I’m beginning to think that Ed Cone just doesn’t think much of fellow N&R columnist Charles Davenport’s opinion. And he lets us know in a hurry, too —- if Cone’s Sunday routine is anything like mine, I’d guess he read Davenport’s column on the Nazis’ visit to Greensboro last weekend and headed straight for the laptop. Not that I haven’t had that urge after reading something in the Sunday N&R, but I try to mellow out, since it is Sunday, after all.
Cone takes issue with the Davenport’s line stating that if not for the Nazis’ “unsavory perspective on matters of race, religion and sexual orientation, many — perhaps most — liberals would subscribe to the agenda.” It’s a theme running through Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, which I’m sure Davenport has read. I read it too, and found the discussion of 20th century political thought fascinating, but also realized that if you’re trying to separate modern liberalism from fascism in modern America, you’ll find yourself running around in circles. It’s what we’ve become, unfortunately —- Goldberg certainly mince words about the Bush administration, either.
So I’m not getting involved in the liberal vs. fascist argument. But I still find it interesting that while people are running around in circles over Davenport’s column, the N&R ran a front-pager and an editorial echoing the Nazi obsession with food.
In case you haven’t heard, they’re a lot of fat kids out there. I’ll be fair — Jason Hardin’s article does have a proper emphasis on strong parental involvement in diet and exercise, although I’m not exactly sure exactly how the nonprofit group “Get Healthy Guilford” will “tackle the problem.” One minute the children are victims yet —-as the N&R paraphrases the director—-they will “be the ones to lead” to a “culture” that will take the “small steps” that will “add up — for an individual child and for a society.” Suburbia takes more than its fair share of blame, too.
But the editorial dropped the other shoe, stating that childhood obesity is “not only a nutritional issue, it is a planning issue” and conquering it would require government action that would include “creating a more walkable community that not only provides safe places to stroll and bike for exercise or fresh air, but also to actually go places.” Downtown design guidelines that “stresses an appeal to pedestrians” —- and would cost property owners a bundle —are “encouraging,” the editorial states.
But like I said, I don’t get involved in arguments liberal-fascist arguments. But one more thing — city government, which is pushing the downtown design guidelines, probably loves reading editorials like that.
