Look, I notice stuff. That's what I do. In fact it's pretty much the only thing I do because, as a smart ass talk radio dude from Texas, after I notice stuff I talk about it on the radio and then we move on to noticing and talking about other stuff.
Cause like I said... I notice stuff.
This week I noticed the Federal government simultaneously do two things that completely contradicted each other.
First I noticed the Food & Drug Administration [FDA] going after a bakery in Massachusetts because they said one of the ingredients in their granola is "love". The FDA hates "Love" and they don't want anyone to accidentally consume it. Maybe the Feds think "Love" is a genetically modified organism [GMO] containing harmful antibiotics and preservatives that might cause cancer. Or maybe the Feds are just a bunch of overzealous a-holes.
Of course, when Nashoba Brook Bakery listed "love" as one of the ingredients in their granola, they were just trying to be cute. "Love" isn't something tangible that you can hold in your hands [this is a bakery after all, not a porno film]. But even still, the FDA is not cool with "love".
And just as much as they hate "love" they also hate nose rings. Apparently someone working in this bakery has a nose ring and the Federal government needed to get involved by stopping both nose rings and love from being in the bakery at the same time as granola.
Fine, nose rings are kind of gross. We get it. But this is a tiny little bakery - can't the customers decide for themselves if they wanna buy bread from someone with a nose ring [and love]? Not according to the Feds. Ok, Rules are rules, right? So nose rings and "love" are not okay with the Federal government in a food preparation environment. We can learn to accept that. Hygiene matters.
But the Federal government's "no nose rings" policy in bakeries is particularly confusing when placed side-by-side with this next news story. You see, while Federal agents with the FDA are cracking down on love-spreading, nose-ring wearing bakers in Massachusetts, another department of the Federal government is doing the exact opposite of what the FDA is doing- punishing a business [in this case, a grocery store] for not allowing an employee to wear a different kind of appendage on their head.
A Publix Supermarket in Tennessee is now being sued by a department of the Federal Government - the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to be more specific.
Equal Employment Opportunities, you say? What did Publix do? Fire someone for being black? Or gay? Or Muslim?
No... Publix asked one of their employees to cut their dreadlocked hair, citing health concerns. You know, hygiene.
As hard as it is to believe, somewhere in Tennessee there's a Rastafarian [like Bob Marley, but not talented] who works at a grocery store and the management felt the employee's long, Predator-like dreadlocks were a health concern when dangled near food. The employee argues the dreadlocks are a part of their religion and it would seem as though the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission feels that way as well. Dreadlocks are pretty gross, yes, but the First Amendment is the First Amendment. Religious freedoms are an essential part of our nation's principles. They qualify as a freedom of personal expression protected by the Constitution. The dreadlocked hippies of the world have James Madison to thank for that policy. That's why you always hear hippies talking about him [OK, that's not true].
But isn't wearing a nose ring also a form of personal expression? What about the First Amendment rights of the nose-ring wearing baker in Massachusetts? How could the same Federal government that's suing a grocery store for not allowing dreadlocks also be going after a bakery for allowing nose rings. Are nose rings somehow dirtier than dreadlocks? Similarly, are dreadlocks somehow a more righteous form of self expression than a nose ring?
This nonsense can all be explained with the "no victim, no crime" philosophy of libertarianism. If the nose ring isn't hurting anyone and the employer is cool with it, let the nose ring [and the love in the granola] stay in the bakery. Like wise, if the dreadlocks in the grocery store are becoming a concern to the customers, let the business decide what works best for their brand. The baker with the nose ring probably isn't bothering any of the customers and it's also possible the employee with the dreadlocks really does have dirty, smelly, hair [and is grossing out the shoppers].
Can't the owners of these businesses be allowed to decide what kind of employee best represents their brand? What about the First Amendment rights of the businesses? If the First Amendment guarantees the Rastafarian is entitled to a job despite his employer not liking dreadlocks, what does that say about the person with the nose ring? If consumers don't like the nose ring, they won't eat at the bakery. And if consumers don't mind the dreadlocks, they wouldn't have complained to the management at the grocery store [assuming that's what happened]. I'm not a betting man but I'd be willing to guess the grocery store asked the employee to cut the dreadlocks only after someone complained about them [because the dreadlocks very likely existed when this person got hired].
There are hundreds and hundreds of grocery stores in Tennessee. There are probably just as many bakeries in Massachusetts. Why is the Federal government micromanaging local food outlets for such absurd reasons? To exercise control, of course. Why else?
If the Federal government put this much effort into our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, ISIS and the Taliban would have been eradicated years ago.
But what do I know? I just notice stuff.
--------------------------
[EDITOR'S NOTE - The man in this photo has nothing to do with this news story, I just couldn't find a good stock photo of someone with dreadlocks. Thank God for public domain mugshot pics!]