These are weird and scary times

Florida always has some of the strangest news. I’m not sure if it’s that we pay more attention to Florida news because it’s strange or if all the weirdos moved to Florida or that their media is better at digging up odd stories, but for peculiar news stories, Florida is where it’s at.

A little over a week ago, a news item out of Miami caught my eye. It was about a naked man eating the face off a homeless man on a bridge and being shot to death by Miami police when he refused to stop.

In that story alone, there are three oddities:

• Naked guy on a bridge
• Guy eating someone’s face
• Police having to shoot an unarmed man multiple times to get him to go down

If you add them all up, some people would have you believe that the Zombie Apocalypse is upon us.

Maybe it’s because I’m twisted. Or maybe it’s because I’ve watched all the Walking Dead episodes, along with Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Slither, Zombieland and even Mutant Vampire Zombies from the ‘Hood, but I have a strange affinity for Zombies. Okay, maybe it’s not so strange. A study recently showed that as much as $5 billion was spent on Zombies in 2011 — between movies and TV shows and t-shirts, &c.

But Zombies aren’t real. They’re just something made up in movies. Right?

I thought the same thing until a few days ago when Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spokesman David Daigle told The Huffington Post that "CDC does not know of a virus or condition that would reanimate the dead (or one that would present zombie-like symptoms)."

In short, the government is denying the existence of Zombies. This news factoid is simultaneously humorous and unnerving.

On one hand, the CDC probably added fuel to the fire year ago when it released a “Zombie Preparedness” campaign. The campaign is, to date, the single best government-sponsored public service announcement that I’ve ever seen, taking a meme that people have shown interest in and making it relevant to real-life situations. Basically, if you’re prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse, you’re prepared for other types of disasters which actually happen, such as hurricanes, floods, blizzards, &c.

On the other hand, I’m of the mind that the government doesn’t take time to refute things which aren’t true. They simply ignore those things. Denying a rumor usually only helps to spread it faster. Remember high school? Maybe, the CDC is just trying to get more milage out of that campaign. Really, it’s brilliant. Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/6xbtvuk.

Whether the Zombie Apocalypse is real or not, I’m glad to see it in the news. It’s much more interesting to read about the Undead in Florida (and many other places) than about the brain dead in Washington. And, hey! I got to write a column about Zombies! Didn’t think that would ever happen.

For more Zombie news, check out my twitter feed at twitter.com/scottleffler … or just search for Zombies on Google.

'Big Brother' school ID program should bother everyone

I have a love/hate relationship with school districts.   I did when I was a student. I did when I was a reporter. I do as a father of two school-aged children. And I do as a taxpayer.

It seems like not a school year goes by without one school district or another angering me in some way. Fans of my former radio show may recall the problem I had with the “agendas” the kids had to carry around. Or the $100 calculator that every student has to buy.

Today’s issue is ugly. And scary. And is a much bigger deal than a $100 calculator that I can’t afford and my daughter will never use outside of that math class.

Last week, the Starpoint Central School District instituted a policy that will require any visitor to their buildings to present their state-issued identification, which the district will then scan for what they have determined to be pertinent information.

Some members of the community have found fault with this plan, saying it violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The district, however, retorts that all the information they’ll be gleaning from your driver’s license or other form of ID is just public information anyway, so … no harm, no foul.

This argument is nothing but a distant cousin of “If you don’t have anything to hide, why do you care if we search your belongings?”

I care if you search my belongings because they’re mine. And I care if you look at my “public record” because it’s mine. And I don’t think that just because I may have a reason to be in a Starpoint school, that gives the district the right to download my details into their system.

It’s not like people meander the school district’s halls without reason. When you get to most schools, you have to stop in the office and sign in. That seems somewhat reasonable to me. But stopping, signing in and handing over your traffic records seems unnecessary to me.

The district says the new provision is for the safety of its students. Forgive me, but I don’t see how it makes them any safer. Maybe someone could explain to me how it does. Until then, I have to say this is a very slippery slope that I don’t like.

Imagine if in the future, you have to scan your ID at any government building. Or to get into parks. Or at random intersections. How about at government-funded sports arenas? And your information could show up on the JumboTron for everyone to see. After all, it’s all public information, right?

Now, the folks from Starpoint might say I’m being overly dramatic and engaging in hyperbole. But I’d rather we stopped this whole issue of scanning your ID now, before it starts.

The members of the Starpoint Board of Education need to remember that they answer to the taxpayers — and not the other way around.

And people from outside the Starpoint district should not sit back and wait on this issue. If Starpoint gets their way on this, your school district will be next.

In government we distrust ...

I'm in the majority.

That doesn't happen often, by the way. Although in this instance I'm not surprised.

To be honest, I'm surprised we're not all in the majority on this particular issue. It shocks me that anyone would disagree with me on this one.

The issue is simply this: Do you trust the federal government?

A whopping 78 percent of those polled in a Pew Research Poll released Sunday said they don't believe that Washington can fix what ails us. That means, though, that 22 percent said they think Washington is on the right path.

Imagine if you will that you're at dinner with nine of your closest friends. Statistically speaking, two of them think the feds are going to fix everything. Not to be judgmental, but you should choose your friends better because two in nine of them are idiots. Of course, I'm assuming that you're in the majority, too.

A lot of people read this column, though, so I know you can't all be in the majority. There are some of your reading this right now who are really upset because I just called you an idiot. There are others, of course, who aren't upset because you didn't know I was talking about you. This proves my point all the more.

I'd apologize if I were sorry, but … come on! If you are one of those in the minority, I have to ask you; “What are you thinking?”

I can't for the life of me fathom what would lead any thinking American to believe that the federal government is capable of fixing anything, much less everything.

This isn't a Democrat and Republican issue, by the way. It's across the board. And although the distrust level is at its highest rate in decades, it isn't something that just happened. It has been slowly creeping up little by little with each passing administration and congressional class.

What does this mean, really? It means that those of us in the majority really need to step up and do something. Elect some different people. Run for office ourselves. Something. Anything.

I mean … twenty-two percent? I think England had a higher favorable rating during the revolution. Which explains how fringe groups like the Tea Party come into existence and gain such popularity.

This should be great for the GOP come November. The mid-term elections tend to swing a little bit in favor of the minority party no matter what. Given the perfect storm we've got this year between the high level of anti-government sentiment and the mid-terms, and the Republicans should pick up dozens of seats in the house and a handful in the senate.

Ironically, this will add even greater chaos and will allow the feds to accomplish even less.

The preceding sentence may sound like I'm condemning the thought of a GOP sweep in 2010, but you wouldn't be further from the truth.

Fact of the matter is, I'm a bit of a fan of chaos. And I don't want the government to accomplish much. I prefer gridlock. When the government “accomplishes” things it tends to cost us money and further limit our ever-dwindling freedoms.

In other words, while I am in the majority on the issue of whether or not I believe the government can fix our ills, I'm probably in the minority if the question is “do you want them to?”

I prefer being in the minority, frankly. I'm used to it.

What's a label mean?

Never fear, ladies and gentlemen. The government is here to help.

Chills went down my spine as I wrote that. There's not really much that I fear more than the government's help.

But I don't have to worry about it yet, actually. They're not going to help until February.

That's when the “Great Appliance Swap Out” begins. It's a federal program being administered by New York State that allows people to get up to $500 in rebates for trading in their old washer, dishwasher, freezer and refrigerator for a newer energy efficient model.

The program is using as much as $17 million in stimulus dollars to encourage you to make the move.

You'll have nine days in February to trade in the fridge and get $75 … or trade in the freezer or washing machine for $50. Or trade in the dishwasher, but only if you're also trading in something else. Oh and then there's extra money available if you recycle your old appliance. And possibly a little more if you pledge your undying love to Herbert Hoover or something. I mean, really, must the government make everything so confusing?

I'll give them this, though. At least they know it's confusing. And to help put your mind at ease, they've secured a website - www.NYApplianceSwapOut.com - to answer your questions. Of course, if you actually go to the website, you're greeted with, “An online application and detailed eligibility rules will be available on this page in the near future, so please check back with us again!”

So to sum this up, if you wait three months to buy an appliance and then do so in the proper nine day period and fill out forms in triplicate proving that you bought an Energy Star rated appliance, the government will borrow money from China (or your grandchildren) to help you with that purchase. Yeah. Makes perfect sense to me.

Not to mention, have you ever wondered how something gets the Energy Star label? I have. So I looked into it.

There's an Energy Star controversy. And the label might not mean much, according to the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency, the government agency that created and maintains the Energy Star program.

If you go to an appliance store and look at two refrigerators side-by-side, one with the Energy Star label and one without it, look closely at the power consumption tags. It's entirely possible that the one without the “government approved” label is actually more efficient.

And this is the government we're trusting to help us?

Speaking of labels, sometimes they do make a difference.

Recent police blotter items caught a reader's eye and that reader pointed them out to me.

In the same paper, there were listed two drug convictions. One man was found guilty of growing marijuana in his basement. The other of selling cocaine. One got two years in jail. The other got probation. Would it shock you if I told you that the cocaine dealer was the one with the probation? Would it still shock you if I said he shared a last name with a prominent politician?

I'm told that the man is actually of no relation to the politician, but sometimes a label helps, even if it is false identification.

What we deserve?

In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.”

It was either Alexis de Tocqueville or Hunter S. Thompson who penned the preceding phrase, depending on which source you believe. Also could have been William Shakespeare or Thomas Jefferson.

It matters not who said it, I believe the principal to be true.

Note that the quote says “the people” and not just “people.” It's a collective statement. If you're the only person with any brains living on an island of idiots, you might not necessarily get the government you deserve. But your society as a whole, does.

I can't help but wonder how many of you felt I was talking about them specifically in the last paragraph. I won't ask for a show of hands, though. There was apparently plenty of hand raising last week. But that's neither here nor there.

It could be said that in this quasi-capitalist society in which we live, the people get the customer service they deserve. After all, what is capitalism but democracy with dollar bills?

Could it be said that the people get the health care they deserve? Really? Could we be so screwed up as a whole that we deserve the broken mess we have?

Cause let's face it, the health care system is broken from the top down. Or might it be from the bottom up. Really, who is to blame? The system? Or the system?

Yes, I realize I said system twice. The first system was the insurance carriers and the health care providers. The second system referred to us, the users.

Surely there is enough blame to go around. Yes, the insurance industry reeks of greed. I know of no other industry where you pay for something … and then have to pay extra if you actually use it. Anyone who's been to a hospital lately can attest to the fact that something is amiss there. You've got doctors and nurses answering to lawyers and bean-counters as if that somehow makes sense to anyone … other than the lawyers and bean-counters. It is, however, the “us” part of the equation that concerns me most. For I am not an insurance executive, nor a doctor, nor a bean counter. I am – for better or worse – part of the collective, “the people.”

So in steps government to fix things. The democratically elected government. The one we deserve.

God help us all.

Truly, one of the few things on the planet that I detest more than lawyers is politicians. Maybe it's because such a large percentage of them are actually just reformed lawyers.

I tend to believe less government is best, and as such abhor government involvement in most aspects of my life. I can only imagine what Thomas Jefferson would have thought of his government running the health care industry. I've been to President Jefferson's grave. I
imagine if I revisited it, I could hear him rolling over in it.

After all, it was definitely Jefferson who said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.”

I tend to agree with the Democrats that the health care system is broken. I just don't tend to agree with their idea on how to fix it.

But mine is a lonely voice, drown out by the collective, getting the government – and the health care – that “the people” deserve.

Common sense up in smoke

In order for government to justify its existence, it must continually take actions. Maybe it raises taxes. Maybe it makes proclamations. Usually it just creates stupid new laws. That's exactly what it did last week.

Last Sunday a new law went into effect banning cigarettes. Not all cigarettes, of course – the tobacco lobby is far too powerful for that to happen – just flavored ones.

The theory seems to be that cigarettes are bad for you ... and even worse for your kids. And there should be every effort made to prevent kids from smoking. The theory also seems to be that minors start with flavored cigarettes.

Seems logical to me.

So the government has banned the production and sale of any flavored cigarettes. Well. Um. No. Not really.

See, the ban includes cherry, grape, chocolate and the ever-enticing clove cigarettes, but not menthol.

Personally, I've smoked since the age 12. Aside from a five-year respite in the middle, that's 22 years of tobacco addiction. I never knew there were cherry flavored cigarettes. Nor grape or chocolate. And in all my years of smoking, I've only met two people who smoked clove cigarettes. Neither was a teenager.

Now, menthol cigarettes? With no effort, I can think of half a dozen teenagers who smoke them. I mean, come on! They're mint flavored. Talk about a gateway drug.

Muddying matters further is the fact that the vagueness of the law seems to exempt flavored cigars and cigarillos, such as the ever-popular Swisher Sweets, mini cherry-flavored cigars.

Just a couple weeks ago, I was talking with a teenage boy who had decided to start smoking those flavored mini-cigars because, as he put it, “it wasn't really smoking.”

I think that's probably the mindset of a lot of people who start smoking Swisher Sweets. “It's not really smoking.” But it could very potentially lead to it, which I pointed out to the boy. He acknowledged that it very-well could.

But these gateway cigars were exempt. Just like the minty cigs.

So if the real goal is to prevent teens from smoking, why not ban the cigarettes teens are most likely to smoke? Or the flavored cigars that are actually cheaper than cigarettes? That takes us back to the tobacco lobby. Phillip Morris and their like make lots of money of those minty smokes. They'd never let their bought-and-paid-for representatives in Washington pass a law that would do any significant financial damage to them.

And the politicrats in Washington know it. In fact, the FDA made no effort to ban menthol cigarettes. None whatsoever. And as stated before, wrote the law so vaguely as to essentially exempt flavored cigars.

So if the new regulations come with loopholes which basically makes the regulations themselves moot, you have to wonder why they enacted the ban at all.

Plain and simple: to justify their existence. They want you to think they're doing something. Even if the something they're doing works out to be nothing.

And I didn't even get into the very basic concept that it is not government's job to protect us from ourselves. Anyone over the age of seven knows that smoking is bad for them. We don't need to government's help on the issue.

Thank God for that, by the way. Since if we did need their help, they'd enact a law very similar to the one we got.