[Infowarrior] - 'Privacy' doesn't matter to those seeking to control you

[Richard Forno]

  'Privacy' doesn't matter to those seeking to control you
Taylor Armerding

http://www.newburyportnews.com/puopinion/local_story_072223542.html?keyword=secondarystory

The right to privacy is a very big deal in this country.

Well, at least when it comes to abortion. In other areas, not so much.  
Call it the selective right to privacy.

Privacy was the primary justification cited by the U.S. Supreme Court  
to make abortion legal. The court couldn't find in the actual  
Constitution any "right to privacy" that would extend to abortion, so  
it had to imagine that it existed in a "penumbra" of the document.

This was, of course, long ago — way back in 1972. But, the decision  
stands. Privacy is still the holy grail, regarding abortion, for the  
party that now controls the White House, both houses of Congress and  
soon the Supreme Court, since President Obama has made it clear he  
will not nominate a justice to the high court who does not first and  
forever pledge allegiance to abortion. You know, because personal  
privacy is so, so important.

All of which makes me wonder why it is that the advocates for privacy  
concerning the bedroom and the inevitable results of the bedroom  
aren't expressing similar outrage over the erosion of privacy in other  
areas. In fact, it is not that they are simply silent about it — some  
of the most liberal states in the country are promoting that erosion.

It goes well beyond the cameras that are already taking video of us  
every time we drive through a toll booth, eat at a restaurant, buy  
gas, shop at the mall or even walk down the street. That is  
disturbing, but you can make a credible argument that if you are on  
public property or somebody else's property, you can't have the  
expectation of privacy.

It is also is much different from government invading your private  
space, as is in the works with the so-called "enhanced driver's  
license" that Janet Napolitano, new head of Homeland Security, favors.  
It would put a radio chip in your license. Whenever you were carrying  
your license, you could be tracked anywhere and everywhere.

Closer to home, New Hampshire is considering a bill proposing that it  
join a half-dozen other states, including liberal Maine and Vermont,  
in banning smoking in cars where children are present.

State Rep. Mary Griffin, R-Windham, is one of the sponsors. She says  
it is not aimed at fining drivers, but simply at protecting the  
children. Interesting how a law that is not "aimed" at fining drivers  
will, in fact, fine drivers.

But, of course it is about "the children." The children have for  
decades been the most convenient, most compelling catch-all  
justification for the erosion of liberty and privacy that is  
available. Which is ironic, since right up to the day that "the  
children" are born, they are legally as disposable as a tumor if they  
are not wanted.

They provide an automatic, thought-free guilt trip: If you oppose this  
invasion of your privacy, you want children to DIE!!

So, in an increasing number of states, it is not about how you drive.  
It is about what you are doing when you drive.

And I wonder, how big a step is it from your car to your home? So what  
if you don't smoke in the car? If you smoke when you get home, your  
kids are breathing secondhand smoke. Don't they need protection from  
that? Do you want more children to die?

How big a step is it from cigarettes to food? Newburyport has already  
banned parents from putting candy in their kids' lunch boxes. Why  
shouldn't the school department step into the home and control what  
they eat there, too? You know, "it takes a village ..." and all that.

I'm all for protecting children. I tried my best to protect my own and  
am thankful they all made it to adulthood. I never smoked, in the car,  
at home or anywhere else. I agree that smoking is not good for you or  
your children, although Rep. Griffin takes it too far when she asserts  
that a child who lives with a smoker is "not going to live to be old."  
The risk goes up, but it is not an automatic death sentence. I've  
known chain smokers who made it into their 90s.

But when government reaches into your private space to punish you for  
using a legal product, it has crossed a line that even "the children"  
cannot justify. If elected officials don't want people smoking in  
cars, they should outlaw tobacco outright. They won't do that, of  
course, because tobacco brings in so much money, and money is much  
more important than the children or the right to privacy.

Maybe none of this sounds like a big deal. But little deals,  
collectively, become very big deals. If the Democrats now in power are  
serious about privacy, they should demonstrate it in areas other than  
abortion.

¢¢¢

Taylor Armerding is a staff columnist. He may be reached at  
978-946-2213 or at tarmerding at eagletribune.com.