This page was last updated on April 17, 2011.
Food fight; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 17, 2011.
As I wrote in my critique of today’s other editorial, if the Times isn’t a caricature of itself, it’s pretty close.
This editorial is simply another Times excursion into nanny statism. You can find previous examples below after the critique.
If we’re unable to understand a double-cheeseburger with fries and a “fully-leaded” (caffeine & sugar) pop has a lot of calories, cholesterol, fat, and sodium, how on Earth are we to understand the news and opinions we receive from information sources may not be good for our health either? Following the Times logic in this editorial, all info sources (books, radio/TV broadcasts, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, schools, et cetera) should have the following warning on the cover/front page (print) or at the beginning of a broadcast: “EDITOR GENERAL WARNING: This product (article, class, lecture, story, etc.) may make you stupid because the information provided herein may not be based on fact, history, logic, or science and may in fact be completely false. Therefore, do your own research using only sources bearing the U.S. Editor General ‘Seal of Approval.’” The info source would also have to display prominently its overall truthfulness rating from the EG as well as each article’s rating. Also, because of the dangers of second-hand listening, we’d need to extend the policy to individual speech in “public” places. A side benefit of this would be an instant jobs program. After all, to ensure a timely response from the EG and to monitor conversations, we’d likely need millions of reviewers. The Times shouldn’t be concerned about that pesky First Amendment problem either. After all, in “Scared stiff” and “For what it’s worth,” the Times already told us freedom of political speech should apply to no industry other than its own.
Finally, don’t be fooled into thinking the Times is concerned about our health. For leftists, it’s all about power of the state over the individual.
Previous examples of Times nanny statism
During the last five years alone the Times bombarded us with at least 57 editorials to support banning smoking on private property.
At one point in 2010, salt was the enemy.
Do you 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 simply because the editorial board 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.”
“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.
Have you read any Times editorials speaking out against Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s proposal to tax “sugary” drinks by an additional two cents per ounce? That proposal (similar to one in Philadelphia) would increase the price of a 16-ounce bottle by $0.32. You may recall the Times quickly criticized Mr. Ravenstahl’s proposed tuition tax with no less than three editorials (“Brain dead,” “Talent pool,” and “Shirkers”).
Have you read any Times editorials speaking out against a New York bill proposing “No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food?” With this editorial we know the Times appears to support such government action.
In my critique of “Pill poppers” I wrote, “in case you missed it, it’s [the editorial] laying the foundation for the government to control our lives even more. That’s made clear by this excerpt: ‘The increase would be catastrophic for Medicare, which is already wobbly. Because baby boomers will swamp Medicare, its spending on diabetes is expected to jump from $45 billion to $171 billion and could exceed current projections for all Medicare costs.’ When it comes to a government-run healthcare monopoly, cost control will be the excuse used to control our decisions. We’ve already seen that in the ridiculous tobacco taxes (No, I don’t smoke, chew, etc.) and the proposed taxes on sugar-containing drinks.”
Do not be swayed by emotional pleas, “good intentions,” et cetera. The result of all these programs is to give power to the state by taking our individual liberty one freedom at a time.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.