BCT Editorial – 3/2/11

While this editorial alone could leave a reader not being clear about where the Times stands on the government and mandatory lifestyle requirements, the Times editorial body of work is clear; the Times is perfectly OK with government-mandated lifestyle requirements.  For example, the Times supports Obamacare, lobbies for laws banning smoking on private property (at least 56 editorials since March 2005), appears to want government to “do something” about obesity, supports government involvement regarding salt in our food, has been silent regarding supplemental taxes on “sugary” foods, and so on.  The only time I recall the Times objecting to something in this area was when an editorial said “San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors crossed the line last week when they voted 8-3 to prohibit fast-food restaurants from including toys with children’s meals that do not meet the law’s nutritional guidelines.”