. My problem is I do not trust these agencies of government to only do these things. Protections need to be put in place before the drones and these other technologies are implemented.

That’s what makes Pelosi’s “deem-and-pass” nonsense so offensive. Rule-making immediately preceded the votes, so Pelosi did in fact follow the rules. However, the spirit of the Constitution was ignored by the trick. The final bill was never presented to the House. Only the amendments and a self-executing clause that deemed the Senate bill to have been passed.

However, if this is indeed our democracy, why was all this necessary to override resistance in the house?

A similar policy was advocated by a group called themselves paternalistic libertarians (as oxymoronic as laissez-faire communists). The difference was that workers would be “encouraged” to save (not forced), and saving would be the default option if the worker didn’t choose.

It’s ironic that many nanny-state supporters claim they want adults to be responsible citizens, but then they treat adults like toddlers.

I saw this cartoon awhile back, well before the Boston Marathon bombing. I knew I would eventually write a post along the lines of this cartoon; this seemed like a good time.