Well., if you’d read the Slate.com article, you’d have discovered that, in fact, liquor stores already have been banned in some areas. So have cigarette sales. All in low-income neighborhoods. And having covered city council meetings in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Washington, Idaho and Oregon, I can tell you that city councils regularly prohibit liquor, tobacco and gun sales in high-poverty neighborhoods. That’s been true since the 1980s, at least.
I care because they don’t just implode quietly. Everyone has to pay for the problems they cause.
I have strong progressive tendencies. I am not at all opposed in principle to economic or social interventionism. I am a New Yorker, and I supported both the smoking and the trans fat ban.
But this?
Jello Biafra said it best.
And the unforgettable:
The single, California Uber Alles, was released in 1979.
Hmmmm, kay. Not a lot of deep thought going into this one, I see. A lot of “leave me the hell alone” and the odd poem. I was hoping for some real civil rights arguments, maybe even a citation here and there. I dunno why the mods bothered kicking this over to GD – still looks like it belongs in IMHO.
Odd poem? Good grief, it is a world class punk song.
More to the point, what kind of deep thinking were you hoping for? I am at a loss to see how civil rights would even be applied in this case. It is a poor policy choice because of both its obvious unintended consequences and it is unlikely on its face that it will drive the behavior it intends to.
But here the time issue comes into play. Working poor often have to deal with daily long bus rides, multiple jobs, and oftentimes don’t work at a nice office where there’s a lunch room and a refrigerator. This makes it more difficult to pack a lunch, let alone shop for the ingredients and put them together in the morning. Of course, lots of things are more difficult for the poor, which is why it sucks to be poor. But this decision just seems like a slap in the face.
Of course it’s wrong. The government should no more regulate poor people’s diets than it should regulate yours or mine. Excellent DK quote, Maeglin.
You do realize, don’t you, that to a guy pushing 60, the words “world class” and “punk song” don’t belong in the same sentence?
What I was hoping for was some sort of reasoned discourse to justify my visceral objection to the L.A. ordinance.
The amount of unnecessary legislation and stupid decisions in the courts already scare me. Simply put, they’re not the boss of me. Legislating location of fast food to try and help poor people is treating them like dumb animals. NYC already has caloric counts on the menus, which I think is enough. It allows them to make an informed decision. If the law goes into effect, you’re taking that decision away. Do they honestly think that another healthier restaurant is going to open in its place? A clothing store or tire repair place will be there instead.
What do they do in instances of Fordham Road/Grand Concourse area in the Bronx? Tons of shops on the first floor of a 6-10 floor apt building. There will end up being nowhere for shoppers to snack, and that money goes elsewhere. Where are the people in the apartment buildings supposed to go when there’s no time to cook dinner? Remember most in these areas don’t have cars.
I’m 30. The song came out when I was 1. The real, first wave punks who listened to this stuff when it was fresh and new are about your age, Sunrazor.
I agree its stupid, but I’d wonder how you’d get published results without giving it a try somewhere. Its basically Sociology - and Sociology is something that you can’t really run lab tests on.
Jello Biafra was awesome when I was sixteen. Now he comes across as a jackass.
There’s a minor difference between Governor Brown telling you what’s good for you and the Nazis working you to death in a concentration camp or ushering you and your family into a poison gas shower. It’s only a minor difference, but it still makes the song suck.
Folks are missing out on some important points about this case.
First, they’re not banning fast food. They’re banning new fast food restaurants in areas that already have them. City Council’s expressed goal is for the one-year moratorium to give time for other businesses to set up in these areas.
Second, they’re doing it for the children (yeah, yeah). Childhood obesity is an epidemic in these communities. If the government is acting as a mommy-state, if they’re treating citizens like children, it’s because they’re targeting children.
I’d be all about incentivizing grocery stores to set up in these communities. I bet every right-thinking liberal also is. That, however, would take tax dollars. The moratorium’s effect on taxes will probably be minimal (it’ll probably cut down somewhat on the taxes they can collect, but that’ll be nothing compared to what incentives would cost, is my guess).
That all said, I’m not sure I agree with this. It’s just not nearly as bad as folks are making it out.
Daniel
Satire, Daniel, Daniel, Satire.
He is a jackass, but for the non-humor impaired, it is a great song. A prerequisite for enjoyment of this song is the ability appreciate layers of irony and to not take oneself too seriously. I understand that this is just not for everyone.
This sums up why this ban makes no sense. There is presumably enough fast food in these communities already to service most if not all of the demand. It is not obvious how putting a moratorium on new businesses will achieve the stated goal of reducing childhood obesity. At least banning all fast food would plausibly raise the cost of convenience, by forcing people to leave their neighborhoods to get their Big Mac fix, thus undermining the purpose of fast food.
But if I lived in a marginal neighborhood next to a fast food free community, I sure would not want to see another dozen burger joints.
But restricting new business sounds absolutely paradoxical, especially since hospitality and food service jobs have no problem hiring traditionally underprivileged people. While I am the last person to cheer when a new McD opens up, at least it keeps two dozen kids employed.
It is not altogether clear how restricting new fast food gives other businesses “time to set up”. If there is demand for what these new businesses offer, then slightly more or less fast food is a matter of indifference. Fast food businesses take time to set up, too.
It’s not making lampshades out of human skin, no, so it passes that test.
It is beneath contempt, however, and places an unnecessary, useless, but at least not utterly burdensome regulation on reasonable commerce. It is far from clear how its stated goal will be achieved since the regulation itself is too weak to make a difference.
For a while, the words “world class” and “novel” didn’t belong in the same sentence.
Do you think this nonsense deserves reasoned discourse? How about a few Harvard-trained economists wax eloquent on why Mugabe’s money supply policies and price controls are counterproductive for Zimbabwe’s middle and lower classes?
OK, to give this more than it deserves: The whole notion of government banning things that are immoral reduces personal morality to a popularity contest decided in the grubby, amoral world of political elections and legislation. The moment the government bans Fanny Hill or Big Macs it sets itself up as a tastemaker, an arbiter of what a community can and cannot have simply based on whoever can shout loudest in the legislature. What’s more, it creates a morality based on loose, unconnected rules as opposed to one founded on coherent ideas: Alcohol is good but fat is bad, violence is acceptable but breasts are not, 17 is too young but 18 is perfect, and so on. The fact the foregoing is immediately obvious should be apparent.
Is he satirizing selfrighteous punks? If so, good one, and color me whooshed!
Daniel
It’s not a civil rights issue. You don’t have a civil right to a big mac any more than you have one to a bong hit. It’s a question of what the government should be doing.
There’s arguably a limited role for government in the regulation of vice. Things like liquor licences and health warnings are fine if (a big if) they’re handled reasonably. Perhaps some substances like meth or PCP are so horrible they should be banned, though our current war on drugs seems counter-productive and stupid.
What’s not cool is banning something for one group of citizens and permitting it for another. Banning a fairly harmless intoxicant like pot is annoying, but there you are. What would be really outrageous is if the state said “You kids living in the upper west side, you can have all the weed you want, but not you kids living in Queens. You can’t have weed, or at least we’ll make it very difficult for you to buy weed legally.” That’s outrageous.
And Fresh Fruits for Rotting Vegetables kicks ass.
I’m interested in whether the local community supports this measure.
Daniel
No, he’s satirizing the satirizing of self-righteous punks.
It’s a joke, son.
Yeah, that was my take after reading the link. However, what evidence do they have that banning new FFRs will incentivize grocery stores to open in that area? Or, for that matter, sit-down restaurants? If there is no evidence for that, then I suspect it’s a smoke screen for some other purpose. What purpose that would be, we can only guess.