California. It’s the over-regulated, safe, government mandated cheese!

There’s a very real reason it’s called the “nanny state.” The phrase didn’t just materialize out of thin air. It’s not some incongruous glib combination salad of words designed to denounce overbearing lawmakers. It truly refers to the “nannies” of society, a vast group made up primarily of parents. A nanny is the caregiver and responsible adult who takes care of the child and is present, physically and emotionally, to guide them on a perpetual path of safety.

The Nanny State refers to those instances in which our government, for a multitude of reasons, supposes it can do a better job of safeguarding the well-being of children, and to a larger extent, all its members, including adults, better than the people themselves. Self-regulation and accountability as concepts are noxious to the Nanny State. The “government,” a broad term, encompasses all manner of lawmakers who propose and enact legislation which intrudes upon our private lives in such a way that it usurps traditional parental controls and supervision of children. Nanny State legislation essentially accuses us as a society of lacking parental skills, which of course, is true, but still is unpleasant and leaves a bad totalitarian taste in our mouth. Humanity has a long, proud history of bad parenting! Humans, despite their intelligence and common sense, are notoriously bad parents. People have always been bad parents but it’s only been in the past few decades that government and its profligate nannies have assumed the role of cultural parents.

For instance, California Senator, Ellen M. Corbett, of San Leandro, is a raging prototypical California nanny politician. She has recently introduced legislation (SB 501) in this crumbling state which would keep social networking sites in check.

Senate Majority Leader Ellen M. Corbett (D-San Leandro) is making a second attempt to regulate social network websites, including Facebook and Twitter, amid privacy concerns.

With support from Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, Corbett has introduced a bill that would require the websites to remove personal identifying information on minors upon the request of their parents, and allow adults to have their own information taken down.

“Unsuspecting children and teenagers are oftentimes prime targets for online predators that use these sites to prey on vulnerable young people,’’ Corbett said in a statement.

“This common-sense legislation gives users of social networking sites, including parents of children, the tools to more effectively protect themselves and their families,” Corbett said in the statement on her SB 501.

Never mind that Queen Nanny Corbett is proposing that once again, the government spreads its already scarce resources (especially in California) even thinner in order to fulfill a collective parental role. I personally believe adult parents should be held more socially and legally accountable for the actions of their children. The government’s intrusive fetish would be better focused on this avenue of social control rather than over-reactive, meddlesome legislation.

The danger of the Nanny State’s illusion is that it stands for “causes” no one can ostensibly disagree with. Of course I don’t want children to be stalked on the internet. This is unarguable. The Nanny State tackles flagrantly obvious issues that no one can refute on the surface, and in the process slowly ingratiate its way into the backbone of our liberties behind the guise of “safety and safeguarding” and the unspoken argument is transformed into one of “if you’re not for the children, you must be against them!” The Nanny State’s actions boast of superficial noble intent but malicious methods. The problem is most people stop at the noble intent junction and do not look further.

And what is with the police always clamoring aboard the Nanny wagon? Police, by nature, are totalitarian dictators who would be happy to see us gutted of all liberties and beaten into compliant, unthinking “obeyers” of order. Though police are very “conservative” as a group, they nevertheless find strange, warm bedfellows in the left-wing’s league of social over-protectionist shenanigans.

It’s gotten so I don’t know who needs to be strung up first. The Bankers or California politicians?