Anonymous,
The first thing to point out is the writer of this article has a clearly obvious agenda: they don't like the idea of requiring food stamp users to make healthy choices. That being said, I think we are discussing three issues: personal freedom in the context of being dependent on the state, and cost.
First, cost: I'm sure the options listed... free range, organic, etc. are limited are because they are much more expensive. I wonder if the average American has the resources to get the higher-end foods listed there...I clearly don't. I would love to buy organic free-range type food, but I buy white eggs and standard milk simply because I have finite resources. Which brings me to the second point, personal freedom in the context of being dependent on the state: If the average citizen cannot afford these products, why should those on food stamps use funds forcefully taken from the average citizen to purchase them? Obviously, this is inherently unfair, unethical, and must be avoided at all costs. The cost/benefit to purchasing these options is also highly uncertain. How much healthier will I be buying brown eggs vs white eggs? If that's really a concern for people, they should SUPPORT a bill which doesn't let people purchase junk food. Junk is far worse for people than the questionable benefits (especially considering the cost) for organic/free range/non-GMO.
SC
You don't know much about this guy or his evil brother. They own the Libertarians, Reason Foundation, Cato, Heritage, Americans for Prosperity, ALEC and half a dozen other far right groups. He gets singled out because his groups have done so damn much damage. Every one of the groups that he supports pushes an extreme right wing agenda based on AYN RAND's crackpot ideas. Their policies have caused the resegregation of a school in NC., horrible poverty in half a dozen states...the pipeline debacle and more.
It's true. Ask PBS. It's actually not even available to PBS to air. They had a grant from ITVS to produce the film, which they did. ITVS has never had a contract with, nor did they make a promise to, the producers to air this, and PBS has had no conversations with the producers.. PBS airs sensitive, provocative content all the time (The Invisible War, Park Avenue, As Goes Janesville, all of Frontline, etc). So why did the producers take this approach? Sadly, the film is reportedly not very good, this media blitz ensures people will watch it. Get your facts straight, The New Yorker is hardly journalism at work.
The Koch Brothers are determined to overthrow the Government via political means that is destroying democracy with their money. They are trying to manipulate and silence the press to spread more propaganda to further their cause by purchasing news papers. I am sadden and disappointed that PBS would relent to appeasing them by not airing the Documentary. If the Koch's were proud of themselves and their reputation, they shouldn't have had any objections to the airing. But, I imagine that they aren't as happy with themselves even with having all of (T)hat money at their disposal? Maybe it's true, "money can't buy you love!" Is it true?
Thank you for setting the record straight. These fellows are a terrible example of donors to worthwhile causes. They make it look like they care, but it seems they only want control. It makes me cringe every time I see a PBS show and their names come up as sponsors...
Pages