This page was last updated on May 23, 2011.
Majority rules?; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 22, 2011.
This appears to be the second time the nanny state-supporting Times found a nanny-state law/proposal it believes went too far, and both had to do with San Francisco. In “Going too far,” the Times claimed it opposed a San Francisco ordinance “to prohibit fast-food restaurants from including toys with children’s meals that do not meet the law’s nutritional guidelines,” i.e., McDonald’s “Happy Meals.” As I wrote in that critique, given the Times editorial history on this topic, I can’t take the Times seriously. Please read my critique of “Heal thyself” to see what I mean. As a reminder, you may recall “Blowing smoke” said, “… some smokers direly warned that Big Brother government would turn its attention to fast-food next. Fat chance of that happening.” Once again the Times was wrong.
Perhaps I’m giving the Times too much credit, but I suppose it’s possible the reason for the Times’ alleged complaints about these nanny state laws is so one day the Times can pull them out and claim it has a history of opposing nanny statism.
Finally, the editorial blamed the possibility of the circumcision proposal becoming law on “direct democracy.” What is the excuse for the “Happy Meals” law approved by “San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors,” an example of representative democracy?
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.