Flashback – Blame the Sugar

[In February of 2012 I provided another example of how Americans are encouraged by the media to shift the blame rather than take responsibility. Each time we do, we give politicians and regulators a new target for bans and restrictions. This in turn relieves us of the responsibility of making choices along with the risks that some of those choices might turn out to be wrong, but it also deprives otherwise responsible people from making any choices at all. At the time I wondered if sugar would be next on the list.]

In past blogs I have warned that if we don't begin to change our behavior, especially by acting responsibly, bad consequences will continue. This lax attitude can force the government to step in, threatening our freedom. The idea of a threat to freedom may seem like an abstract concept, perhaps a little difficult to pin down. Now we have another concrete example.

Published Wednesday in Nature, a study by three scientists from UC San Francisco finds that sugar is as bad for us as alcohol and tobacco and should be likewise regulated.  This article from the LA Times gives the details. The study's authors make recommendations to the Federal Government including: taxation, distribution controls, age limits, and a limit or ban on television commercials for processed foods containing any form of added sugar. This is what I mean by loss of freedom.   Besides the alcohol and tobacco restrictions, there have been local bans on transfats. Today it's sugar. What next?

This article is interesting because I find the wording, "sugar...is responsible" near the beginning and "sugar itself is to blame" further on. It's the sugar's fault and we are the victims! How long are we going to let inanimate objects take the rap for us? If we don't step up and take responsibility for our behavioral failures and begin to make some changes, well-intentioned people will call for government action and our freedoms will slowly erode. Meanwhile, we will be standing around wondering how it happened!

Memorial Day

On the last Monday in May we celebrate Memorial Day. It’s traditionally considered the beginning of summer, a long weekend marked by cookouts, parades and political speeches – although probably less so this year.

Like most holidays, the meaning behind the celebration has been watered down considerably. The Old Farmers Almanac puts it well: “We spend time remembering those who lost their lives and could not come home, reflecting on their service and why we have the luxury and freedom that we enjoy today.” Most if not all those political speeches will also call on spectators to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedoms.

Yes, there will be much mention of freedom, but I have written many times in the past about the inexorable link between freedom and responsibility, most recently in a Flashback entry about two months ago.

Freedom is something that can be so easily frittered away. When children act irresponsibly, good parents impose restrictions, time outs or groundings. Others, though, may dismiss it as a phase they are going through. As their behavior leads to bigger problems, parents find themselves in a position of constantly having to bail their children out of trouble, because they have never learned responsibility. 

When they become adults, the government or advocates take over, often in the form of new regulations and restrictions. The problem is that, in order to keep the irresponsible from hurting themselves or others, those new regulations apply to everyone. To keep some citizens from making bad decisions, our elected leaders take away our ability to decide for ourselves. 

Because of a few irresponsible people, police have the legal right to set up sobriety checkpoints on highways waylaying everyone, without permission or a warrant.

Because of a few irresponsible people, encouraged by members of the legal profession who profit from it, try to shift the blame for their poor choices, every purchase requires warnings that add to the cost. We sign hold-harmless agreements and must carry extra insurance to guard against such reprisals.

How many states and counties have arbitrary laws about sales of liquor, fireworks, sugary soft drinks, and trans fats? If one busybody neighbor gets concerned, you can be arrested for letting your children walk a couple of blocks to the park alone.

This has become only more pronounced during the pandemic. Many governors impose arbitrary restrictions, in some cases enforced by threats of police involvement or other penalties. Even those who choose to make prudent decisions on their own are caught up in the hysteria. Some citizens feel obligated to shout at, threaten or report neighbors.

In one case, a salon owner in Texas “was ordered to spend a week in jail after she continued to operate her business despite restrictions put in place.” She was not free to operate her business, despite having brave employees and customers willing to participate.

Michigan residents were forbidden from buying seeds and garden supplies. It’s springtime! At least one mayor threatened to shut off utilities to maverick businesses. Meanwhile those who have been terrorized by the news media’s black-and-white portrayal of the situation, support the virtual house arrest, cower behind closed doors, fearful of dying themselves and accusing those who want to go back to work of being selfish and callous about the lives of others.

How long will some of the coronavirus restrictions stay in place? Will governors and mayors assume a new sense of marshal law-like powers to be called upon in any future situations that can be defined as emergencies? Will the how-many-deaths-is-it-worth crowd dominate, as we  permanently lose more freedom while politicians continue to vow to “fight for your rights” by passing more regulations?

The last line of the first verse of our National Anthem asked the question, “… does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” Francis Scott Key was asking whether the flag was still there. It is, but a better question would be: how much longer  can it honestly be considered "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? The founders chose liberty over safety, and that is presumably what all those people fought and died for. Today we seem to passively accept the opposite.

Flashback – Freedom and Responsibility

[What results from a lack of responsibility is often deceptive. No one gets hurt, and any important job usually gets done. When an individual fails to take care of it, someone else takes up the slack by doing it for them. The so-called helicopter parents fit into this category. But what happens when this behavior occurs on a societal level? – The helicopter government steps in with programs and regulations, and we give up our freedom one step at a time. It's true both for citizens and for corporations.

I reminded everyone of this consequence back in July 2011.]

Some think the opposite of freedom is slavery or perhaps living under a dictatorship, but in our society the opposite of freedom is the benevolent authoritarianism of warnings and legal restrictions resulting from our failures in the dimension of responsibility.

We are told that we are all victims of the economy, of our high-stress jobs, and of our non-stop lifestyles. The word is used in ads everyday, one even asking me if I am the victim of hair loss. We are presumably victims of big oil when gasoline prices rise, of big drug companies, or of big insurance companies when they raise their rates or dispute our claims. 

Especially in legal cases involving civil suits, attorneys first persuade prospective clients that they are victims (you’ve seen the ads on TV) then persuade juries that their clients are victims and someone should pay. In those same TV ads you often hear the word settlement, because the targets of these lawsuits fear that juries will buy into this point of view. It's cheaper to settle out of court, because those juries, from a basic lack of economic understanding, assume that a big corporation or insurance company will pay the cost out of their own pocket and it will never get back to us.

Claiming victimhood is an easy answer. It takes no effort. What went wrong is someone else’s fault; we are not to blame; we share none of the responsibility. It’s a passive stance. I don’t have a high-paying job, not because I didn’t bother to finish high school, but because I am being discriminated against. I got lung cancer not because I refused to quit smoking, but because the tobacco companies tricked me. My kids have too many toys not because I bought them, but because of the cartoons on the TV. The banks fooled me into getting a mortgage I couldn’t afford. When I have a sore knee, I ask the doctor for a pill or for surgery rather than losing some weight. I get to put all my problems in someone else’s hands. Responsible people don’t act like this, but victims do.

When we feel and act this way, we need to be protected. That’s when the warnings and regulations begin. Since these people can’t take care of themselves, we must require warnings on cigarette packages, on ladders, on hairdryers, and on almost every other product, telling them not to use them in ways that may seem stupid to the average person. When we sign up our kids to play sports, we must sign “hold harmless” forms. All the warnings don’t stop the lawsuits, so next come the regulations: all playgrounds must provide soft landings, all car trunks need an escape handle, all lawnmowers must have an automatic shutdown device, etc. Some cities ban the sale of certain foods or of fast food in certain neighborhoods. Victims are treated like children and must be protected from the real world and from themselves.

Where does it all end? The old analogy of boiling a frog applies. Throw a frog into boiling water and he jumps back out. Put him into a pot and slowly increase the temperature and he sits complacently until it’s too late. Likewise, when we don’t behave responsibly, our freedoms slowly trickle away.  Each of those efforts seems well-meaning and harmless at the time, but each is another example of someone restricting our choices for their interpretation of our own good. Each restriction is a loss of freedom, the consequence of patterns of behavior that show weaknesses in the dimension of responsibility.

Is This Still A Free Country?

A brief review of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, brings up several interesting thoughts, realizations and questions. (Read the Bill of Rights in full here.) 

The first is about freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press. It should mean that people are allowed to say and write what they want within broad limits. Others can raise reasonable objections and counter arguments, or at least accept apologies. But today we find that  speakers are banned from campuses or shouted down by those who believe words are the same as weapons. We have large, powerful social media corporations expected to censor comments and pictures posted by private citizens based on arbitrary standards. We have Ellen DeGeneres scorned for attending a football game in the company of George W. Bush. Say the wrong thing, even in the form of a question and risk personal attack, silencing, losing a job or boycotts of your product.

The Second is about the right to bear arms. That really means the right to carry them not even to own them. Today arms means guns and the nation is split. Clearly the right to carry has been infringed at various levels in various places.

Some states have passed a Red Flag Law, Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), with strong approval of the electorate. If a person is considered a danger to himself or others, authorities can show up and confiscate weapons for one week, no questions asked. A judge can extend this for up to six months where there is “good cause.” At that point the accused can finally respond at a hearing, but has no legal right to representation. In Maryland, for example, the initial complaint can come not only from law enforcement, physicians, and mental health workers, but also from family members, housemates or dating partners. The list in other states is more inclusive, and the gun owners have no recourse in cases of false accusations.

The Third is about housing soldiers without consent – no problem there.

The fourth prohibits unlawful search and seizure. This is about privacy; but with the social media-driven desire to be famous, Americans are becoming more casual about their own privacy and take for granted the idea of being constantly under surveillance. Compound that lax attitude with new technology: facial recognition software and proliferating security cameras; possible leaks through computer cameras and microphones; personal assistants listening in on conversation; ISPs and grocery stores tracking our on-line activity and purchases; and other examples – privacy is ebbing away. (For an interesting description of possible future threats, see the book, Eyes in the Sky.) 

The Fifth Amendment is well known for protection against self-incrimination and the right to due process, but the public tends to decide guilt or innocence based on news reports and political affiliation. “No comment” is often assumed to be an admission of guilt. 

Consider also the current practice of Civil Asset Forfeiture where authorities can confiscate personal property on the basis of accusation, not conviction. There are many horror stories of abuse where innocent people must fight the system to reclaim seized property.

The first part of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. Many of the convictions on the local news are for crimes committed in years past. The right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him” seems to fly in the face of the idea of being attacked from a distance as rumors spread on social media. Transgressors of cultural values don't even get a trial, no less a speedy one.

The Seventh, the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases seems OK, but the complexity of modern cases and the lack of economic understanding continues to result in unreasonably high awards or settlements driven by the threat of litigation in front of a "compassionate" jury. 

The Eighth prohibits excess bail, which has been a matter of some discussion lately. Excessive is not the same for everyone. Poor people who are not a flight risk can spend months behind bars waiting for a trial, a handy tool to coerce them into pleading guilty. Like Civil Asset Forfeiture, this practice is a boon to the authorities at the expense of the innocent.

Nine and Ten are instructive. The Tenth addresses the idea of “Undelegated Powers [being] Kept by the States and the People.” The word delegated implies that the states and people are in a superior position to the Federal Government. They hand down powers to them! That certainly isn’t the way it works today!

One problem with these rights is that they apply to the government not depriving people of them. That’s the excuse used when one citizen or group tries to shut up or railroad those they disagree with. That punitive attitude is true to the letter, but contrary to the spirit.

Another problem is that they are so easy to take for granted or ignore. These are not obsolete ideas; they must be respected. Freedom is always linked to responsibility.

Internet Addiction

The subject of Internet addiction as a serious problem came to my attention earlier this month with the headline: “Lawmaker Aims To Curb Social Media Addiction With New Bill.” A US Senator from Missouri introduced a bill to ban addictive social media features. It would address such things as infinite scrolling, tracking of streaks, constant loading and auto-play on video sites, while requiring time limits on apps. He accuses the media companies of “using psychological tricks that make it difficult to look away.”

Many questions came to mind: What is the definition of Internet addiction?; Is it real?; and How big is the problem?

In another article NPR asks the question of whether it is real. One expert that they interviewed said, “Addiction begins with intermittent to recreational use, then progresses into daily use, and then progresses into consequential use, which in some cases will progress to life-threatening use," such as insomnia, dysfunctional relationships and absenteeism. It is the opinion of many experts that Internet addiction fits this pattern. NPR’s introductory story told how it led a young girl to experience depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. 

China and South Korea have recognized Internet addiction as a mental disorder, but that is not yet the case in the US. Despite many suggestions dating back to 1996, it has not been included in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), therefore, it is not officially a mental health disorder and mental health professionals don’t have a standard way to assess and diagnose it.

This answers my first two questions. Some experts in the US consider it real and a major problem, but it has not yet qualified as an official diagnosis. That leaves the definition open to individual interpretation. As a result the question of the size of the problem is fuzzy, at best.

This can be seen by the fact that one website from 2012 cites a survey putting the problem at between 1.5 and 8.2% of the population. Another source from last May says that the rate of addiction is estimated at 1.5 to 8%. That’s not much of a change in the seven years that have elapsed.

Other studies continue slicing and dicing the problem in various ways. By gender, 27% of women and 25% of men report being near-constant internet users with many more college than high school graduates (34% to 20%). Constant use also varies by income and race. Still, some people must be on the internet more than others just to be able to do their jobs properly. There is more to addiction than time on the computer.

This site provides links to 32 studies between 2008 and 2014 showing “Facts, Figures, & Numbers” from several countries. It’s been a very popular research subject, but has still failed to make the grade as a recognized disorder in the US.

Ultimately, it seems to be just another case of the government stepping in to solve a behavior problem. Every time Americans can’t exercise a little discipline, we lose our freedom to a well-meaning politician intent on solving our problems for us with another law. In this case it seems to be happening even before there is a clear definition of the problem or an understanding of its size.

Fortunately in this case, it doesn’t appear to stand a chance of passing, but it’s an excellent indicator of the general mindset. Whenever we fail in personal responsibility or discipline, help or “protection” comes in the form of regulations, restrictions and less freedom. And it takes only a small minority (8% or less, in this case) to get the ball rolling.

Some Unusual and Outrageous Thoughts

Sometimes, just trying to make sense of what’s going on in the world is a challenge.  So many seeming contradictions go ignored.  So much silliness just slips by.  People seem to drift along, not noticing what is not in their direct line of sight or what doesn’t agree with their preconceptions.  Consider these examples.

It’s not a bad bet that the BBC is using voice-recognition software to provide closed captioning when you see the name of the president of China (Xi Jin Ping) transcribed as “Tamoxifen Ping” once and “she’s in pain” later in the same broadcast.  I don’t think robots are ready to take over the world yet.

All hail the mute button!  I rarely listen to TV ads.  I use the mute button.  Back in the 1960s the TV just droned on, in some cases telling us how cool it was to smoke cigarettes.  The only way to avoid these commercial spots was to ignore them, using a kind of mental mute button.  The alternative would be to get up every 10 minutes, walk over to the TV and turn down the volume and wait.

Now we have remote control with a mute button, but government consumer protection and other advocates think we are unable to resist the marketing lure.  They can’t tie us to the mast to resist the Siren Song as Ulysses' crew did for him, so they must pass rules and regulations to protect us.

Before the mute button came along, when you didn’t agree with something or didn’t want to hear it, you tuned it out or walked away.  Could it be that generations growing up with mute buttons have not only forgotten how to use them, but have also failed to develop that mental mute button and are unable to ignore what they don’t want to hear or change the channel?  Perhaps we did have another options in the 60s.  Instead of turning down the volume, we could have started chanting anti-smoking slogans and holding up signs during the ads.  We could have burst into our neighbor’s house, in a holier-than-thou crusade with signs and chanting, to make sure they weren’t exposed to information we found objectionable.  What a good idea!

Autopsies of former football players show a prevalence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a neurodegenerative disease “associated with memory loss, impulse control problems, depression and eventually dementia.”  It causes irritability and changes in mood and behavior.  In a discussion of side effects Harvard tells us:  “Behavioral changes are typically seen as problems with impulse control which can lead to aggressive or violent behaviors.”

How surprising should cases of domestic violence and other actions showing lack of impulse control among NFL players be when it’s only a side effect of a disease they may have?  How long before some advocacy group, defense attorney or the players union starts arguing that they are victims of a disease and should not be held responsible?  When you think of how often this defense is presented in other instances, giving people a pass because their actions are due to their disease or addiction, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already.  (Perhaps the defiant kneeling before the game is merely a symptom of too many hits to the head.)

Finally, why not avoid all this fuss and debate about tax reform with one side singing its praises and the other predicting disaster for the Middle Class?  The government could easily build a simple spreadsheet-based application where taxpayers could plug in their numbers from last year and see exactly what the difference would be under new rules.  Everyone gets a personalized answer instead of relying on analysts, politicians and others talking in generalities. 

Once you know how it affects you, you can decide whether the supposed effects on others are valid or worth objecting to.  (Note:  According to Forbes and other sources about 45.3%, just under half, pay no Federal income taxes.  Again from Forbes this summer:  “Under current law, some 30 percent of taxpayers itemize their deductions, as opposed to the 70 percent who claim the standard deduction.”  So except for the rates, tax reform could affect about 30% of 54% or about 16% – with some of those possibly moving to the standard deduction (if it doubles).  Most of the rest have large mortgages and property or state income tax payments.  Why is there so much fighting about the fate of a small, mostly well-to-do minority?

Littering the National Parks – Follow-up

An astute follower of this blog sent me an article last week that got me thinking.  It was related to my comments one week ago about the National Park Service struggling with litter in the parks, particularly the plastic water bottles.

This Guardian report tells how the Coca Cola Company increased their use of plastic single–use bottles in 2016 over the prior year by one billion.  Certainly one billion is a lot of bottles, but this is worded in a way that subtly reveals a bias.

As an example, when reporters want to portray a company as being greedy, they will report the company’s profits in the most unflattering way, not only with adjectives such as windfall or extravagant, but also by carefully choosing the numbers presented.  Even if a company’s profits decrease, the numbers for a large company can be very large.  So a decrease from $3 billion to $2 billion may be reported either as making a $1 billion less or as “a whopping $2 billion profit!”  If the same size company made only $100 last year but $200 this year, they can be honestly described as doubling profits even though they very close to losing money.  This tactic can apply to any numerical measure; presenting the numbers does not always assure objective reporting.

So the main headline announces in big, bold type, “Coca-Cola increased its production of plastic bottles by a billion last year, says Greenpeace.”  Smaller print explains they have increased total production to more than 110 billion bottles.  Now that’s really a lot of bottles!  But an increase of 1 billion on from a base of 110 billion is less than 1%.  The headline could have honestly read, “Coca-Cola increased its production of plastic bottles by less than 1% last year.”  But it’s unlikely that Greenpeace would put it that way, because they are concerned about the improper disposal of empty bottles.  The first headline makes that point more strongly.

The next question that came to mind concerned the growth of the Coca Cola market.  If their sales grew by more than 1%, then limiting the increase in bottles to less than 1% would be a step in the right direction.  This is never mentioned in the article so I had to look it up here and found that their sales actually decreased.  Even a small increase would then be a move in the wrong direction.

Finally, the crux of the Greenpeace complaint is that by flooding the world with so many bottles, Coca Cola is responsible for the fouling of beaches, parks, roadways and oceans with empty Coke bottles.  They show pictures of piles of bottles collected along the seashore.  “Fewer than half of the bottles bought in 2016 were collected for recycling and just 7% of those collected were turned into new bottles. Instead, most plastic bottles produced end up in landfill or in the ocean.”  Greenpeace accuses Coca Cola of not walking the walk on sustainability and urges them to increase their use of recycled plastic in bottles.

There is one flaw in this argument – the Coca Cola Company doesn’t empty bottles and throw them in the ocean, it fills bottles.  In doing so, they supply the bottles, but it’s their customers who carelessly toss them into oceans and yes, into landfills when they should be recycled.  Greenpeace tries to encourage (or shame) Coke and other soft drink companies to back negative incentives like deposit laws, as a way to coerce consumers into doing the right thing.

Responsibility is consistent in that when we don’t exercise it, advocacy groups or governments conspire to take the responsibility (and freedom) away from us or force us to comply.  The problem is ours, but the solution is theirs.

More Responsibility Examples

Responsibility is the behavioral trait that distinguishes those who own their actions and admit their mistakes from those who try to find someone or something else to blame.  From sports to politics to everyday experiences the practice of good responsibility seems to be getting more unusual.  The sun got in my eyes, I’m addicted, I’m a victim, the cards are stacked against me, it’s the computer’s fault and a host of other excuses with the full support of “advocates” have become common.

Problems with responsibility have significant drawbacks.  Passing off the cause of the problem onto some outside influence never leads to a solution, just more of the same.  And as I have emphasized many times in the past, when we step away from our responsibilities, someone else, often the government, is happy to step in to force behavior on us – even if that new rule turns out to have unintended consequences.

This is common in corporate America as well where executives claim ignorance of corporate wrongdoing or in everyday customer service.  Here are a couple of strange examples from the world of casino gambling.

At one casino in Illinois a woman was startled by the bells and flashing lights on the slot machine she was playing.  The machine told her she had won $28 million!  She immediately heard the call for a supervisor, who told her not to touch the machine.  She remained calm enough during the ensuing chaos to take a couple of pictures of the machine.

The casino refused to pay her after an internal investigation found a computer error responsible for the jackpot message.  Executives would not comment directly, but continued to blame computer error for the mistake and offered her a free dinner instead.

In another casino a 90 year-old woman from Antioch, IA put her money in the slot and soon found a message on the screen awarding her a 185-credit along with the message, “The reels have rolled your way! Bonus Award $41,797,550.16.”

Again the casino refused to pay, again blaming a computer error, and paid her the $1.85 for the initial credit.  After a couple of years in court, the casino won the case.

The slot machine manufacturer had warned these casinos of a problem, which they were supposed to have fixed.  Perhaps some admission of fault was in order.  A free dinner or $1.85 hardly seems like an adequate settlement for a problem they were supposed to have dealt with.  But even a judge agreed that it wasn’t their fault; it was the computer – as if the computer were some distant third party and not their computer!

The other point is that when individuals fail to take responsibility, institutions take over. For a recent example, we turn to the Nebraska schools.  Apparently some parents couldn’t be relied on to track their children’s health numbers, so the schools have been conducting routine health screenings including a measurement of body-mass index (BMI).  If this ratio of weight to height is too high, the parents are notified of possible diet or exercise issues.

Some parents thought this could cause potential embarrassment for children, affecting their psychological health while trying to look out for their physical health.  Others felt the time would be better spent on traditional school subjects like adding and reading rather than measuring body size.

As of this month, the schools are allowed to decide whether to include that measure in routine health screenings.  In those schools that do not drop it, parents can send a note to school opting their kids out.  Some districts have already announced that they will continue the practice unless they receive the note.

Still, for some reason the state feels it is necessary to screen the health of students.  That reason is surely related to their perception that parents will not or cannot take responsibility for health screenings of their own children.  (BMI calculation can easily be done at home at no cost with a bathroom scale and a tape measure.)

These are just a few of so many examples.  Responsibility failings are easy to spot.  And when institutions spot them in a few citizens, they are quick to take over, imposing rules even on those who are conscientious and capable.

Own the Problem and Solve It

Sometimes there are easy solutions to situations, as long as the principle doesn’t get in the way.  If everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton donated $8.35 to Planned Parenthood once a year they wouldn’t need any government funding.  Problem solved for less than a couple of trips to Starbucks.  And if some of the 90 million who didn’t bother to vote in November joined in, the needed contribution would be even less.  Since the donations are tax deductible, a portion of the contribution would indirectly shifted back to the government.  It would be like stealth government funding.  Of course it’s the principle of the thing.   

Isn’t falling back on the principle of the thing a lot like whether it’s more work for the husband to put the toilet seat back down or for the wife to put it down herself?   Now that’s a worthwhile argument. 

Both cases fall under the heading of responsibility, taking ownership for what you see is the problem.  In the first case the problem is that everyone does not want to be forced to support a cause that some people strongly believe in.  If you don’t think your time protesting is not worth more than $8.35, you are undervaluing yourself.  And think of the anxiety avoided with one simple action of writing and mailing a check.  In the second case, if you really care about domestic tranquility, you make the effort – though it seems almost laughable to call it effort.  In general, if you really care, you don't let principle stand in the way of an easy fix.

But Americans are falling more and more away from taking responsibility for problems that are under their own control.  That's when the law steps in and everyone loses.

“Apple could be facing a class action lawsuit in California, demanding they find a technological solution to prevent their customers from texting and driving."  It stems from a fatal crash caused by the other driver using FaceTime while driving.  First of all, FaceTime is not texting.  Second, how does the phone know if you are driving or just riding in a car (or on a train)?  Finally, and most important, why should Apple or any other company be held responsible for the reckless behavior of their customers? 

In America the last question is never dealt with.  It is just assumed that if a customer misuses a product, it’s the company’s fault for not anticipating every inane use for their product.  For proof of this, look up dumb product warning labels on the Internet.  So much extra time and expense with lawyers and labels to avoid being sued by irresponsible people who refuse to admit to a mistake made by individuals, themselves or others.

But we have not yet gotten as bad a France where they just passed a law making it illegal for restaurants to offer free refills of soft drinks (even if you are not fat and really thirsty).

But that’s what happens.  When a sizable number of citizens act irresponsibly the lawmakers go to work to protect us or steer us in the right direction.  We lose our free choices because so many previous free choices have been poor ones.  So many problems can be easily solved by taking responsibility and so much freedom lost by ignoring those opportunities.