Naturally, he pretends the War on pizza is a defensive action against “partisan” pepperoni.
Because Krugman is considered an intellectual leader to Liberals, you can’t simply dismiss his writings with the derision they deserve. He exists to construct rationalizations for the aggrandizement of power and the enslavement of the population.
And now he’s set his gaze on the various pizzerias scattered across this great nation. He is constructing a narrative to make the Pizza into the aggressor. If you thought my heading above was exaggerated or goofy, read his headline for yourself: “Pepperoni Turns Partisan.”
A more accurate title would be “Restless Left Needs New Target: Pepperoni Added to Obama’s Kill List.”
So what do contributions in the last election cycle say? The Democrats are, not too surprisingly, the party of Big Labor (or what’s left of it) and Big Law: unions and lawyers are the most pro-Democratic major interest groups. Republicans are the party of Big Energy and Big Food: they dominate contributions from extractive industries and agribusiness. And they are, in particular, the party of Big Pizza.
No, really. A recent Bloomberg report noted that major pizza companies have become intensely, aggressively partisan. Pizza Hut gives a remarkable 99 percent of its money to Republicans. Other industry players serve Democrats a somewhat larger slice of the pie (sorry, couldn’t help myself), but, overall, the politics of pizza these days resemble those of, say, coal or tobacco. And pizza partisanship tells you a lot about what is happening to American politics as a whole.
As soon as you read the man who thinks a fake space invasion would be economically stimulating compare Pizza to coal or tobacco, you know that he is admitting that the Left hates and despises Pizza and wants to destroy it. Why else make such a comparison. In the Leftist universe Krugman might as well compare Pizza to Polio.
Why should pizza, of all things, be a divisive issue? The immediate answer is that it has been caught up in the nutrition wars.
Passive language is used here to distract you from what is actually going on: The immediate answer is that Krugman and his friends have decided to attack pizza.
America’s body politic has gotten a lot heavier over the past half-century, and, while there is dispute about the causes, an unhealthy diet — fast food in particular — is surely a prime suspect.
This might be true, but not in the way that Krugman thinks. It is fast food that is sold in our grocery stores that is the real change that has occurred in American ways of eating.
As Bloomberg notes, some parts of the food industry have responded to pressure from government agencies and food activists by trying to offer healthier options, but the pizza sector has chosen instead to take a stand for the right to add extra cheese.
Right. Cheese is the culprit. We go from state as guardian of public health to state as authority on “true science.” Extra cheese is bad for us… if the FDA’s food plate and the philosophy behind it is correct. But what it it’s mistaken? What if we are blaming the cheese for what the crust is doing to us?
These things should be debated, but that requires an open society, not a realm where the regime controls our food.
And why should the regime control our food? His first answer is to invoke school lunches, because Federal control in that area has worked out so brilliantly. But then this:
Beyond that, anyone who has struggled with weight issues — which means, surely, the majority of American adults — knows that this is a domain where the easy rhetoric of “free to choose” rings hollow. Even if you know very well that you will soon regret that extra slice, it’s extremely hard to act on that knowledge. Nutrition, where increased choice can be a bad thing, because it all too often leads to bad choices despite the best of intentions, is one of those areas — like smoking — where there’s a lot to be said for a nanny state.
I haven’t eaten a slice of pizza in a year or more. I love the taste of pizza but became convinced that it was bad for me. Then I experimented with not eating it (along with other changes) long enough to feel better than I had in years. At that point my commitment became an eating decision not only based on new beliefs about nutrition but also on the experience of feeling bad when I did eat it. (I eat cheese all the time, however; cheese is wonderful).
Krugman insists that my strategy is unrealistic for the majority, but in my opinion the government is constantly telling us that most of the stuff in pizza is fine as long as you eat “balanced,” and “in moderation,” and make sure your “calories” aren’t excessive. (Eat food, people! Not calories.)
I may be wrong (which shouldn’t matter since I’m not threatening people with a gun or their food suppliers in order to make them conform to my views, unlike Krugman), but I think the FDA’s guidance can only lead people to become continually hungry most of the time, and to overeat. Telling people to eat grains and other foods “in moderation” may keep big agriculture in business, but it doesn’t give people a workable strategy for becoming healthy.
Oh, and diet isn’t purely a personal choice, either; obesity imposes large costs on the economy as a whole.
What an arbitrary bully. What about the divorce rate? What about adultery that leads to a divorce rate? What about cyberporn and its contribution? What about transgenders getting mutilation at public expense? Liberals legalize all sorts of stuff that has public costs and then go all Puritan on stuff that should never matter. It seems to me they are trying to make a trade in order to still feel like they have moral standards.
Krugman invokes science but he’s backing the superstitions of the FDA, in which grains play a major role in a healthy diet and meat is dangerous. The FDA’s fat-phobic pseudo-science is what has led to low-fat and fat-free foods that have to add sugar to make up for the evacuated fat. If this is more responsible for the obesity epidemic than the fast food industry, do you expect the FDA to own up to it?
Pizza partisanship, then, sounds like a joke, but it isn’t. It is, instead, a case study in the toxic mix of big money, blind ideology, and popular prejudices that is making America ever less governable.
Yeah, “less governable.” That sounds like a horrible problem. America is a grand experiment in making sure people stay governable.
Furthermore, the “less governable” claim is a libel. Krugman is complaining about people using their rights as citizens to participate in the political process. That isn’t an example of being less governable. It means they haven’t been stripped of their citizenship yet.
But if that happens, Krugman will write a column claiming that objecting to such an attack is “partisan.”