Yet another installment in the "Things That Bug Me" series.

The Nanny State is drawing nearer and nearer to completion.

The feds busted an Amish sawmill owner in Pennsylvania for having 14- and 15-year-olds at work in his business making chairs.

These are the same 14- and 15-year-olds who are exempted from attending school after the eighth grade so that they can go to work. It's part of the Amish culture. The kids learn a trade that way.

They also learn the value of labor and a strong work ethic.

Anyway, apparently some of these kids were using staple guns, which, I would agree probably is not the safest thing for a youngster to do. But it's not as if the guy was running a sweatshop, either.

So the Amish sawmill owner was fined $20,000, which was later reduced to $10,000.

The sawmill owner said he would never let the kids use the staple guns anymore.

There were plenty of other jobs the kids could do. Like stacking lumber, sweeping floors or gluing the chairs together.

But the government went one step further.

The feds said the sawmill was too dangerous a place for the kids to work at all - even if they were sweeping, stacking or gluing.

When the sawmill owner asked why, he was told the noise and dust in the sawmill made it too dangerous.

So as it stands right now, the sawmill can no longer employ those kids.

How dare those Amish try to instill a strong work ethic in their children!

What must they have been thinking?

I think the next logical step for the government would be to make sure there are no teens working anywhere.

Frankly, there is an element of danger anywhere you work.

It is probably more dangerous working in a convenience store in Chicago than in a sawmill in Pennsylvania.

What about all those kids that work on farms? Lots of danger there.

And what about all those newspaper delivery kids, risking their lives on the mean streets of the city to deliver our product?

No, I don't think kids should work at all.

The government should put a computer in every household. That way every kid can while away the hours surfing up porn. Everybody needs a break from Jerry Springer and MTV.

That way they can become depraved more quickly.

Think of it. With just a little effort, we can completely destroy the work ethic in this country.

*****

Speaking of Jerry Springer, I am having a hard time understanding WMAQ-TV in Chicago. They bagged his show.

It wasn't because of bad ratings. Quite the contrary. Springer, with his "a fight a day" format, surpassed even the venerable Oprah Winfrey as the top of the daytime talk genre.

No, Springer didn't lose his show because of bad ratings. He lost it because of a magazine story that accused him and his staff of using actors instead of real people.

The story said Springer paid the people to be on his show and then scripted their performances.

Some people are acting surprised about this.

Not me.

I saw his show once. He had this guy on there and he started asking him lots of questions about his brother.

Then they trotted out his brother, who was gay and dressed up like a woman.

This was supposed to be the first the straight brother heard about it.

Then they brought out the gay guy's lover, who also turned out to be the gay guy's pimp.

Then the gay guy shocked his boyfriend/pimp and brother by revealing that he would soon be undergoing surgery to become a woman.

Of course this made the boyfriend/pimp mad because he was losing his boyfriend. And it made the brother mad because he found out his brother is a total freak.

I turned it off before they started hitting each other.

The point is, you would have to be awfully gullible to believe Springer could locate enough weirdos willing to beat on each other to fill the show each day.

I don't doubt at all that some of those people were paid to act.

But so what? That's entertainment. It's akin to pro wrestling. Everybody knows those guys are acting. But the WWF doesn't tell you it's fake.

Same with Springer. He doesn't tell you he uses actors. But he never said he doesn't use actors, either.

That's why I don't understand WMAQ. Are they saying they didn't know what was going on in their own studio?

A story comes out that says Springer uses actors and WMAQ gets all upset and cancels him.

Does that mean the executives at WMAQ thought the people on Springer were the real deal? That this was a shocking revelation to them?

Of course not. They're just trying to save face in the face of massive criticism.

As long as they were getting the ratings and advertisers were going along with it - no problem.

A little bad PR and it's bye, bye Jerry.

Don't get me wrong, I thing television would a better place without Jerry Springer. I just think WMAQ decided to cancel him for the wrong reason.

And besides, the day after WMAQ dumped Springer, WFLD-TV, the Fox affiliate in Chicago, snapped him up in a multi-year deal that will air Springer twice daily.

*****

Another casualty of the airwaves this week was Ellen DeGeneres.

The quirky comic whose lesbian "coming out" was widely hailed as landmark television has lost her show.

The show debuted in 1994, rising in popularity until reaching number eight in the Nielsen ratings in the spring of 1997.

Then Ellen "came out." By October 1997, the show had fallen to number 14. A couple months later, to number 44. Frankly, I think "Ellen" stopped being funny after she "came out." She became the poster child for lesbianism. Apparently most of America felt the same way.

The gay lobby would have you believe there is vast acceptance of their lifestyle in this country. I think there is a vast difference between acceptance and tolerance.

I saw evidence recently while attending a showing of "Object of My Affection." That's the movie where Jennifer Aniston falls in love with a gay guy.

During each overtly gay scene, the crowd responded with an uncomfortable, "Eeeuuuuuww."

Most people tolerate the gay lifestyle. They don't accept it. [[In-content Ad]]