What's Worse? The Nanny State or the Ninny State?
The disease isn’t literally terminal. It’s more a chronic malady that manifests itself in delusional fantasies of omnipotence and narcissism which, in Boomboom’s case, led him to believe he was entitled not only to negate New York’s Charter by running for, (some say, buying), a third term and to think he was serving as the Big Apple’s nanny as well as its mayor in which dual capacities he felt entitled not only to rule but to nag the populace into doing what he felt was right, healthful, and politically correct.
In his defense, billionaire Mayor Boomboom wasn’t too bad a mayor.
For one thing, he supported a vigorous implemention of the “stop, question, and frisk” program which helped apprehend potential criminals, a program abolished this year by new mayor, socialist-Communist Bill DeBlasio, resulting in an anticipated huge spike in crime.
Frustrated in his reputed designs on the New York governorship and the U.S. presidency, Boomboom was a pretty good city chief executive, as contrasted with the inept David Dinkins, the feckless John Lindsay, and the useless Abe Beame though not at all comparable to Rudy Giuliani who resurrected New York after four years of the Dinkins’ travesty.
Still, the mayor’s irrelevant obsessions with how such un-pressing issues as how much sodium should New Yorkers be permitted to ingest, how many ounces of sugary soda New Yorkers should be allowed to drink, etc. represented taking nannying to an intolerable extreme. And, his super-nannyish, post-mayoralty campaign to deprive Americans of their right to defend their lives with legal guns took the nanny mayor far beyond that extreme.
So much for the nanny state and on to the ninny state which is similar but different from the nanny state in that . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37791.)
No comments:
Post a Comment