Why Is The Federal Government Regulating Public Swimming Pools?

From The Washington Times:

Earlier this year, the Justice Department ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires publicly accessible pools and spas have lifts, ramps or elevators, and gave a March deadline for compliance, sparking panic among hotels and community pools. As the deadline neared, and under pressure from Congress, the department issued an initial delay and then earlier this month said pools have until next year.
On Thursday, acting just ahead of the Memorial Day weekend that marks the traditional opening of many outdoor pools, the department went a step further and said the rules apply chiefly to future pools. Existing pools will only need to comply if it’s easy to do so.

What business is it of the federal government whether someone who is disabled has access to a public swimming pool?Isn't this the domain of the state government or better yet local municipal governments to regulate?Does the fate of the republic hinge on who can swim and who can't?

Also this from Steny Hoyer:

“For many Americans with disabilities, swimming pools are an important source of physical activity and emotional comfort,” said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat.
He told his colleagues that rolling back the rules “would constitute a serious setback to Americans with disabilities, including many of our veterans — and I want you to think about this — many of our veterans wounded while serving our nation overseas.”

This is where everybody gets mad as Hades with me.

By the mere definition of the word disabled,they are things you can no longer or never could do because you have a disabilty that denies you that abilty.Blind people can not see,therefore they can not drive.People who are paralyzed can not engage in an activiity that requires standing.They are disabled,nature and circumstances deny them.

Its one thing for a propietor of a swimming pool to deny acess to someone who is disabled,but its another thing entiely if someone is denied access by their disabilty.No business should be forced by the government to provide unreasonable aceess to their establishment to anyone,whether disabled or not,its a business not a charity.

For everyone who thinks I'm cold and heartless,just remember this,the market will provide.Someone,somewhere will find a way to make a profit from those who are disabled and want to swim and he or she will provide them the means to do so.In so doing they just might force others to provide the same means,competition is the great equalizer.

Federal Regulations Halts Birds Migration South

From The Assoicated Press:

Ten young whooping cranes and the bird-like plane they think is their mother had flown more than halfway to their winter home in Florida when federal regulators stepped in.

Now the birds and the plane are grounded in Alabama while the Federal Aviation Administration investigates whether the journey violates regulations because the pilot was being paid by a conservation group to lead the cranes on their first migration instead of working for free.

FAA regulations say only pilots with commercial pilot licenses can fly for hire. The pilots of Operation Migration's plane are instead licensed to fly sport aircraft because that's the category of aircraft that the group's small, open plane with its rear propeller and bird-like wings falls under. FAA regulations also prohibit sport aircraft - which are sometimes of exotic design - from being flown to benefit a business or charity.

The rules are aimed, in part, at preventing businesses or charities from taking passengers for joyrides in sometimes risky planes.

"That's a valid rule. They shouldn't be hired to do that. But it wasn't written, I believe, to stop a wildlife reintroduction," Joe Duff, an Operation Migration co-founder and one of its pilots, said. The conservation group has agreed voluntarily to stop flying and has applied to FAA for a waiver.

No,Mr. Duff,it is not a "valid rule."This is the 'Nanny State',where the state decides for us what risks we may or may not take.That's not liberty,but rather a soft form of tyranny.

Under liberty,my life is my own,it does not belong to the state.I make my own decisions.I assume the responsibility of what risks to take with my own life and bear the consequences of those decisions.If I am free,then I have the right,not only to succeed in life,but to fail and do stupid things also.

If I cannot judge for myself that an open air cockpit,with a rear propeller,and with bird like wings is more risky to fly in than a cessna or a 747,maybe the government shouldn't trust me with a knife and fork either.

  

"Tyrannous Regulation"

This is absolutely brilliant from Mark Steyn;

The hyper-regulatory state is unrepublican. It strikes at one of the most basic pillars of free society: equality before the law. When you replace “law” with “regulation,” equality before it is one of the first casualties. In such a world, there is no law, only a hierarchy of privilege more suited to a sultan’s court than a self-governing republic. If you don’t want to be subject to “tooth-level surveillance,” you better know who to call in Washington. Teamsters Local 522 did, and the United Federation of Teachers, and the Chicago Plastering Institute. And, as a result, they’ve all been “granted” Obamacare “waivers.” Rule, Obama! Obama, waive the rules! If only for his cronies. Americans are being transferred remorselessly from the rule of law to rule by an unaccountable bureaucracy of micro-regulatory preferences, subsidies, entitlements, and incentives that determine which of the multiple categories of Unequal-Before-the-Law Second-Class (or Third-Class, or Fourth-Class) Citizenship you happen to fall into.