OK, today is my anti-NY Times day. In As Serious as a Heart Attack the Times call for banning a certain ingredient because it's not the most healthy alternative.

The ultimate aim, however, should be to end the widespread use of partially hydrogenated oils. As things now stand, the F.D.A. acknowledges that trans fats are unhealthy at any level, and yet maintains that the partially hydrogenated oils that contain them are basically safe. The agency can't have it both ways. Public health would be greatly improved if the F.D.A. prohibited their use.

Is the Times for banning smoking and other activities or foods that they consider dangerous or addictive? What about chocolate?

So now they are for the government taking our property whenever it pleases them and banning foods that we like becuase they are not healthy enough.

If Uncle Joe Stalin were running on the Democratic ticket in 2008, I'm sure he would get the Times' hearty endorsement. (I hearby invent "Goodman's Law" - the use of Joseph Stalin in any political debate is directly proportional to the author's knowledge of Godwin's Law)

One funny side note to the property rights thing - the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Connecticut city to transfer the rights of individual property owners to a real estate developer.

This ruling came almost exactly a year after this:

Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland (R) announced his resignation Monday, as his three-term rule collapsed after revelations that he had accepted tens of thousands of dollars of gifts from state contractors and top aides.

How the hell did the liberal Supreme Court justices decide to give so much power to the perenially corrupt and big business?