Jwill's Log

Source: Wall Street Journal
Read Article

Despite its health-crazy reputation, parts of Los Angeles are plagued by obesity rates that rival any city in America. Now, the city may join a growing roster of local governments aiming to put their residents on diets by cracking down on the fast-food industry.

L.A. city council member Jan Perry is leading legislation that will effectively ban fast food restaurants from setting up shop in a 32 square mile area of the city, claiming that the 400 fast food restaurants already in place contribute to high obesity rates in the area. Sarah McBride, the writer of the article, states that “While some cities have bans on new fast-food establishments, they typically are for aesthetic reasons or to protect local businesses.” This instance is different, however, as it is being done with the intent to lower obesity rates and to provide healthier eating options for the people in this area of Los Angeles.

This is a more drastic case of banning certain ingredients for cooking, such as trans fats. I support the trans fat ban because it only prohibits restaurants from using a certain ingredient. But a ban to prevent restaurants for even setting shop, just because the people in the city are overweight? I believe this is too much regulation and that this goes too far. Restaurants such as McDonald’s and Wendy’s should not be blamed for the obesity epidemic; rather, the blame goes on us for our choices. These foods are supposed to be eaten in moderation. This legislation limits freedom of choice and capitalism, the force that drives the United States. Rather than regulate who gets what spot, the government should encourage healthier food providers to create stores in their area, possibly with incentives. Nothing’s forcing residents to go to a fast food restaurant, and we shouldn’t put in laws that put these restaurants at fault just because they exist. If people avoided these stores more, they would be forced to close down and something else would take their place, all without the need of regulation, but with the power of capitalism.

Source: Boston Metro (printed 7/17/08)
Read Article

In the Boston Metro on July 17th, there was an article by Mark Puleo titled “Media Reaction Could Derail Education Plan”. A synopsis:

When Governor Deval Patrick recently unveiled his new Education Action Agenda, media did not focus on the new achievement standards for students contained within the 44-page report, but rather on the 44 words supporting in-state tuition rates for undocumented immigrants. Illegal immigrants make for splashy headlines, but reorganizing public education in Massachusetts apparently is a yawn.

Puleo goes on to state that such a decree supporting in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants is already in the books in Texas, Kansas, and Arkansas. Clearly, Puleo does not approve of the media paying so much attention to the illegal immigrant section as compared to the rest of the plan which could do quite a bit for Massachusetts. Puelo also states:

…[S]ince the immigration debate has become so frenzied, change appears near impossible with an uncooperative legislature and a local media intent on hysteria. Worse, the mere mention of the issue has aroused passions could derail the entire package.

I agree with Puleo on this, and will also continue on to state that undocumented immigrants should be granted in-state tuition rates. A ruling like this would mostly apply to the children of these illegal immigrants, “many of whom were brought here when they were toddlers,” according to Puleo. Why should we penalize the children of illegal immigrants by forcing them to pay more for their education? What makes the inherent innocence of a child of an illegal immigrant any different than the inherent innocence of a child of rape or a child out of wedlock? I think they deserve to pay normal fees as they intend to go to college and learn in order to gain an education so they can contribute back to our community. We need not be so scared of illegal immigrants and their children: they’re usually here to make a difference for their families, not to cause trouble to us. The media need not make a big fuss about it, and they need to let it through the legislature without quibbling about a little 44 word section in a 44 page report. What about all the other text in the proposal?

Source: Boston Metro

Ever since Barack Obama offered his Father’s Day chastisement of African-American fathers, there has a been a renewed public conversation about the current child support system. While some have argued that it is flawed, others have simply called for more black male responsibility. A little bit of both is in order.

A good read. Check it out.

Source: Boston Metro
Read Article

As said in this excellent article by Thomas Keown that I spotted in the Boston Metro on Thursday:

What makes it so strange is that we already know so much about other people. And that we want them to know so much about us. Almost everything in fact. Yet when it comes to questions of money, we clam up and shut down.

Keown goes on to talk about how people post pictures on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace that very well show aspects of a person that may be private. People don’t want to talk about money, though, seemingly. Why is that? I agree with his questioning of our priorities and that it is “backwards” that you can have sex with someone, performing the “most intimate physical encounter possible between two human beings…[and] unit[ing]…bod[ies]” and somehow come off as out of line about asking how much money that person makes.

A must-read, in my opinion.

I’ve decided that it would be a good idea for me to place my poems on a new site called “Lavo’s Poetry Vault”. I’ll try to post poems there on a weekly basis, with the first poem after the introduction being posted on Friday. I’m hoping a dedicated poem blog will allow me to better organize my poetry.

Go take a look!