Behavior Modification

I decided to forgo my usual weekly rant about the news to expand on something that got me thinking recently. I hope you'll indulge me.

I had an interesting exchange with a friend the other day that left me wondering about the concept of behavior modification and it's place in modern society in America. His point was that conservatives tend to want to dictate behavior in the bedroom and to a degree, he was correct. Not so much these days but in the late 70's and early 80's the conservative movement had trouble accepting alternative lifestyles. Change in the conservative movement comes slowly and at a great price when it comes at all. I will not attempt to downplay the faults and shortsightedness of the movement here. My only goal is to show the correlation between how conservatives try to dictate behavior and how liberals try to do it.

Leaving aside the old maxim of how to boil a frog, I'll simply say that at minimum, conservatives are more open and up front in how they dictate behavior. Laws were passed, generations ago banning sodomy and the like as a misguided attempt to "regulate" homosexuality. Most have been overturned as unconstitutional or just written off the books as grossly incompetent and rightly so. I find no fault with how an individual defines his or her own relationship. Being agnostic, I tend to view same sex relationships from a Darwinian point of view: Natures only goal is to propagate the species. Barring this, the species dies. I don't place a religious or even a spiritual premium on the subject. I look at it only from the standpoint of whether or not the species will survive based on it's behavior. I won't attempt to argue the right or wrong of it, my only thought is to give the reader an insight into my own thought process.

Having said all that, let's now take a look at how liberals have played the behavior modification game throughout the last 20 or 30 years.

Starting in the 70's, we all heard about the awful trend of tuna fisherman snaring dolphins inadvertently and the poor creatures being destroyed as a result. Soon, the cries of "Dolphin safe tuna!" were everywhere. You were considered beastly if you chose to eat tuna that didn't have a "dolphin safe" label on the can. Several tuna companies were forced to change how the fish was caught, how the product was packaged and sold and ultimately, how much it cost the consumer.
A small price to pay for safer waters for our friendly cousins, the dolphins.

Also in the 70's came the advent of the the 1.5 gallon per flush toilet. Remember that one? We were about to run out of water so the government, in it's infinite wisdom, swooped in to save the day. No more toilets in residences would be more than 1.5 gallons to conserve water. The only trouble was, you had to flush twice to get the job done. I know many of you are cringing at this particular topic but it's illustrative of what was to come.

By the end of the 70's, the behavior modification game was just finding it's legs in society and was expanding into more areas with the help of groups like The Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, The Wilderness Society and the National Wildlife Federation. These groups, spurred by the popularity of the first "Earth Day" celebration in 1970, began to see the value of tapping into the national psyche by promoting what appeared to be a harmless agenda of an "Earth-centric ideology" that everyone could agree with. They would quickly become more radicalized and spawn even more radical groups like Greenpeace, PETA and ELF with ELF earning the title of a domestic terrorist organization for it's penchant for destruction and it's reign of terror in California.

By the end of the 80's, environmental groups had played a major role in pushing policy through Washington DC and changing the way Americans ate, drove, worked and played. Dolphin safe tuna and low usage flush toilets were only the beginning for the now radical, environmental "new left" that sought to impose their ideology and agenda on an entire nation. By the end of the 80's the concept of conservation went far beyond just using less and saving more. It blossomed into regulating how farmers used their own lands to grow and sell crops and livestock. They told us how hot or cold our houses should be, what we could use to bring our groceries home: paper or plastic?, they told us what kind of mileage we should get in our vehicles, what kind of cleaners and solvents we could use, what kind of appliances we should buy and now...what kind of light bulbs I can use.

While many environmental groups did great works ridding the country of lead and mercury in consumer products and enabling clean air and water acts through Congress, they inevitably went too far after enjoying success. "If we can dictate ten things, then we can dictate a hundred." must have been the philosophy.

My only real point, after all this, is only this: While conservatives may indeed sought to regulate behavior in the bedroom, liberals have sought to regulate my behavior in every other room of my house covertly, secretly by employing a strategy of subterfuge to distract me while they seek to impose even stronger regulations. I will submit that the Congess' latest ploy is Cap and Trade, also called Cap and Tax because that is precisely what it will do. It will add a multitude of taxes on every energy source we Americans rely on to go about our day. Call it behavior modification that benefits the likes of Al Gore and George Soros, both heavily invested in the concept of carbon credits and it's resulting industry.

Socialized Medicine, lovingly referred to as a "Public Option" by liberals, seeks to modify behavior in ways most of us can't even imagine yet. Talk of higher taxes on sugary drinks like some juices and sodas can only be the start of what will eventually lead to taxing anything that may be detrimental to my health. Like riding a motorcycle or sky-diving.

I know I may sound paranoid but it's inevitable that the heavy hand of government must surely lay the smacketh down on me should I decide to eat a twinkie.