Log in

Top Stories        News         Sports

From the ridiculous to the really ridiculous

Write a comment
Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

FromEditorsDesk Tony CroppedBy Tony Farkas

It may come as a surprise to some that my first real not-under-the-table job was working in the food industry.

Starting off as a dishwasher, it wasn’t long till I graduated to cooking, and ultimately baking, for a restaurant that at the time was one of the most popular places to eat in town.

Aside from steam tables, pots and other equipment, used primarily for vegetables, the main cooking surfaces were heated by gas, as is the case with pretty much every restaurant in the history of ever.

When looking for places to live, one of the chief things I look for is gas ranges, because I learned how and prefer to be cookin’ with gas.

Little did I know that I was signing my own death warrant.

You may be aware that the federal government is mulling a decision to ban natural gas stoves from pretty much everywhere. This stunning attack on preference is based on weird research and is of great concern to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a group of unelected busybodies who “work to save lives and keep families safe” by “issuing and enforcing mandatory standards or banning consumer products.”

These are the people that require warning labels on coffee cups to remind you that hot coffee is hot, or on infant strollers to remind you to remove a child before folding the stroller.

The gas stove has been a thorn in the side of officials for years, and the reasons for this are as varied as they can be. Use of gas stoves is, according to whatever expert that is amenable, a threat to global climate because of its use of fossil fuel; racist, according to Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., because they are a “cumulative burden on minority and low-income households,” or dangerous and deadly, according to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, because they emit nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide, which cause cardiovascular problems, breathing illnesses and even cancer.

So, of course, it’s in our best interest that this is all done away with, because heaven forbid we make our own decision on this. It’s like the parents who punish all the kids for the one who snuck the cookies.

In the words of the hangar manager in “Central Intelligence,” I am made up of questions.

Chiefly, how is it that a group of unelected busybodies, using sketchy research, are able to decide what appliance I’m able to use, as if I am unable to make a decision myself about my health and how I treat it? I can’t believe that society as a whole is that ignorant as to need to be told not to eat Tide pods, or that dishwasher manufacturers must build machines using a minimum of water so as to not destroy the environment, or that the incandescent light bulb uses too much electricity and moving to LED or some other type will cut carbon emissions and save the planet.

Even more questionable is an agency, any agency, that finds a problem, real or perceived, and launches itself into savior mode without thought of the long term. Just because a panel like the Consumer Product Safety Commission was created by government doesn’t give it the power of government; that still resides with the people. Yet in order to further an agenda of mostly living to be re-elected, elected officials will jump on the bandwagon of “Hey! We did this for you! We thought of the children!” while carving away more and more of your liberty.

Think of the consequences of such a sweeping ban. The entire restaurant industry will be devastated. Metalworking will become a thing of the past, so say goodbye to steel mills and the entire state of Pennsylvania. Additionally, converting everything to electric will require a whole lot of new stress on an already unstable grid, which cannot convert itself to all electrical, cause that’s not how electricity works.

Then there will be all kinds of exceptions carved out for special interests, people who just can’t operate without the benefit of fossil fuels, and the only losers in this whole scenario will be the taxpaying public.

It’s one thing to tell me the risks and allow me to make my own decision, which is how things should be.

The Constitution as I read it doesn’t say the government must swaddle us in its protection from any and all threats of technology, just from enemies foreign and domestic.

Tony Farkas is editor of the San Jacinto News-Times and the Trinity County News-Standard. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Say something here...
symbols left.
You are a guest
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.

Be the first to comment.