By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Your Views: US governments nanny efforts usually backfire
Placeholder Image
Letters policy
Send e-mail to (no attached files, please, which can contain viruses); fax to 770-532-0457; or mail to The Times, P.O. Box 838, Gainesville, GA 30503. Include full name, hometown and phone number for confirmation. They should be limited to one topic on issues of public interest and may be edited for content and length (limit of 500 words). Letters forwarded from other sources or those involving personal, business or legal disputes, poetry, expressions of faith or memorial tributes may be rejected. You may be limited to one letter per month, two on a single topic. Submitted items may be published in print, electronic or other forms. Letters, columns and cartoons express the opinions of the authors and not of The Times editorial board.

The phrase: "We are doing it for your own good" gives a holy glow of goodness to the sponsors of many good laws and regulations whereas others view the same action as a restraint of freedom.

Examples of this nanny mentality include passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. The widespread evasions of the law were prevalent in many forms, such as the retailing of kits for the making of "basement beer" to the making and peddling of moonshine and to the smuggling of booze from Canada. The repression of freedom resulted in the passage of the 21st Amendment a few years later.

During the Jimmy Carter administration, the speed limit was limited to 55 mph on all of our public roads. How this usurping of states rights was accomplished is a bit murky, but in Texas and Montana, no effort was made to enforce this law. Enforcing this 55 mph speed limit was impossible throughout the country and the speed limits were increased as established by different jurisdictions. Again nannies were defeated by freedom lovers.

The abusive repression of black folks by "Jim Crow" practices and laws resulted in the enactment the civil Rights Acts of 1964. This law went beyond insuring equal rights to all citizens by encouraging preferences for black folks and other minorities.

Universities have been in the forefront in granting preferences to minorities particularly in regard to admissions by ignoring demonstrated evidence of scholarly excellence.

Numerous lawsuits have been won by individuals causing universities to develop devious schemes to remain as nannies. The most outrageous attempt at nannyhood is the effort some women's groups to force universities to grant preferences to women in the physics programs even though there is no evidence of any discrimination against anyone to becoming a physicist. Freedom fighters will persist until every citizen is treated equally under the law. (except children?)

These few examples of "we are doing it for your own good" illustrate the consequences of promoting actions that infringe on others freedoms.

Bob Carstens

Government already is heavily in health business
Do you have Medicare? Medicaid? Veterans benefits? Are you employed by local, state or federal government? If so, you have government health insurance.

Mel Hawkins

Times headline just served to create more resentment
I have not often expressed my appreciation to The Times for your willingness to print on your opinion pages the widest diversity of political and cultural viewpoints. I do so now.

Sadly, that observation only enhances my surprise and disappointment to see Thursday's front page, four-column headline. In large bold letters it suggests "coming disaster" in reference to a news article about a forum on health care legislation.

Surely you know that in this area of the country, there are large concentrations of misled, misinformed, frightened and angry people, some now carrying firearms. Your headline serves to further inflame emotions and is irresponsible.

What is needed are untainted facts. The news sections of a neutral press, if a utopian dream, would strive to simply inform readers what is true and what is not.

Examples such as this prove (no matter the good intent) the inability of private, for-profit institutions to serve the essential interests of the public and at the same time maximize profitability.

W. Lorraine Watkins

Regional events