Nanny State 101

So, a woman throws a newspaper in a trash can marked, “Litter Only” and is slapped with a $100 fine by a nanny-state “Sanitation Cop” (WTF?!? “Sanitation Cop”?!?). Because it hadn’t been found on the ground and thus was “litter”? Cwazy stuff, folks.

I suppose the woman could have avoided the fine by first throwing the paper on the ground, but then the “Sanitation Cop” would probably have cited her for littering, even if she had then picked the paper up and thrown it in the litter receptacle. Or cited her for both actions, I suppose. Anything goes with nanny-state, anarcho-tyrannical bureaucraps.

But worse, the so-called “Sanitation Cop” is reported to have said the citation was for throwing “garbage” in the litter can. The “Sanitation Cop” ought to have a $1,000 fine thrown at her for verbal littering. Blurring useful distinctions of meaning by using a word that’s generally for application to wet refuse–garbage–for something that’s obviously dry refuse–trash–is inexcusable in a public employee and should be punishable by more than simple fines, though.

Oh, then there’s my other gripe with the report. The whiny, useless, stupid argument-from-sympathy invoked by the NY Post writers pushing the “80-year-old woman on Social Security” button. Right is right and wrong is wrong and ad hominem arguments (they cut both ways–appeals for sympathy are ad hominem arguments just as much as attempt to illegitimately impeach a person’s argument by referring to personal circumstances, etc., are) make no difference in whether an act is right or wrong. The “80-year-old woman on Social Security” could as easily have been Donald Trump for all I care. Citing someone with a $100 fine for throwing a newspaper in a litter receptacle is just wrong no matter who they are or what their circumstances.