If you had to pick the most inane, pointless, and intrusive example of government stupidity, what would you pick?
We have lots of examples of regulators running amok.
- Regulations making it difficult for trucking firms to weed out drunk drivers.
- Year-long sting operations by federal milk police.
- Rules harassing coffee shops with bikini-clad sales staff.
- OSHA requirements for expensive safety harnesses for people working 11 feet off the ground.
But we also have really absurd examples of wasteful spending.
- Forcing taxpayers to pay millions of dollars for pro-Obamacare and pro-IRS propaganda.
- Doing interviews – at a per-person cost of $6,000 – about erectile dysfunction and sticking the tab on us.
- Giving disability benefits to a grown man who wants to wear diapers and live as an “adult baby.”
- Squandering $400K on experimental underwear that detect cigarette smoke.
- Paying 35 times the market price for some Kindles.
- A $100,000 library grant to a city without a library.
- Throwing $100 million in the garbage by subsidizing a leftist bureaucracy in Paris that advocates for higher taxes in the United States.
We even have examples of government stupidity that can be characterized as a combination of wasteful spending and foolish regulation, such as one part of the government squandering money on research about how to encourage condom use by providing prophylactics of different sizes while another part of the government has regulations preventing the private sector from providing prophylactics of different sizes.
Today’s post, however, could win a prize for the most profound and disturbing example of government stupidity. It mixes foolish red tape with over-the-top political correctness.
Here are some jaw-dropping details of the federal government running amok in Michigan.
A set of seating is being torn down outside the Plymouth Wildcats varsity boys’ baseball field, not long before the season begins, because the fields for boys’ and girls’ athletics must be equal. A group of parents raised money for a raised seating deck by the field, as it was hard to see the games through a chain-link fence. The parents even did the installation themselves, and also paid for a new scoreboard. But, after someone complained to the U.S Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, an investigated by the department determined the new addition was no longer equal to the girls’ softball field next door, which has old bleachers and an old scoreboard.
This is utterly absurd for several reasons, most notably that the federal government shouldn’t have any role in education, much less efforts to micro-manage high school sports facilities.
But even if one accepts that Washington bureaucrats should interfere in such matters, it’s important to understand that it is bureaucratic lunacy to interpret “Title IX requirements to offer equal athletic opportunities to both boys and girls” to somehow mean equal seating.
What happens if there are fewer people who want to watch female sports? Should there be a requirement to build bleachers that are mostly empty?
Or maybe we can blend Obamacare to Title IX and create a mandate that parents and others in the community have to attend female sporting events 50 percent of the time?
Actually, I shouldn’t even joke about such an idea, lest some bureaucrat think it’s a serious proposal.
P.S. The Keynesians will be happy. They like it when wealth and/or capital is destroyed since that supposedly forces “stimulative” rebuilding exercises.
[…] would hate to be asked for a one-word description of government. My first instinct would be say “stupid,” but that might not be the most mature response. So I’d probably say “wasteful.” But then […]
[…] first instinct would be say “stupid,” but that might not be the most mature response. So I’d probably say […]
Well, I am strong libertarian while also a father of 3 daughters, and I take the side of Title IX on this. Since the schools are run by government (i.e., We The People) I believe we have an obligation to treat everyone equally. Why is it OK for the boys to get extraordinary sports facilities while the girls are treated like second class citizens? We wouldn’t build a super new physics lab in one wing of the high school and tell the girls they have to use the old physics lab, so why would we do that for athletic facilities? We wouldn’t provide substandard facilities for the colored people, so why would we provide substandard facilities for the female people? It is better simply to provide equal facilities (they don’t have to be PERFECTLY equal, just reasonably so). That way we send no messages to anyone about who is important and who is second class.
.
But, that being said, I agree with the general absurdity of this, which exists for one and only one reason: schools are government run. If governments were completely out of the business of running schools and if I could send my daugthers to any school I chose, then I would have no beef whatsoever with a school choosing to build Taj Mahal sports facilities for boys and ignoring the girls. In such a case, I could choose to send my daughter to another school. But, if I don’t get the choice, then the government damn well better treat my daughters the same way they treat someone else’s sons.
I agree with Dan Mitchell on this completely. It’s flat out ludicrous! Some little female student who plays average at best probably went home moping to her lawyer daddy that the boys got new stuff for THEIR field and WE didn’t! Whaaa Daddy, it’s just not FAIR!! So big daddy, hot shot lawyer (who is also probably average at best) told his spoiled brat, “don’t cry pumpkin, daddy will get even for you and make those stupid boys pay! Here my sweet little snookums, here’s your favorite dolly and I’ll bring you some ice cream and I’ll make it all better.” So the freaking jerk goes all the way to the top to the U.S. Dept. of Indoctrination. Not the parents who raised all the money and built everything BY THEMSELVES, not the school, not the school board, not the state. Just a scenario here.
I don’t care WHO made the complaint, the Dept of Education has NO business whatsoever getting involved in this matter. They both crossed way over the line. Problem is, now precedent has now been set. Makes you wonder how long it will take for other idiotic, stupid, jerk parents will do something similar because they know they can get away with it.
We have GOT to get the Nanny State out of our lives and our Country!
Check this:
http://www.workplaceexpress.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&nav=11&selkey=52238&utm_source=instant+email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=recent+articles+link&utm_campaign=subscriber+email&utm_term=Marijuana%20smoker%20wins%
Hi
Try this piece for the Australian equivalent: http://www.workplaceexpress.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&nav=11&selkey=52238&utm_source=instant+email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=recent+articles+link&utm_campaign=subscriber+email&utm_term=Marijuana%20smoker%20wins%
Cheers
Stephen Sasse
On 20 April 2014 04:08, International Liberty
Thank you for the information… NOW, tell us who proposed the expense, okayed the expense, if a ballot was taken, who voted for it. We NEED this information to work against their reelection. If you prefer, kindly inform us where this information is kept so we can dig it out ourselves. THAT IS OUR MONEY… NOT THIERS TO SQUANDER!!!
The girls bleachers were only 77% as high as the boys bleachers…
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.