Back to our humble roots

Exciting news- LA has decided that banning new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods is an awesome idea. This is such a silly idea that even William Saletan, the hopelessly bleeding heart liberal who writes Slate's Human Nature blog, thinks it's a terrible idea. Somewhat adorably, he says:

I assumed this idea would go nowhere because we Americans don't like government restrictions on what we eat. You can nag us. You can regulate what our kids eat in school. But you'll get our burgers when you pry them from our cold, dead hands.

How did the L.A. City Council get around this resistance? By spinning the moratorium as a way to create more food choices, not fewer. And by depicting poor people, like children, as less capable of free choice.

The thing that actually made me angry, like a kitten denied a cheeseburger, though, was the response one of Slate's XX Factor bloggers, Amaka Maduka had to say in response-

Shouldn't a poorer neighborhood have the option of an actual organic market or a restaurant that offers fresh ingredients? The higher cost of these healthier foods isn't necessarily prohibitive either; it may just mean that families will be exchanging quantity for quality. That means smaller portion sizes and a healthier meal.

(Luckily, at least her colleague has a bit of sense) But it's exactly this kind of condescending and rather misguided attitude that makes me glad I don't identify as liberal. Do people honestly think that at a time where businesses like Whole Foods are struggling to make a profit because their food is so expensive, organic markets are suddenly going to set up shop in poor neighborhoods? Seems highly unlikely. I mean, I eat like a hippie*, and I still try to avoid shopping at Whole Foods. I hardly think people who lack parental lifestyle subsidies would make a decision different from mine.

*No, really. My favorite food these days is Greek Quinoa and Avocado Salad. And I never eat fast food.