IF CORPORATE REGULATION IS SO WRONG, THEN WHY IS REGULATING OUR LIVES OK?

Paula Easley whines corporations aren't free to lard food with trans
fats and pesticides and expose their workers to cigarette smoke
("Lifestyle police take away our rights," July 22). She interprets
regulating corporations as control over "our lives."

Which "lifestyle police" decide corporations have more rights in public
than people in their own homes? Why don't women have the right to decide
if their pregnancy will kill them, which sex they may marry, which
country they get their medicine from, whether that medicine includes
marijuana, whether to burn their own property if it's a flag, whether
they can phone or e-mail friends without government spying or whether
the material in their homes is porn? (Disclosure: I'm a pro-life male
hetero who's never smoked pot, bought medicine from Canada, burned a
flag or used porn.)

Why aren't people in other countries free to govern themselves without
being controlled by U.S. Nanny in Chief George W. Bush?

And which nanny put Paula Easley in charge of deciding for us that
"today secondhand smoke exposure is not widespread?"

What's the principle here? The nanny state is bad, except when we
become the nannies?

Geoff Kennedy

Anchorage