you're a mean one...

Shelfers- indulge me for a moment. This post isn't necessarily for you. You can read on, of course, but just know that the target of this post is not our readers- but really this is for "that person." Maybe you know one, hopefully you haven't run into one and your holiday season is much brighter for it. But if you have- let them read the following special message.

Times are tough for a lot of people; there is no denying that. However, I have noticed a good deal less good cheer and kindness out there this year. Usually, the collective we do a pretty good job of trying to get past all the bad stuff, but this year has been difficult to really see any of that. Perhaps that's a reflective statement, I grant you, but I have been looking. There is evil out there, and there are people who do bad things to others- but that should not dampen what this time of year should symbolize.

Don't get me started on traditions and Christmas not really being what we think it is and Roman feast days and such- I am a history teacher, I know all about that stuff. I knew it before many smart pants college freshmen eating Cheetos read about it on a website somewhere. I've read books about the holidays- remember those? Books? Anyway, I digress.... What I am getting at is that in the long run, none of that stuff matters. A holiday to foster good will to others, to bring back a little selflessness in the world, to bring some light into others lives? You could call it Starlight Day and I would still think it was an awesome idea. Some people can't handle the religious connection, and others can't get past their own ego and their own imperfections to allow something like Christmas to try and actually foster goodness in the world. Are you one of those people?

Yes, it's way too commercial, but that isn't always the people's fault. Yes, it is based on a celebration marking the birth of Jesus Christ and people who believe and worship him are marking a religious occasion in a supposedly religiously tolerant country- which means it is a religious holiday (don't get me started on the supposed "tolerance" part). And yes there a bajillion other traditions and stories and myths associated with the holiday that have blended, changed and fused themselves into our modern day holiday. So what? No- I mean it- so what? If someone has a problem with that, or Hanukkah, or Ramadan or Kwanza or Festivus for that matter, why do they have to set out to ruin, insult and generally poop on everyone else's special time? If you are that someone and are reading this, I ask you- what is your deal? Are you really gonna be "that person"? Stop being an ass about things. There is enough crap in the world the rest of the year; lets try and bridge the gap between goodness and needing goodness in your life. If it promotes peace and goodwill- let it be. If it fosters love and hope- let it be. If it helps people understand and to try and grow into better people- for goodness sakes, let it be. In other words, get over yourself, smile and let people have this one. You have a whole other 11 months or so to be a jerk, maybe just for this one month you can restrain your self-important, smug self and allow some more hope and peace into the world. Thank you.

OK, Shelfers, we're back. Sorry about that - had to get that off of my chest. Please go on about your Yuletide doings. Whatever holiday you celebrate this season, we wish you and your families much peace and happiness.



The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote: Stink, stank, stunk!

hidden treasures?

For the past several years, September usually meant, among other things, a detailed look at some Holiday DVD titles. The whole system seems to be upside down- releases of classic films are few and far between, and even classic cartoon releases even worse. A lot of what is coming along seems to be "Special Edition" retreads or Blu-Ray releases of extant titles. We've been fortunate with some great surprise releases like the Columbia Noir sets, the 5th WB Film Noir set. Film buffs have also been pleased to see some excellent titles emerging from the vaults (as it were) via the various DVD Manufactured on Demand systems from WB, Universal (got my Ruggles of Red Gap copy early this year, various TCM collections and now Columbia. I've been very pleased to see Shout and Classic Media and other outfits picking up the slack and finishing up some series that were left to languish- particularly Classic Media bringing out the 4th season of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. WB's new Looney Tunes Superstar series, which was intended to replace the Golden Collections, is a great effort and one that collectors and fans will definitely pick up, but not as jaw-dropping as the 6 volume Golden Collection- either in extras or titles.


And yet, the days of going into a Big Box shop or easily found retail shop to pursue the classic film titles or even find new classic film and cartoon titles are long gone. Even sure fire sellers like the Looney Tunes are "not available in stores" and mostly available online or at dedicated retailers like Barnes and Noble where prices are, well, pricey. The internet seems to be the main retail outlet, and while in this day and age, it's not complicated or difficult, it sure is different. While I really don't need a bazillion copies of the latest bombed at the box office teen, romcom or horror film, it sure would be heartening to see some copies of Rocky and Bullwinkle on the shelves to grab and pick up for a fun evening with the kids. And while Netflix is truly a gift from the film gods, where it truly falls down is when it makes deals with studios to delay rentals or not even offer rentals of Manufactured on Demand titles. I don't want to shell out $20 bucks to own a copy of Doc Savage; I mean, it wasn't that great- but it was cheesy fun from my childhood that I wouldn't mind seeing again at least once.

So here we are: knee deep in the hoopla as the kiddies of the 80s used to say, and yet when it comes to availability and access to titles, it feels like we are taking two steps forward, and they take two steps back. And when was the last time you read a sentence with two 80s pop music references that actually made sense? C'mon, admit it, that's why you love us.

The questions remains- are we standing still? At a crossroads, in a way? Playing a media game of chicken to see which company, consumer, or studio is going to blink first and rush headlong into downloading or some other option? Are we that committed to Blu-Ray? I know very few people who own them or are converting DVD titles to Blu-Ray. A jump from VHS to DVD, many can understand, but when a Blu-Ray player can also play DVDs- why bother? The few people I do know who have them have another reason- a computer with a Blu-Ray drive or a Gaming system. Studios are playing a different game with on demand titles- almost as if they were hedging their bets. By virtue of placing these MOD programs in motion, they also are set up for Downloading- WB already sells titles that way. They know there are really only a few kinds of consumers of their products. There is the average, buy DVD every so often consumer, the film fan/collector who buy and horde DVDs and will reluctantly pay more when they have to have a certain title and then there is the casual film fan who will rent or at least wait till a DVD hits the $5 dollar bin.


I have not changed my initial stance per se, I still think the opportunity and availability of titles still outweighs the loss in store shelf real estate and the loss in extras and special features. The price of some titles still gives me pause, which is why any purchases are few and have to have more justification. However, now I think that enough players have entered the fray that I believe we are beginning to see a real poker game emerge. And I think that in this instance, the next big risk taker among the studios or companies will be the one to hold the most chips in the end. I don't necessarily like Download - there are still some things that will have to be worked out. Anyone who has lost an important file due to a computer crash or glitch knows exactly what I mean. But, I do love my DVR, and have enjoyed being able to DVR TCM films and titles that aren't available any other way, and watch them when I can.

The tech sector will have to step up the game, and I think, given Apple's recent press announcements, that they are doing just that. Portable media players have been around for a while, but players that do a little of everything and store data, rather than play discs are where we are at now. Will we a film collection reduced to a small black box (I would prefer a lovely hunter green personally) hard drive that stores and plays our media? Or will we use some sort of portable hard drive to use from player to player? Or will there be advanced development in micro storage space that makes owning a film collection on a device like an iPod Touch or Kindle a more manageable reality. I don't know for sure- perhaps all of the above. Signs are pointing in the direction of some of this already happening.


One thing is for sure, technology developments move at a lightning pace and classic film fans, by nature, usually don't. As far as availability and adaptability, studios and consumers are a couple of steps behind. Consider that it really took a couple of years to really get a large group of titles available on DVD. If you can remember that far back, it was the same for VHS. It's happening with Blu-Ray now. Predictable sellers like perennial classics such as epics Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, Casablanca and others hit the stores first to test the waters and establish base camp. Other titles come later, or don't come at all. Other venues try to make them available, but to be honest we don't usually see the same amount of available titles with each progressive wave of technology. There were more titles available on VHS than DVD and on DVD than on Blu-Ray now. The digital download option obviously bucks that trend. The sticky widget is deliverability and price. And as invested consumers we would do well to keep an eye on the trends and see where this thing is headed. I don't see the need to convert my DVD collection anytime soon, but I sure as heck am watching the Tech sector and its developments.

A bigger concern for me is how this will all change the viewing habits of consumers and will Classic films still resonate and have growth among new viewers. You have to admit, as a community, we are somewhat inclusive, yet exclusive. We always welcome new classic film fans and hope to see more, but at the same time we roll our collective eyeballs at those who only watch new films, don't get "classic films" or can't hang in there with the rest of us when we blog our 12 part series about the intricacies of the mechanics of the Flying Monkeys on The Wizard of Oz.


My argument is that, as a community that cares about classic films as a whole, and that cares about preserving the history, the work and the heritage and legacy that classic films represent, we need to be concerned about their exposure to younger and upcoming generations and doing something to grow that appreciation and love for classic Media as a whole for the future. We are making fantastic strides in certain areas- the phenomenal For the Love of Film blogathon that raised money for film preservation is an important part of keeping that heritage alive. And I believe that the two single most influential sources for creating new classic film fans and spreading that appreciation and knowledge has been the fantastic writing from bloggers and critics on the internet and, of course, the powerhouse known as TCM.

That being said, I also notice the signs of a changing society. Classic film appreciation will always have to hurdle the barriers that some people put up to loving them. However the change in technology is not just limitless, but limiting. Quick spurts of media exposure are the order of the day: watch a film in increments on the go or better yet, watch television online or on your smart phone or gadget when you can. Our society favors the fast pace, the anxiety and the short term attention span and memory. What you cannot simply digest in a short amount of time, and understand and appreciate, requires a greater investment- something which, I fear, people are not as willing to do anymore. Social media, music, news, entertainment news, even films -are all about the sound bite explosion. People have no problem posting their "status" of the mundane on Facebook throughout the day like a Tommy gun, but sitting down to watch a film that has visions of antiquated technology such as corded phones requires not only interest, but time to sit and digest. Sure the typical classic film fan can watch a small portion of a film and come back to it later with out much of a problem, but how many of you really want to? You want to soak it all in, you get wrapped up in familiar scenes, and you tell yourself- just a few more minutes. But you know and are familiar with classic films, the stars, and already have great interest. How do we get a FB-ing, earbud wearing, quick draw thumb texting teenage generation to begin to appreciate and invest time and interest in classic media (and I actually include books in that question)? Sure it starts at home. It starts with introducing and not pushing - letting them discover treasures on their own. And nurturing the interest along the way.


Is it really all that important, you ask? Do we seriously need to consider "creating" classic film fans? Don't worry, I don't envision an evangelical approach; however, I do think we need to find ways to encourage support and create new ways of exposing others to classic media. I think we need to continue all important preservation efforts, and to record and write the history of classic films. Sensationalist biographies can be fun, but I think we can use more works that record an overview of the history, the studio system, the stars, and the appreciation for the films, without dangerously becoming too specialized and insular in tone, and thereby alienating the new fan. And by all means- all of you writing out there- don't get discouraged! Keep writing! Combine the nostalgic memories with the movies. As I tell my students, the interest in history (or in classic films) often comes as a result of some kind of personal connection with it. Once the connection is made, the journey begins.

The old caretaker of the museum may reflect, upon retiring, who will love and nourish the things of the past as well as I? Do I leave this place in danger of a coming generation who no longer finds the relevancy or the need for such things? Will this building still stand when I am long gone? The sentiment is familiar to anyone who values and cherishes the lessons and the legacy the past has to offer. After all, so many generations removed from this or that, we cared- will someone else in the future still care? The real pressing question we have to ask ourselves isn't how much do we love classic films, but instead, do we love classic films enough to pass that love on down to someone else?



A strange twilight world opened up before me, and I felt as the first man to set foot on another planet, an intruder in this mystic garden of the deep.

an open letter to barbara boxer

Senator Boxer, ma’am.

I am a recent emigrant to the State of California. I have been frustrated, knowing that even though I am now one of your constituents, my views were not likely to be represented. I have written you in the past about my concerns over the current federal legislative agenda, including cap and trade, the socialized approach to fixing health care, and the assaults on DOMA. Each time I have written, I have received a response that seemed to politely say “Thanks for the input, but I’m not interested.” I have been frustrated that my concerns seemed to mean so little to either of my Senators. But I wanted to tell you this:

I saw what happened in Massachusetts with Scott Brown, and I’ve seen your poll numbers for the upcoming election. It used to seem that you were guaranteed to keep your seat in perpetuity. I now know that this is no longer the case.

I urge you to start taking the concerns of your constituents seriously, or in the fall, you may no longer have constituents that you can ignore.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

let 'em stay home, too

Shelfers- who says we don't try to bring the best and brightest? Well, we've got something to put in yer stockin' this year. We've gone and given our Foreign Correspondent, Matt, a permanent byline as part of the regular Shelf crew. We'll receive missives from hither and yon now and then from our roving reporter and today we introduce him and his inaugural post. Welcome him with all the usual razzle dazzle.- Uncle JC Loophole

Remember the scene from A Christmas Story where Ralphie and his family have Christmas dinner at the Chinese restaurant? They have a very non-traditional Peking duck, and are treated to a rendition of “Deck the Harrs” by the owners. Do you remember why they ate at the Chinese restaurant? I know, the neighbors’ dogs broke in and destroyed the turkey and fixings. But that is just the reason why they ate out. Do you remember why they ate out at the Chinese place? Answer: it was the only place in town open.

Here is what got me thinking about that (and no, I have not yet sat down for an all day marathon). I was watching a preview for the new Sherlock Holmes movie, and while it looks pretty interesting, I was troubled by the fact that it is opening Christmas day. In A Christmas Story, one of the early classics that delights in groaning at the over-commercialization of the holiday, the family’s only option for Christmas dinner was the one restaurant in town whose owners didn’t celebrate the holidays. Nowadays, the entertainment industry capitalizes on the day. Movies open and restaurants are booked. And while it’s not my intent to rain on anyone’s heart-warming traditions, I can’t help feeling bad for all the poor folks spending the holidays away from their families.

Look, not everyone can stop working on Christmas. Police, dispatchers, deputies and COs are still needed to deal with the results of dysfunctional families who have spent a little too much time together. Ambulances and hospitals are needed to deal with the results of eggnog overindulgence. And firefighters still have to put out all the deep fried turkey fires. But why do the hostesses, bus-boys (or perhaps I should say bus-persons), waiters and waitresses, ticket takers and popcorn-sweeper-uppers, not to mention all the grocery store cashiers, baggers, and stockers have to work on Christmas? Answer: Because we keep going to the restaurants, the theaters, and the stores on the holidays.

When I was a kid in Southern California (down in the OC, as a matter of fact, though my life was fairly un-glamorous), we found that Christmas was a good day to go to Disneyland. Lines were relatively short and the weather was usually good enough to still handle a soaking off of Splash Mountain. But as I look back, I think of those folks who had to spend the day away from their families because of me and mine. So I’ve decided something. As long as I want Christmas off, I want to help others get it off, too. That means that I have to remove the incentives for business owners to open shop on Christmas day. If folks stop eating out, stop going to movie premiers, and prepare ahead of time so they don’t have to rush to the store, all of those places will stop being open on holidays. And then all of those folks can spend the day with those they love, too. Who’s with me?

I don't know. Maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe all these folks love working on Christmas. Maybe the tips are bigger. Maybe that's all that keeps the companies in the black. But who really wants to have their holidays so over-commercialized that they make the campiness in A Christmas Story look like a quaint Norman Rockwell cover?




Over the years I got to be quite a connoisseur of soap. My personal preference was for Lux, but I found Palmolive had a nice, piquant after-dinner flavor - heady, but with just a touch of mellow smoothness.

thanksforgiving

I wanted to share some things with everyone on this Thanksgiving eve. You may see, amid the various TV specials and "myths about Thanksgiving" articles on the web, some people who delight in skewering our national holiday. Sure- our modern day conception of the origins of Thanksgiving is a mish mash of actual history, folklore and tradition, but that doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, Thanksgiving is perhaps our one and only original cultural holiday- one that celebrates being grateful for what we have, putting aside differences and family. And more than anything else, no matter the zig zag road it took to get here, it is about family and memory. All of the many things involved with Thanksgiving- aromas, food, communal gathering- are psychological triggers of memory. Memories of childhood, of times gone by, of loved ones now gone- it is a form of communal ritual which celebrates our connections to each other and the past.

I have lamented in the past how we often seem so in a rush to get to Christmas, that we often overlook or zoom past Thanksgiving. I still believe that is the case in some ways- especially in the commerce sector. However I received a recent email from a friend- a Shelf Foreign Correspondent (did I mention he lives in Northern California?) that offers another point of view that still ties into what Thanksgiving is all about. I wanted to share that with all of you as part of our annual Thanksgiving message:

"I wanted to respond to your Thanksgiving post (as I sit here listening to my favorite Christmas album). I completely agree with folks who decry the over-commercialization of the holidays in general, and I therefore understand the frustration with the rush to the big money-making holidays. But for me, Thanksgiving and Christmas are inseparably intertwined.

My fondest Thanksgiving and Christmas memories are both based on the same thing: a warm heart, and a loving family. While the presents at Christmas were great as a kid, the things I remember most fondly were the dinners, both Thanksgiving and Christmas. The whole big family (10 of us, before I left home), and often a large parcel of single friends, other families, and neighbors would sit down together for massive meals. And while the food was good, it was more the experience of it that warms my heart. We would sit and eat slowly, dining as much on conversation as on the food prepared. It happened in rounds; we would chat while the first bit settled, and then go back for more. When we got to full, we took a break for a few hours, and then began the pie course. I remember just sitting and loving the sound of the family talking, the stories told, and the feeling of people enjoying one another's company. It was different from regular dinners. The fancy china was broken out. It was special. And the warmth of the gathered family, occurring on both of these days, both based in gratitude towards the gifts of God, and most supremely the gift of His Son.

We have to fight the urge to break out Christmas music before Halloween every year in our house. This year, I was the most disciplined in this regard. I know that we are perhaps on the extreme end of things. But the love of family and gratitude toward God are unifying holiday themes for me, and I like to think of Thanksgiving and Christmas as the two anchors of the time of year where these things are perhaps closest in our hearts and minds. I don't think Thanksgiving is a merely a prelude to Christmas. I just think that Thanksgiving and Christmas are co-captains of the best season of the year."

Thanks Matt for the message. And to all of you- no matter where you may be, with family or unable to be with them, no matter whether religious or not- remember that Thanksgiving is primarily about families, memories and making new ones. To all of you- have a Happy Thanksgiving.



But Thanksgiving is more than eating, Chuck. You heard what Linus was saying out there. Those early Pilgrims were thankful for what had happened to them, and we should be thankful, too. We should just be thankful for being together. I think that's what they mean by 'Thanksgiving,' Charlie Brown.

a mighty wind.............bag

Warning!!! Before you read this, be aware that it may either make total sense or completely offend you. Understand that the time you spend reading this and your good feelings CANNOT be refunded if you read and are offended. Read at your own risk. Thank you.
Mgmt.

Note: There is no "Mgmt." Thank you- Mgmt

Before I get too deep into this, I just have to say a couple of things. First of all, I realize that I have become more of a rumor around here than a reality. I apologize for that and offer no excuse other than it was beyond my control. Secondly: I never intentionally try to hurt anyone's feelings in a post. I just speak my mind. When my opinion is shocking or offensive to an individual, I do not desire to express it in order to hurt or push anyone away. I am just exercising my God-given right to express it. What I am about to type is one of those opinions and if there are any of you who cannot get through it without heartbreak of some type then I suggest going over to Zoot Radio and let your heart and mind relax with an episode of Command Performance or Sherlock Holmes ( only Holmes episodes starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce of course ). Finally, I would like to say that if anyone reading this is offended when someone talks negatively about them or "their guy" in politics and gets immediately offended, maybe you should try to open your mind just a little and see if something positive happens to fall in there. On to the offensive diatribe!

Listen folks, we don't typically endorse specific candidates here when it comes to political contests. We encourage all to think for themselves. Today will be no exception. I am not going to endorse a particular candidate. I am going to slightly ridicule a particular candidate. I am also going to chastise and heavily ridicule those who support that candidate. Sorry folks. I'm opinionated as hell and this sort of thing is commonplace with me. I love my fellow citizens, but sometimes we need a little wind to blow us down in order to realize that a storm is coming. Here comes the wind........ Anyone who is planning to vote for or in any way support the senator from Illinois for president is either complicit in the eventual terrible events which may befall us as a result of his presidency or a complete and total moron. No apologies on this one folks. Pure and utter morons. Self-aggrandising, spineless, mindless morons. I fail to see any other way to express this view than by being up front. Senator Obama has nothing more than a good speech writer and a little extra melanin. I'm not attacking his racial make-up. I'm merely saying what a lot of folks are thinking. If Obama were a white guy with his same qualifications, he would be watching the campaign coverage with Ron Paul at a bar somewhere.

Where have we gone wrong as a country? There are lots of responses to that question, but where did we go wrong in the upbringing of the recent generation to cause them to be so easily duped by such an individual? I fail to comprehend how an intelligent being can look at Mr. Obama's qualifications , work history and associates and support him with a clear conscience. The only answer I can come up with is ignorance and selfishness. Most folks blindly supporting the man amongst the citizenry are just purely ignorant of politics, history and the ramifications of a vote. I remember watching the Three Stooges as a child and seeing a film short where they were put into power of a country by conniving politicians in order to take control of the country for their own gain as they sat behind the scenes reaping the benefits and allowed the Stooges to run the country into the ground. Obama is obviously a "stooge" in this ordeal with the current batch of politicians backing him playing themselves. I remember quite well the slogan that Moe shouted in his speech to the public in that old two reeler. The country was called 'Moronika' and Moe would say, "Moronika for Morons!" How apropos.

There are four categories of people voting for Obama. The first is the voter who shares a racial category with the senator and would feel as if he betrayed his race by not voting for a black man or a democrat for that matter. Second is the group of folks so insecure in themselves and their own culture that they would allow a serious case of 'white guilt' push them into voting for an individual in order for them to be able to hold their chin up in public. "I'm not racist! I voted for Obama!" How far will that statement get anyone? The third category is the feel-good faction which sometimes overlaps with the 'white guilt' crew. These folks are made up mostly of college students and former hippies and they cast their vote based on what is fashionable or whatever will best fit into their ridiculous personal standards that they most likely borrowed from a professor who is a former hippy as well. The last category is made up of folks in power who are political insiders. These supporters of Obama only do so because they realize that if they can get this individual into the White House, they can get whatever they want from him. The political and financial gain of an Obama presidency holds endless possibilities for them.

I was discussing this recently with J.C. and agree with him that this is a classic case of the "cult of personality". There is nothing behind what he speaks. No worries. His followers hear nothing anyway. The sound of their almost orgasmic cheers for a man they have built in their own minds deafens them to to the screams of truth and common sense. It enrages me that there are so many out there who are so completely inept that they will flock in droves to the voting booths to cast a vote that could possibly harm this country. What amazes me is that they will take pride in it. Mr. Obama started out thinking that this campaign was a good idea. He is now in way over his head and it turns my stomach to know that he would rather go forward believing his own fairy tale instead of owning up to it and trying to create some type of substance to his platform. It is a sickening and dark time in this country. We are not the laughing stock of the world because of President Bush and the decisions he made. We are the laughing stock because this country has become chock full of complete morons. We are becoming a modern day Moronika.

Now that that is out of my system, I expect plenty of backlash. However, I stand by my words and I assert that there is not one individual on God's green earth who can make a plausible case for Obama as president of the United States based on his merits and his record. Not one. That is not a challenge. It is an irrefutable fact. Shelfers, vote your conscience but for heaven's sake don't drink the kool-ade!







Feel free to comment if the need strikes you.



Moronika for Morons!

everything old is stupid again

I know Laura (and her daughter) has mentioned this before at her Musings site (she's gone fishing- so I'm trying to do my insignificant part), but I can't help but be irritated at the stupidity of this article from MSNBC about a year long moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area in South Los Angeles.
The reason for the ban? Basically, according to city council, in this "impoverished" area of L.A., there are too many fast food places. "Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said." Translation: the City Council thinks the poor in L.A. can't find a grocery store and can't cook. I find the whole attitude fairly racist and buying into stereotypes if you ask me. Apparently the City Council, and by extension the Mayor, feel that the residents of South Los Angeles are too stupid to figure out how to feed their family.

The article states:
"Councilwoman Jan Perry, who proposed the measure and represents much of South Los Angeles in her 9th District, says that's no accident. South LA residents lack healthy food options, including grocery stores, fresh produce markets — and full-service restaurants with wait staff and food prepared to order."
Can the economics of the area support more than regular grocery stories and fast food restaurants? How do they know that full service restaurants offer nothing but healthy food? Most places service "kid friendly" meals with hamburgers and fries at regular sit down restaurants- so does that mean the City Council will then proceed to dictate what can be on the menu when this latest hair-brained scheme doesn't work? I don't see fancy sit-downs sprouting all over the place anytime soon, and I don't see the residents patronizing expensive places in such an "impoverished area".
And how does the City Council of L.A. define a fast food restaurant? Are they only targeting national and regional chains? Or will they extend it to local mom and pop hamburger stands? There are plenty of those, hot dog stands and taco trucks all around. Anybody who has seen Diners, Drive-In's and Dives (love that show) has seen big old hamburgers at these Mom and Pop joints that make your head spin. In a good way. So how do you control local places? Do they intend to prevent free enterprise there as well?

According to the article, "If the moratorium is passed, Perry wants to lure restaurateurs and grocery retailers to area....A report by the Community Health Councils found 73 percent of South L.A. restaurants were fast food, compared to 42 percent in West Los Angeles." How do they exactly propose to do that in a heavily taxed state, with increased government controls and restrictions - especially in the food service and grocery industry, and in area that cannot necessarily support them? Is West L.A. more financially able to support other restaurants? The fact is, if a business or chain could be in business, and be economically viable and make profits in the area, there would be more. The whole idea of wanting business to come in, that depend on making a profit, by suppressing another (and similar) type of business - should really send up warning flags to anyone trying to make a living. It is, basically, an anti-capitalist measure, which I'm sure doesn't bother them a bit.

There have been several studies demonstrating that poorer families choose less expensive food items at grocery stores, including less expensive, fattier meats. It doesn't have anything to do with choosing it because they don't have other options- it's because they may think that may be the only option within their budget. There are other ways, other types of protein and meats that have been suggested in these studies, that fit the same budget profile, that allow families to include healthier options in their diet. These studies also suggest that families can by fresh produce etc, at discount chain grocery stores, than smaller or specialty health food stores, which tend to be more expensive. Walmart, anyone? If you can have a Walmart, or such place in the community, which better transportation access (bus stops, etc)- you might see some improvement. It's still a community resources and money issue. In other words, at the base of the problem, it's an economic issue, not always an availability issue. What the City Council should be looking at is ways to address the economics, tax problems and financial problems of the area, and freeing the area to more market activity. Create more opportunity by decreasing the government footprint, as it were.
However- when socialists and others of the same mindset in the past have seen a problem with society, they've tackled it from an angle of government intrusion and take over - which, by the way, is what the Constitution was originally designed to prevent. This is but another attempt, in a succession of many, to try government dictates again to tackle a problem. Case in point- the recent Ethanol fiasco which created so many more problems, including increased food prices!

Since the problem is not only economics, but education in the sense of families learning how do things like cooking healthier, learning creative ways to budget etc., the solution isn't to clamp down on capitalism and free enterprise, which is exactly what the City Council is doing. Make no mistake- they may dress it up as an approach to solving obesity, but at the root of the situation is government intrusion: You are too stupid to live and take care of yourself the way we think you ought to, therefore we are going to tell you what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
And guess what- there are those who would rather the government do it for them. It's way easier! Case in point: (again from the article) "Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more. 'They should have better things for children,' she said. 'This fast-food really fattens them up.' " How about stop giving your kids fast food for dinner, lady?

I am not a french fry person. I'd rather have a baked potato or have 'em mashed. But that's just me. It really has nothing to do with health, although it should. The thing is, my family can't afford to eat out at fast food places all the time- and my wife and I both work. We have three growing boys, and our time and budget is just as stretched thin as anyone else's. We've found it's cheaper to shop, cook, prepare, freeze or bake as much as we can- and that means leftovers get eaten. That's just how it is, and I imagine how it is for millions of families across the US. Do we eat as healthy as we should? No, not as much as we can- but we are trying harder. We are trying to be better at what we buy at the store and how to fix it. And if the kids ask for chips or candy- we sometimes say yes, but mostly we say no. It's supposed to be a treat- not a way of life. And if a government body came in and said- "Sorry, we're taking over and telling you what and where to eat"- not only would I be insulted and offended, I'd tell them to stuff it. While the author of the article mentioned only one resident in favor of the ban, aren't you the least bit curious as to why that is? Could it be they found more people oppossed it? So what is the solution? Helping families by tackling economic burdens (especially those created by the government?) or just telling McDonald's "Sorry- you can't come in here" ? Is attacking "Big Fast Food" just like attacking "Big Oil", "Big Business" etc - a convenient straw man that allows the government to obfuscate the problems they are creating or can't solve themselves? How about other ideas- grocery store start-up incentives, tax incentives, etc- or is that just too capitalist for the L.A. City Council?

More here, here, here and here.
What do you think? Please feel free to comment and sound off.



Everything you see I owe to spaghetti.