BCT Editorial – 1/25/09

This page was last updated on January 25, 2009.

Smoked out; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 25, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “New Sunshine Law forces agency to release public information.”

This is at least the fifth editorial entitled “Smoked out” on this topic since mid-2006. In keeping with previous editorials, this one included name-calling.

This is at least the 45^th anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005, though it’s the first after the flurry of 19 in 2008. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 44 editorials were “Momentum,” “Banned in Beaver,” “Get used to it,” “Trendy #1,” “Trendy #2,” “Straggling behind,” “Salutes & Boots,” “Smoked out #1,” “Smoked out #2,” “Smoked out #3,” “Smoke free,” “Survey says smoking ban popular,” “Inertia,” “Doing harm,” “Smokey state,” “Quit stalling,” “Snuffed out,” “Cleaning the air,” “Keeping up,” “Smoking ban,” “Life and death,” “Poor excuses,” “Banned,” “Smoky City,” “No more delays,” “Haunting fear,” “Sad state,” “Fear factor,” “Pay up,” “Banned in Bristol,” “Escape artists,” “Lapped,” “The right thing,” “No joke,” “Different drummer” and “Classic politics,” “No joke,” “Starting point,” “No big deal,” “Blowing smoke,” “Don’t lighten up,” “Smoked out #4,” “Steep climb,” and “Good health.” Could all these editorials on just one topic be a symptom of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)? Of course, perhaps my keeping track of the editorials is a symptom of OCD. <g>

When I critiqued “No big deal” I wrote, “I’d like to think the passage of this affront to freedom [Senate Bill 246 (Regular Session 2007-2008)] would at least result in fewer anti-smoking-on-private-property editorials from the Times, but I suspect the capitulation of the General Assembly will simply be considered ‘blood in the water.’” I was right. Keep in mind “Steep climb” conceded the current bogus law “covers 95 percent of work places and public areas in the state.” That’s not enough for the Times, however.

Previous editorials told us “the good health of nonsmokers” is the issue. If you believe this based on the Times body of work on this topic, I have a bridge to sell you.

Face it, the Times wants the tobacco equivalent of Prohibition without actually saying so. Why the Times can’t just be honest about its agenda?

“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.”

Finally, one by one we’re seeing our natural rights transformed into privileges doled out at government discretion. This is the goal of leftist ideology. See today’s other editorial, “Lighten up,” for another example.