Roy Maynard: Early Returns

If you write for long enough, your words will catch up to you.

Mine did this week, when I read an odd news story out of Los Angeles.

For years, I have tended to use a particular type of argument against examples of government overstepping its bounds. "

Reductio ad absurdum" is a kind of argument that shows the absurd long-term result of a short-sighted policy.

I particularly used it when writing about the government stepping in to take care of us poor, stupid citizens. Whether it was a proposed new gun law or additional restrictions on alcohol or tobacco use, I tried to show that when the same principles were applied to other areas, government involvement was just plain silly.

"What's next?" I asked. "We know that heart attacks and high blood pressure cause far more deaths that gunfire. Will they ban our Big Macs?"

This week, they did just that.

"The (Los Angeles) City Council Tuesday approved a moratorium on the opening of fast-food restaurants in the South Los Angeles area in a bid get residents to make healthier food choices," L.A. television station KNBC reported. "The ordinance prevents fast-food chains from opening new outlets in a 32-square-mile area encompassing South Los Angeles, West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park. The ban will be in effect for one year, with the possibility of two six-month extensions."

There are real reasons for the ban, council members claimed.

"A report released last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found that 25 percent of children in Los Angeles are obese," KNBC said. "In South Los Angeles, about 30 percent of youngsters fall into that category."

The ordinance defines a fast-food restaurant as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

Which pretty much describes everywhere you can find stuff to eat, up to and including cafeterias and convenience stores.

"People should be afforded choice," City Council member Jan Perry said in a breathtaking example of political doublespeak. "This ordinance will allow us time to create strategic planning guidelines that will attract a variety of community assets like full-service, sit-down restaurants and grocery stores. This is not about banning fast food."

Of course it is.

Editorial pages were quick to respond.

"There's nothing nanny-ish about a city council worried over weight," claimed the Houston Chronicle. "In Los Angeles, the health and economic implications of widespread obesity truly are cause for alarm." Nearly one-third of the area's population at risk for Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses; it's also the patient pool least likely to have insurance for hugely expensive ailments that can linger for decades."

Lest anyone remain confused, the Chronicle went on to clarify that "Poor people, who have less money to spend on food and fewer cars with which to leave their neighborhoods - often depend inordinately on fast food."

But the Chicago Tribune got it right.

"Seems the council believes the people in those largely poor communities can't make decisions for themselves about what to eat. That's ridiculously paternalistic," that newspaper said. "It's also based on the simplistic assumption that banning fast-food restaurants will magically convince grocery retailers to locate in underserved communities and bring healthier fare."

No one is in favor of heart disease and diabetes. Cholesterol has been of particular concern to me personally, of late, and bacon cheeseburgers are now a fond, far away memory.

But is this where we want the government stepping in?

I didn't think so, and I often used it as an example of government goofiness gone wild.

But then it happened.

Early Returns is the political observations column of staff writer Roy Maynard, who can be reached at 903-596-6291 or at roymaynardtmt@gmail.com.

Roy Maynard
()