Slightly late to the party on this one, but here we go.

Now that it's been revealed that worrying about terrorists targeting gumballs is fucking lunacy (because really, when all of our public transportation, ports, borders, and everything else is pretty much an open target, gumball protection being a priority is the height of madness), the aldermen reveal their "real" idea: licensing gumball machines.

That's right: of all the other problems facing the town like "overcrowded housing, taxi ordinances and redevelopment projects" says the Daily Record (cached version here), not to mention others we can probably think of because they're problems everywhere (education, perhaps?), we want to license gumball machines.

[Alderman Frank] Poolas said he is convinced that the town needs to license gumball machines and other currently-exempt devices to better protect children against food-borne illnesses and defective toys. He also said such a licensing scheme could make it easier to track down someone who might use gumball machines in an unlikely, if not impossible, attempt to poison kids. Source.

Question: when was the last time you heard about a kid getting sick from something they ate out of a gumball machine? Has there been an E. coli outbreak from gumballs that I haven't heard of? I'm being serious when I ask that…is this really some sort of safety issue I've just missed? And the defective toys business…what does that mean? If the spider ring breaks within 30 days of purchase? (And yes, I know some toys shouldn't be given to kids to screw around with, but if the parent won't check the toys to ensure they're not going to kill their kid, they probably expect Alderman Poolas to come and ensure that the doors to where they keep the drain cleaners are secured as well. Should we license parents?)

And let's go ahead and think like a loony alderman for about five seconds. Let's assume that all gumball machines are licensed, and the government is wasting lots of money and time making sure they know what goes in the gumball machines and where it's come from. Then let's assume, because we're in Loony Alderland, that a terrorist decided that poisoning gumballs was a good idea. Are they going to log this on a schedule somewhere? No, they're going to do Bad Things to the gumballs without said Bad Things showing up anywhere. So all your vaunted licensing won't help you.

No, you're trying to build a bridge not just where there's no water, but in the middle of the Gobi desert. Why not just be up front about it and say you want to eek some more money in a scheme that adds absolutely no value to the experience of getting a gumball out of a machine? At least then I could have some respect for you idiots.

You must be proud, Dover. You must be so proud.

Give this a read.

Sound familiar? How about when I put it like this:

1. We must do something to prevent fraud in buying autos!

2. Taking your thumbprint is something!

3. It must be done!

An interesting little film. It has some very valid points to be made.

I would like to make one additional one. There are people who want to kill us. And as one Holocaust survivor said, paraphrased, when somebody says they want to kill you…believe them. So I'm not against taking steps to prevent getting killed. I don't think anyone I know would disagree with this.

But as I've mentioned before, a lot of the laws and regulations that are being enacted will do nothing to keep us safe. They are instead grandstanding by politicians who want to make you feel better about what they're doing–much as in the film they're "dressing up" all of this surveillance as a positive thing. And yes, in the wrong hands, they can be used in damaging ways.

And here's the thing: I don't believe anyone in government right now is competent enough to be actively pushing us towards a police state. A true sign that you don't have a handle on things is to just throw everything into a state of lockdown. I think we'll get to a police state by the sheer stupidity of the government, if nothing else. And I, for the most part, agree with the Bullshit episode which talked about the inability of government to really effectively use all the data that they get in thus far.

Really, the most disturbing portion of this is the surveillance of e-mails and communications. It's true–we all do stuff online at some point, and to varying degrees, that we wouldn't necessarily want people knowing about. I'm reminded of a bit in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (and I'll paraphrase, since the idea of flipping back through that tome to find the actual line is daunting) where it's explained that governments control criminals and so if they want to control everyone they simply make it impossible for you to exist without criminalizing yourself. Anything in that sound familiar?

Thanks to ScottC for sending over the link. Direct link here for the feedreaders.

Read the whole thing, including the links.

Yes, it's about the whole Aqua Teen idiocy. A couple of points to make:

5. The FCC can't pull a private cable network's license, Mayor Hyperbole McFuckwit.

You shouldn't have told him that, amigo. Now he's going to push for some way of making that reality. Government folks want absolute power like Stephen Colbert wants to control reality via Wikipedia.

Sidebar: ten years ago we would have truly thought that "Wikipedia" was some kind of silly-named device used to take over/destroy the world. Omegahedron, anyone?

And from the ToonZone editorial he links to:

The government's handling of this situation has proven incompetent at best.

Why am I a borderline anarchist? Because in this world, that statement is applicable every single day. Think about it. When's the last time you looked at something the government did and went, "Hey, you know what? Wow. I wouldn't have changed a single thing about that. Goddamn, that was slick." Instead, that same line can be used for: border security, airport security, port security, the war in Iraq, Katrina, the national budget, respect for the Constitution especially free speech, and on and on and on. Go ahead, try it: think of something, and that line just fits doesn't it? We need that line on billboards.

Also, people keep talking about the other cities in which the campaign was based and how only Boston freaked, but I wonder how many people actually called in a freakout? I think–and this is based on the normal amount of hysteria that's in the air (liquids on planes, anyone?)–that the other cities were a phone call away from doing the same thing.

Here's the article.

Okay, check this out.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was also on hand at the conference and took broadcasters to task for their current content, speaking of "too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists."

That's right…the people that will bend over backwards to fine folks because a vast (vast!) minority of letter writers will bitch about anything and everything are going to tell television what's the right content they should have. The people who get their panties in a wad about profanity and nipples and don't trust you to change the channel if you don't like what you're seeing…are getting ready to use the police power of the government to regulate what can and cannot be shown on television.

Why? Because the networks show baloney and people eating bugs and that's not, in their estimation, quality.

Newsflash, you dumb pricks. The vast majority of people like baloney and bugs. If they didn't, and they tuned out, then the networks wouldn't show it. The networks are in this for one thing and one thing only: money. If high brow entertainment sold well, then Spike TV would be doing Merchant Ivory marathons instead of Bond.

Here's how this is going to work. Because Nanny Government thinks that you Americans aren't smart enough to pick your own radio and television programming, they're going to legislate it. Or lean on people so that they don't even have to go through Congress. And sadly, some of you Americans aren't smart enough to realize that this is a really terrible idea. Because first they're going to go after network television, then cable. They've already said they want to.

So ask yourself if the government, which can't protect our borders, protect our ports, get out of the military's way to let them do their jobs, balance their own checkbook, or teach your children, is who you want telling you what you can eat and what you can watch and what you can listen to.

And ask yourself if you want the government to have the power to dictate these things to you, especially when at any moment, your opposition could have control of the government. For you liberals, imagine what it would be like if right wing Christian conservatives had absolute power over television. For you conservatives, imagine what it would be like if left wing hippies had absolute power over television. Let your worst suspicions and nightmares run rampant.

Because that's what you're inviting in. Half of you might be partying, but the other half–the smart ones–are very patiently waiting for it to be their turn to fuck with your world.

Wouldn't it be so much safer just to not allow anybody that sort of power in the first place?

David Bernstein talks about why the idiocy of Republicans shows the need for term limits.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't believe it's the function of government to protect people from their own willful stupidity.

Term limits are helmet laws for voters. You should not need a law that tells you're an adult, when riding around on a crotch rocket, it's probably a good idea to give your cranium some protection in case you suddenly find yourself skidding along the asphalt at escape velocity. However, if you do not wear a helmet, it's obvious what's inside your brain pan isn't much worth saving.

If people are happy (can potentially be read as: too stupid and uninformed not to be unhappy) with their elected legislative representatives, why shouldn't they be allowed to re-elect them to as many terms as they so choose? Uninformed voters get the government they deserve. I see no reason to compel the stupid voters to wear a helmet.

I dunno. Maybe I'm missing something. That's why I'm the shmoe in this equation.

Found via Instapundit.

Here's your article.

First of all, how does that work exactly? YouTube is based out of California. How can the EU seek to regulate something that's coming from offshore? If I'm reading this right, it would be upon YouTube to get the license, not the users who use YouTube.

So if they try it, here's how YouTube should respond IMO. Post a video from the founders that says this:

"If this goes into effect, we're looking at having to license YouTube and put even more restrictions in place for what you can and cannot post on our service. We have no interest in conforming with silly laws made by silly lawmakers who can't even tell the difference between television and the Internet. Therefore, if this goes into effect, we will have to cut off any European IP address from our service. If you are interested in keeping this from happening or think that governments should have better ways to spend their time, here's a URL where you can go to find all the contact information you need to get in touch with your government and tell them your thoughts on the matter. Thanks and good luck."

Honestly, I think we need a coalition of folks who are dedicated to identifying people in government who use their power to try and regulate what other people do with their lives and get them the hell out of office. I don't care if you're a supposed conservative or supposed liberal–leave people the fuck alone. When was the last time a government passed a law that extended freedom instead of taking it away? Leave us alone already. Jesus.