A few years ago this was my kind of article, witty satire that drives a simple and easy to digest point. However I've had a huge change because of politics and

A few years ago this was my kind of article, witty satire that drives a simple and easy to digest point. However I've had a huge change because of politics and the view articles like this push are part of a culture of cynicism that so many have today about government when I don't believe it's helpful or valid [1]. Every discussion on whether something should be regulated can be deconstructed to some basic template. You are always going to ask the same questions. Why should X be regulated? Why now? What are the downsides? Etc. Obviously there will be specifics and often people will give generic responses in these debates but in the end there's always substance even if it's surrounded by fluff. However, these discussions matter and are necessary because regulations have effect on some amount of people lives. This is why I think this article is a bit lazy and sad. It's lazy because any type of discussion can be deconstructed to some base format and it takes a cheap shot and it's sad because this article's message, whether intended or not, is that these discussions don't matter. I understand it's satire and the author probably isn't trying to undermine or reduce participation in government but it's just another drop in the bucket. [1] Valid at least to the level people believe nothing can change, obviously there's always some regulations that would be massive to change and maybe you could be justifiably cynical about it