Reason #312 No One Takes the New York Times Seriously

Just, damn.

In a Q&A with U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul, the New York Times interviewer actually nags Paul.

NYT: But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.
Paul: I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.

NYT: You shouldn’t trivialize issues of health and safety by calling them nanny issues.
Paul: The question is, do you want to live in a nanny state where the government tells you what you can eat, where you can smoke, where you can live, what you can do, or would you rather have some freedom, and freedom means that things aren’t perfect?

Comments

  1. Frank R says:

    I am constantly amazed at the faith of those who believe the government can keep them safe from the daily hazards of living or healthy, in spite of genetics and poor habits. It never occurs to them that this is beyond the power of any government. It also never occurs to them that the failure rate is for the government is often greater than of those who champion freedom.

  2. Bubba says:

    Rand Paul is trivializing seat belt laws? Really? I also want smaller government too, but idiocracy statements and people like this are part of the reason why our margin of victory in this year’s mid-terms will not be as strong as it should be.

  3. Tim Lebsack says:

    Seat belt laws are trivial. What’s the fine ? $25 -200 depending on subsection A or subsection B ?
    Let’s get serious about seat belts – If you’re not willing to lock yourself into the seat for a few minutes, the state locks you in jail for 30 days. If you’re not willing to show yourself some love, the state will do it for you.