Krugman`s Fat`s in the Fire

I have a hefty problem; I really hate to read Professor Paul Krugman and his pernicious panoply of propoganda. I hate to read Krugman because he is such a consummate liar and fact twister that I either have to ignore him completely or dissect his work exhaustively, which is both exhausting as well as absolutely no fun. I fully understand why Donald Luskin had to recruit an army of writers as part of his ``Krugman Truth Squad``; it takes an army to untangle the knots and proverications of Professor Paul and his Medicine Show. That is why I have been slow to write about his recent outrageous comments blaming big business for people getting fat. I kid you not; Krugman is actually trying to say people are too fat because big corporations are plotting to expand their market shares by expanding peoples girth!

Krugman states:

The Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group financed by Coca-Cola, Wendy's and Tyson Foods, among others, has a Fourth of July message for you: Worrying about the rapid rise in American obesity is unpatriotic.

"Far too few Americans," declares the center's Web site, "remember that the Founding Fathers, authors of modern liberty, greatly enjoyed their food and drink. Now, it seems that food liberty - just one of the many important areas of personal choice fought for by the original American patriots - is constantly under attack."

It sounds like a parody, but don't laugh. These people are blocking efforts to help America's children.

First off, what does he mean by financed? Are we talking about a couple of bucks or are they merely a P.R. wing for these companies? The Center`s website makes it clear that they are financed by numerous differing groups. Why, Professor, are privately funded groups illegitimate, while government funded groups to be taken seriously? Why should we believe that a University or public think tank has more credibility than an organization funded by Coca-Cola? Both have to answer for their money; the private group is simply more honest about it. Public funding is tied to apocalyptic announcements and spectacular findings; if there is no crisis the money stops coming. Those ``sources`` you love so much are far greater whores.

Still, none of this really matters; Kruggy is employing Saul Alinski`s strategy of attacking the motives of his opponents because he is on weak ground intellectually. He attacks the Center for Consumer Freedom`s motives because he knows he can`t argue against the fundamental right to choose what food you and your family will eat. That is at the heart of the issue. If government can dictate to the citizenry what they can and cannot eat, we do not have a free society but a dictatorship. Krugman knows this, otherwise he would not have to impugn his opponent`s motives.

First, let's talk about what isn't in dispute: Around 1980, Americans started rapidly getting fatter.

Some pundits still dismiss American pudge as a benign "affliction of affluence," a sign that people can afford to eat tasty foods, drive cars and avoid hard physical labor. But all of that was already true by 1980

Let`s look at this; Krugman is admitting that we don`t really understand
why people started getting fatter in the 1980`s. If the cause is unclear (and I agree with him that it is) then the solution is likewise unclear. Yet this never stops a liberal from trying to fix a problem. Liberals like Krugman plunge headlong into things which aren`t their business and tamper with forces they rarely understand, then are surprised by the law of unintended consequences; often their ``fix`` is worse than the disease. Try telling that to Krugman.

So there is, understandably, a movement to do something about rising obesity, especially among the young. Bills that would require schools to serve healthier lunches, remove vending machines selling sweets and soda, and so on, have been introduced in a number of state legislatures.

Again, we see the nanny making us do what the government thinks best. We can`t let local school boards decide what food to serve; we have to nationalize everything. Krugman dances lightly here, trying to give the impression that this is only about regulating food provided by the government. The truth is that efforts are far, far larger; forcing ``healthy alternatives`` on fast food businesses, fat content labeling, and the possibilities of obesity lawsuits all loom like vultures over a succulent dead razorback. Krugman just admitted we don`t know what is causing this obesity problem, but he is ready to use the long arm of the law to force us into thinness.

Yet even these mild steps have run into fierce opposition from conservatives. Why?

In part, this is yet another red-blue cultural conflict. On average, people living outside metropolitan areas are heavier than urban or suburban residents, and people in the South and Midwest are heavier than those on the coasts. So it's all too easy for worries about America's weight to come off as cultural elitism.

How did this guy get a PHD? This fat-headed lunk can`t be that stupid! A cultural issue? I refuse to believe Krugman is that ignorant; he is laying out the weakest argument to disarm his opponents. This is about freedom from government control, and I know full well that Krugman understands that.

More important, however, is the role of the food industry. The debate over obesity, it turns out, is a lot like the debate over global warming. In both cases, major companies protect their profits not only by lobbying against policies they don't like, but also by financing advocacy groups devoted to debunking research whose conclusions they don't like.

Again, Krugman attacks the motives of his opponents because he can`t answer their logic. Oh, by the way Paul, perhaps you ought to read my
article on global warming in the American Thinker. Because you can`t answer the message, you try to kill the messenger.

The pro-obesity forces - or, if you prefer, the anti-anti-obesity forces - make their case in part by claiming that America's weight gain does no harm. There was much glee on the right when a new study, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appeared to reject the conventional view that obesity has a negative effect on life expectancy.

But, as officials from the CDC have pointed out, mortality isn't the only measure of health. There's no question that obesity plays an important role in many diseases that diminish the quality of life and, crucially, require expensive treatment.

No one is claiming that carrying 200 extra pounds is good for you. I would like to point out that our culture also has an obsession with being thin, and this has led to equally destructive behavior. How many young women (and men) have died of anorexia and bulimia? Should we have special ``extra fat`` meals for those who are too thin? This is all wide of the point, at any rate. Do we have a free society or not? If we do, we have the right to choose our food. That is the bottom line.

The first step is to recognize the industry-financed campaign against doing anything for the cynical exercise it is. Remember, nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad for them.

Uh, yes they are proposing people be prevented from eating whatever they want. That is at the core of this issue, Professor. You show yourself for what you are-a liar and a socialist. ``Big Companies`` are always the bogeyman for socialists. That Krugman has to resort to this moth-eaten trick of the left shows how weak his case is. He is going back to the old liberal playbook, hoping that he can gin up the old hatred.

The campaign to use the force of law to regulate what people eat is reminiscent of the campaign against tobacco. Just as you propose, dear Kruggie, the forces against tobacco started with ``reasonable`` regulation and ``common sense`` restrictions. The Surgeon General`s report was used to justify government intrusion into what had been considered a private affair. Everyone knew that tobacco was bad for you; they called them cancer sticks and coffin nails long before the SG`s report came out. But the report gave ammunition to the forces aligned against ``Big Tobacco`` and the tobacco companies were slow to react, because they never dreamed what would happen. I might add, there were studies which disagreed with the Surgeon General, but these were dismissed as ``special interest`` by people such as old Krugg, and we were treated to a money grab of monumental proportions by state and local governments who sued the pants off of the entire tobacco industry. The price of tobacco has skyrocketed, and it`s all because of government usurping it`s authority. Now governments are telling people they can`t smoke in bars or restaurants, and a few municipalities have banned smoking in your own home! This is the model the anti-fat crowd is using. If Professor Krugman thinks we can swallow that load of blubber, he is thicker than anyone dreamed.

If you think that tobacco is an aberration, try researching the prohibitionist movement in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. It followed the same path as tobacco, and the Belly Bolsheviks are copying both the prohibitionists and the tobaccohibitionists (if I may coin a word.) These are all people who believe that Americans are too stupid to make judgements in their own interests, and believe government must control them ``for their own good``. Krugman shows himself to be such a one; he is an elitist, and, as one of the elite, thinks he should pull the strings. From such has come the horrors of the 20th Century.

This is America, Mr. Krugman. We have the rights to decide for ourselves and our families what is right, and you have no say in that. Perhaps you should study the Constitution more, and read less of Socialist theory.