Well not exactly, but . .
Yesterday, the Senate (with bipartisan support) passed a bill providing for, among other things, increased frequency of inspection of food production by the FDA.
My own opinion is that increased food inspections are inherently good, although one can reasonably argue about: 1)to what extent regulations should be applied to small local food producers; 2)what actual standards should be; and 3)how much food inspection and regulation we want to pay for (a basic cost/benefit analysis). In short, I think that the theory of having the Government make some effort to make sure that our food does not make us sick or kill us is a good.
Glenn Beck apparently strongly disagrees, attacking (yesterday on TV) the passage of the Senate bill in question, the creation of the FDA by the "progressive" (said with scorn) Teddy Roosevelt, and arguing that if the Government could "control our food", it could totally control our lives. (Huh?)
Apparently, Mr. Beck believes that we can and should totally rely on the food producers (who certainly don't want to poison anyone, but whose primary motive is -and nothing wrong with this - to make as much money as possible) to make sure that our food is safe. I think that history shows us that when you leave "the public good" up to those with a profit motive that may not always coincide with that public good, sometimes people will (yep, I'm an optimist) try to act to protect the public good at the expense of some of their profits, and sometimes they will not. Mr. Beck, however, apparently trusts everyone, except the government (which does not have a profit motive), to act in the public good.
Earth calling Glenn; Earth calling Glenn . . .
Think about that highlighted sentence above - I will get back to it in a future Post. Enough