Columbia Journalism Review might complain about the use of the term "food apartheid," but I'm more interested in the story itself: A councilwoman from South Central Los Angeles is trying to get fast food restaurants banned from the community, citing higher rates of obesity and health problems due to the absence of other dining options. This is the kind of stuff I like to see. While the term "food apartheid" might be a bit much, people who live in economically depressed neighborhoods have far fewer choices, and less healthy choices, when it comes to their diets.

I live across the street from a housing project, and every night I see young families buying their "dinners" at a crappy convenience store, dinners that generally consist of sugar-flavored water, potato chips, candy, and frozen, processed food. The market does sell some produce, but none of it looks that good. The closest grocery store is an overpriced food co-op that I often can't even afford to shop in, and I'm not trying to feed small children on a super limited budget. The restaurants in the neighborhood are mostly pubs, sub shops, or high priced bistros. There is a very clear demarcation in my neighborhood between the people who have money and can afford to eat well, and those who don't, and therefore, can't.

I am all for using the power of the government to get better, healthier food into neighborhoods that need it. Frankly, when a company like McDonald's claims its free speech rights are being violated when it's pushed out of a neighborhood, I feel more nauseous than I would if I had eaten one of their crap burgers. We've let corporations have free reign far too long, and it's been proven that they aren't doing us any favors. I'm fully behind a community telling them to get the hell out, even if they do use overblown rhetoric to do so.

Here we are, deep in the throes of another election season. And you know, politics still frustrates and sickens me. And at this point it is the media even more than the politicians throwing me into fits of apoplexy. I mean, sure, politicians say ridiculous, calculated, un-nuanced things and I get very upset with them. But journalists are supposed to uncover this ridiculousness, reveal the truth behind it. They are NOT supposed to simply report on the asinine things politicians say as though they are true.

Frankly, Columbia Journalism Review does a far better job than I uncovering the stupidity of the media. I would just end up saying the same things over and over: "You idiotic assholes!"

Sigh. Is there any hope that this will get better? Not as long as people like the fine citizens of Findlay, Ohio still believe every stupid ass rumor that gets spread around and not properly contradicted by journalists who are falling down on the job.

Double sigh.

I just read this article on how people in Cuba use technology to get around the bans on internet connectivity put in place by the government ("Cyber-Rebels in Cuba Defy State's Limits," in NYTimes). While I do think the writer is a little bit leading ("cyber-rebels?") in his language and whatnot, it's an interesting glimpse at how information technologies evade containment, and at the ways people will use whatever they can to communicate and share information. It's an open information world (or at least, it's headed in that direction) which will force closed and controlling governments (including, in some ways, our own) to react, and hopefully change.

And oh, I thought this was pretty funny, in my anti-capitalist way: Some students forced a government official into an impromptu press conference, demanding to know the reasons for some of the restrictions placed on them. His answer regarding travel limitations set on Cuban citizens: He "suggested that if everyone who wished to were allowed to travel, there would not be enough airspace for the planes." Heehee. Well, we take care of that here in the capitalist world by ensuring that not everyone who wishes to travel can afford it! Problem taken care of, plenty of airspace for the planes.