BCT Editorial – 1/25/09

This page was last updated on January 25, 2009.

Lighten up; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 25, 2009.

Below are the opening and closing comments of the editorial.

“Obesity isn’t just a personal and medical issue. It has national security implications, too.

“When it comes to obesity and its consequences, Americans need to lighten up — for their own good and their country’s.”

When it came to government regulations concerning obesity, I figured a taxpayer-funded, government-run healthcare system would be the vehicle. That is, the government would implement obesity regulations claiming they were necessary to control the cost of socialized medicine. Apparently the left couldn’t wait.

By declaring obesity a national security issue, lefties will feel justified implementing anti-obesity regulations. This is similar to the jihad against smoking on private property. Those opposed to smoking issued reports claiming detrimental effects of so-called secondhand smoke on nonsmokers. That gave them the justification to ban smoking on private property.

Isn’t it interesting we’re supposedly battling both obesity and hunger at the same time? Do you want to know what makes it more interesting? Studies tell us most of the obese and “hungry” supposedly come from the same group, the poor.

In fairness to the Times, previous obesity/weight editorials have sometimes included statements like “This is a personal-choice issue. Government can’t interfere in the kitchen. People must take it upon themselves to eat healthier and get off the couch.” (“Weight woes,” 9/7/06). Note, though, this editorial included no similar comment. In other editorials, however, the Times has shown a willingness for government intervention. For example, in “Belly up” (7/31/06), the Times said, “We wish some school district would monitor the content of the food that children bring in their lunch boxes.” Given the overall political positions advocated by Times editorials over the years, I think it’s clear where its preferences would take us.

“Blowing smoke” said, “… some smokers direly warned that Big Brother government would turn its attention to fast-food next. Fat chance of that happening.” Oh yeah? As I noted in my critique of that editorial, the third paragraph of “A food fight over calorie counts” (BusinessWeek; Feb 11, 2008; p. 036) read, “… and in Los Angeles there has even been a discussion of ‘food zoning’ – barring new fast-food eateries from high-obesity neighborhoods.” Guess what? On July 29, 2008, LA city council issued a one-year ban (with the option to extend the ban) on new fast-food restaurants in a 32 square-mile area of south LA.

Let’s also remember the editorial “Silence, please.” In that editorial, the Times lobbied for banning cell phone use on airplanes not for any flight safety or technical concerns, but because the editorial author found the practice annoying. The editorial concluded with, “Let’s no [sic] take any chance. Turn the FCC ban into law as soon as possible.”

Now the Times tells us obesity is a national security issue. No, there’s no slippery slope here.

Finally, I’m not obese myself or anywhere close, but that leads me to another point. How long will it take for the government definition of obesity to expand (no pun intended) to include just about everyone? After all, you don’t have to miss one meal to meet the USDA definition of being hungry.