Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 7:38:48 GMT -5
All that sounds easy enough. I've got Safeways, Harris Teeters, Whole Foodseses, Giants and everything else within a couple miles of me (not to mention farmers markets, etc.) As of last summer, there wasn't a single traditional grocery store within the city limits of Detroit (Population: Approx 1 million). You can educate all you want about the benefits of healthy eating and the dangers of sodium in processed food, but people eat what they have access to (and can afford). Yes, lets use Detroit as a typical example of an American city. meh. Yeah - it's not "Real America", so let's not acknowledge its issues. I'm not saying that it's in any way typical, nor am I advocating a government-run chain of grocery stores (jgalt). I'm just pointing out that some of the solutions offered here (like assuming that educating people will work, or going to an adjacent suburb to find a well-stocked grocery store) aren't nearly as practical as people assume they are for many Americans. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to my breakfast of fresh berries and oatmeal from Whole Foods.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 22, 2010 10:14:28 GMT -5
There are benefits of making more money and moving up in society. Better nutrition is one of these. That is just a fact of life in a capitalist society.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 22, 2010 10:28:46 GMT -5
Yes, lets use Detroit as a typical example of an American city. meh. Yeah - it's not "Real America", so let's not acknowledge its issues. Way to completely ignore my point. I'm not saying Detroit isn't "real America" (whatever the hell that means) or that it doesn't have issues. In fact, I'm saying Detroit has a lot of issues that aren't representative of most other urban areas. - happy?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Apr 22, 2010 10:31:54 GMT -5
The argument is always the same though. Everything affects everyone else. That's called "life." That does not mean the government should regulate it at a micro-level, otherwise it's an excuse for regulating everything.
We could outlaw divorce, mandate marriage, outlaw salt, mandate exercise, outlaw smoking, mandate yoga, outlaw sun tanning, mandate sunscreen...there's not a state red or blue that wouldn't look at this list and say "No, you can't have my (thing I like that's bad for me) why not take (that thing someone else does that's bad for them) away!"
That said, if I had any faith the government could execute on it the market fails with fresh food in poor areas and there's a substantial public benefit. Of course, the government already could make a difference with school lunches and as mentioned in this thread, that's been stellar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 15:31:11 GMT -5
Wow - I guess I struck a nerve. Jeez...
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 22, 2010 18:02:28 GMT -5
As long as we're on the subject of government overreach and nanny states, allow me to say...... WTF, EUROPE!!!!!!!Sweet Jebus. I am at a loss for words.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 22, 2010 18:25:53 GMT -5
As long as we're on the subject of government overreach and nanny states, allow me to say...... WTF, EUROPE!!!!!!!Sweet Jebus. I am at a loss for words. So wait...our gov't decides to overreach, and they take away flavor from our food. Europeans' gov't overreaches and they give everyone free vacations. Clearly, somebody is doing their gov't overreach wrong.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 24, 2010 13:02:16 GMT -5
In actual fascism, Arizona is now East Germany for brown people. This, of course, is nowhere near the affront to freedom that the FDA's position on salt is.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 24, 2010 13:25:02 GMT -5
If the Federal government would do what it is supposed to do which is to enforce its laws then the over-the-top reaction in Arizona would not have come about. If you were living on the border and you had your home and property repeatedly vandalized, as some have had, wouldn't you be interested in doing something about it? What they ultimately passed and signed into law will be overturned in court because obviously it allows the police to stop someone because they merely suspect they might be illegals. But the problem remains that people are illegally coming across the border and the federal government is doing nothing about it. And this is not new to the Obama administration as the Bush administration was no better. By the way a Rasmussen poll says 70% of Arizona citizens support the new law and that's a reflection of immense dissatisfaction with the federal government on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 24, 2010 20:32:21 GMT -5
In actual fascism, Arizona is now East Germany for brown people. This, of course, is nowhere near the affront to freedom that the FDA's position on salt is. Says the man living thousands of miles from the U.S. Mexico border... Take a look at this article from last week's New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/us/19mesa.html?pagewanted=1Communities such as this one are present all over the southwestern United States. See: www.sos.state.tx.us/border/colonias/faqs.shtml And a lot of people feel the same way as the county commissioner quoted in the article: “In a nutshell, it’s an illegal community. But I think that on a humanitarian level we have an obligation to help.” The problem with this attitude is that states and local communities end up footing the bill for illegal communities mainly comprised of illegal immigrants. Tom Tancredo (whose state does not border Mexico, by the way) and the other zealots make the national news, which I suppose makes this a simple question of "fascists vs non-fascists" in your mind. However, most residents of border states favor a pragmatic approach that will allow legal immigration/residency and stop the financial bleeding. (Bush's guest worker program would have worked fine, IMO.) States don't have the resources or money (particularly in the Great Recession) to secure the border, no matter how many wasteful policies Rick Perry puts out there. www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/apr/20/texas-border-cameras-153k-arrest/Washington, by and large, isn't helping. When there's no federal help for a serious problem, citizens will act on their own. If you don't like this bill, call YOUR elected representatives in D.C. and ask for a comprehensive immigration reform bill. While I think the Arizona bill will create more problems than it will solve, it's a result of border citizens being fed up, and Washington's inability to pass meaningful immigration reform (mainly because the most popular solution is "build a fence").
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 25, 2010 2:40:34 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but a pragmatic solution is not asking every brown person you see for their papers. The conservative (with many exceptions, GWB included) approach to immigration seems to match the bipartisan approach to the drug war: complete war. This approach to drugs, which is obviously working awesomely, is not the best model. There needs to be some demand-side action, in other words.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Apr 25, 2010 9:40:07 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be more effective to just go door to door and check everyone in the town's papers. I feel like you'd be more likely to find everyone that way. Use all those census people that are going to go door to door to people who didn't fill out their census.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 25, 2010 11:04:40 GMT -5
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 25, 2010 14:28:36 GMT -5
The problem is not that they are trying to mandate what you can buy with food stamps its that they are giving out food stamps in the first place
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2010 14:43:00 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but a pragmatic solution is not asking every brown person you see for their papers. The conservative (with many exceptions, GWB included) approach to immigration seems to match the bipartisan approach to the drug war: complete war. This approach to drugs, which is obviously working awesomely, is not the best model. There needs to be some demand-side action, in other words. I agree with your points in this post, but I disagree that this law allows local law enforcement to "ask every brown person they see for their papers." Here's a link to the statute: www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdfThe relevant portion states: "WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." This brings us to the question: what's "reasonable suspicion?" The media would have you believe that an increased level of melanin leads to reasonable suspicion. However, courts have long held that reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts. "This person is Hispanic" or "this person is speaking Spanish" does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion necessary to determine immigration status. Will a handful of peace officers take this as an excuse to overreach and engage in racial profiling? Probably (some are undoubtedly doing so already). Does the law allow it? No. Fearmongering WRT illegal immigration issues is usually done by Republicans. The Democrats' stance looks strangely Dixiecrat-ish on this issue. Arguing that law enforcement is going to round up all members of the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States is racially-inspired fearmongering. The left's stance appears to be less about policy and more about Hispanic votes in 2010 and 2012. While I don't like this law and think it will probably be counterproductive (as I said above), this type of law is what we should expect when Washington doesn't act on a serious regional (soon to become national) issue. Those who favor a pragmatic approach may see this law as overzealous, but you can bet they prefer this law to the inaction of Washington. Expect a similar bill coming out of Austin when the Texas legislature convenes next January. ON EDIT: To be clear, all states can do is police the border. Any pragmatic approach to immigration that has been proposed has to start with comprehensive reform in Washington, D.C. Since states can't make these reforms, expect them to ramp up policing.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 25, 2010 15:40:41 GMT -5
The problem is not that they are trying to mandate what you can buy with food stamps its that they are giving out food stamps in the first place Mandating is an issue. But in one sense, I agree with you. When viewed through the lens of economic theory, the government should just give money.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 25, 2010 16:54:07 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but a pragmatic solution is not asking every brown person you see for their papers. The conservative (with many exceptions, GWB included) approach to immigration seems to match the bipartisan approach to the drug war: complete war. This approach to drugs, which is obviously working awesomely, is not the best model. There needs to be some demand-side action, in other words. I agree with your points in this post, but I disagree that this law allows local law enforcement to "ask every brown person they see for their papers." Here's a link to the statute: www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdfThe relevant portion states: "WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." This brings us to the question: what's "reasonable suspicion?" The media would have you believe that an increased level of melanin leads to reasonable suspicion. However, courts have long held that reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts. "This person is Hispanic" or "this person is speaking Spanish" does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion necessary to determine immigration status. Will a handful of peace officers take this as an excuse to overreach and engage in racial profiling? Probably (some are undoubtedly doing so already). Does the law allow it? No. Fearmongering WRT illegal immigration issues is usually done by Republicans. The Democrats' stance looks strangely Dixiecrat-ish on this issue. Arguing that law enforcement is going to round up all members of the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States is racially-inspired fearmongering. The left's stance appears to be less about policy and more about Hispanic votes in 2010 and 2012. While I don't like this law and think it will probably be counterproductive (as I said above), this type of law is what we should expect when Washington doesn't act on a serious regional (soon to become national) issue. Those who favor a pragmatic approach may see this law as overzealous, but you can bet they prefer this law to the inaction of Washington. Expect a similar bill coming out of Austin when the Texas legislature convenes next January. ON EDIT: To be clear, all states can do is police the border. Any pragmatic approach to immigration that has been proposed has to start with comprehensive reform in Washington, D.C. Since states can't make these reforms, expect them to ramp up policing. Arizona is home to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Let's just say I have a lot less faith in Arizona police departments' ability to follow the law than you do.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 25, 2010 17:19:04 GMT -5
The recent birther legislation also suggests that they have difficulty ascertaining who is a citizen (or they want a return to the heady days of Dred Scott). Interesting that none of the legislators have required the Governor to tender her birth certificate.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2010 22:39:05 GMT -5
Arizona is home to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Let's just say I have a lot less faith in Arizona police departments' ability to follow the law than you do. Do we really want to play this game whilst Marion Berry sits on the D.C. City Council?
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Apr 26, 2010 10:58:00 GMT -5
I think there is a huge difference between seat belt laws and cell phone laws for drivers. I don't see the risk to public safety (other than your own) in not wearing a seat belt. I disagree. A person not wearing a seatbelt in an accident is more likely to become a projectile, potentially hurtling hundreds of feet and denting my ride. And while this situation is probably a no-fault accident in my insurer's eyes, too many trips to the body shop to fix dents from human projectiles could cause them to drop me from the policy.
|
|