By Debbie Schlussel
I’ve already said most of what I had to say about the blatant propaganda film, “Rendition,” which debuts in theaters, today, so I’m reposting my previous post on this movie, below, to remind you, along with these other points I did not yet make about this “Traffic” for Terrorists movie starring newly-minted dhimmi Reese Witherspoon:
Left-wing Jake Gyllenhaal’s CIA Agent character tells us, tells his senior CIA bosses:

If you torture one person, you create ten, a hundred, a thousand new enemies.

That’s the message of this movie, which is starkly one-sided and high-quality propaganda against torturing of Islamic terrorist who want to eliminate us off the face of the planet.

Artwork by David Lunde/Lundesigns
It’s one of the claims of the left in its attempt to stop us from finding out information that could save Americans’ lives and has in the past. Our torture, our surveillance, or get-tough efforts that we’ve used far too little of is what saves American lives, not left-wing movies that tell us the same message Bin Laden wants us to hear– ie., that we are evil, torturous barbarians and that if we torture, we won’t get the real info on their plans. Actually, past practice has proven otherwise. It has proven some terrorists do talk, many do talk. And it has proven that if you torture one person, you save ten, a hundred, a thousand lives.
But Bin Laden and the Qaedans want us to think otherwise (just as the makers of this movie want you to think otherwise), so that their warriors have it easy. Other than that, the movie is boring, slow-going, and uses confusing timeline-jumping, flashback tricks without telling the viewer.
Here’s the rest on this extremely skipworthy movie:
Alhamdillullah [Praise Allah], Reese Witherspoon Joins the Jihad
By Debbie Schlussel (September 26, 2007)
Yesterday, I screened the upcoming propaganda release, “Rendition,” which has a didactic message against torturing of “alleged” Muslim terrorists.
Like I’ve said about so many other of these propaganda films coming out of Hollywood these days, this one, too, is high quality Bin Laden cinema. Wouldn’t be surprised if the writer, producers, and director are all card-carrying members of the ACLU Politburo. It stars Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal (whose homely sister, Maggie Gyllenhaal, said America deserved 9/11), his “brother-in-law” (not sure what you actually call the person who fathered a kid out of wedlock with your sister, other than “scumbag”) Peter Sarsgaard (he’s the same guy who defamed Federal Air Marshals as terrorists in “Flight Plan”), Meryl Streep, and Alan Arkin.

Gone is the cute Reese Witherspoon of “Legally Blonde” days. She’s no longer the strong but feminine woman of “Sweet Home Alabama” and other films. Now, she’s a dhimmi (the status of a non-Muslim in a Muslim society)–the blonde apologist for Islamic extremists and Noam Chomsky types by lending her name and acting to this propaganda-fest. Shame on her. I thought the “Rendition” movie name and poster were not accurate. I liked my ideas far better and asked David Lunde make these two above (can’t decide which one is more accurate). Of course, since they (Muslims) hate dogs, maybe we should have shown a beheaded Chihuahua.
The gist of the movie is that an innocent Egyptian Muslim living in America is wrongly accused of being a terrorist, kidnapped by the CIA, and tortured (waterboarded, beaten, electrocuted). The Egyptian is married to Reese Witherspoon in the movie.
And she tells all who will listen that her Egyptian Muslim husband (who still is not a U.S. citizen after 20 years here) could not possibly be a terrorist because “he coaches [his son’s] soccer team, has a green card, pays his taxes.” Because terrorists would never do that, right? I’m sure all those HAMAS soccer teams in Gaza are associate with HAMAS the peace group, instead of HAMAS the terrorist group.
Terrorists love this kind of movie because it makes their job easier. It softens the Oprah-cized American public and makes them scowl at torture of what are almost always real terrorists who want to kill us. Of course, in this movie, there is no not-so-innocent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. As we know, he is not an innocent Muslim living in America. He was Al-Qaeda’s top director of terrorist planning and operations for Bin Laden who was tortured by waterboarding and other means, and because of it, we learned of terrorist plots and plans that were stopped.
The real “Rendition” movie poster, below, reads: “What If Someone You Love . . . Just Disappeared?” But it should really say: “What If Someone You Love . . . Was Just Murdered by An Islamic Terrorist Who Didn’t Disappear?”
But you won’t see that in this movie, which debuts October 19th. It’s a little too close to Halloween then to tell the real story. So instead they bring you costumes and costumed reality about innocent Muslims tortured for nothing.
We know the real story. It’s a shame Hollywood won’t tell it.

By Debbie Schlussel
In this day and age when so many billionaires and multi-millionaires we hear from are trying to take America down (George Soros), or make it harder for those who are not wealthy (Warren Buffett denouncing income tax cuts and decreases in the estate tax), or engage in racist policies (Bill Gates giving foundation scholarships to Blacks and minorities only), Jerome Kohlberg is a breath of fresh air . . . and dollars.
Washington Wire reports that he’s giving millions to help our troops get educated, in a sort of private G.I. Bill:

Onetime KKR executive Jerome Kohlberg gives $4 million to increase education benefits for former Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers, while lobbying Congress to offer its own funding. Arguing the value of such benefits has eroded since the GI bill financed his post-World War II education, Kohlberg says Congress must “get the idea that this is an investment.”

Jerome Kohlberg Gives $4 Million to Educate U.S. Iraq/Aghani War Veterans
The G.I Bill was a good thing in its day, allowing veterans to attend college and grad school who otherwise might not have. But as for a new G.I. Bill, whether or not you believe more tax money financing this is a good idea (and it may not be), at least Kohlberg is putting his money where his mouth is. On the other hand, there are plenty of multi-millionaires like Bono, who ask U.S. taxpayers to give millions in increased taxes to African, terror-base debtors, while he gives nothing or next to nothing and doesn’t pay Irish taxes.
Three cheers for Jerome Kohlberg. Unlike many in his position, he’s no hypocrite.

By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE, 10/24/07: HOprah Knew of Jessica Seinfeld’s Plagiarism; Compare & Contrast: Jerry Seinfeld Attacked Plagiarism of Girlfriend on Sitcom, But Defends Wife For It ****
When Jerry Seinfeld was in town a couple of weeks ago to promote his new “Bee Movie” (will write about the interview later), I asked him about his wife Jessica Seinfeld’s new book, which contains recipes and methods in which to sneak nutritious vegetable and fruit purees into foods kids like. It was before Ms. Seinfeld appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” and the book predictably hit–and topped–the New York Times Bestseller list, where it is now #1 in the advice category (it’s also #1 overall on Amazon).
But today’s Wall Street Journal raises questions as to whether the book, “Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Food,” was an act of plagiarism:

Is Jessica Seinfeld a Plagiarist?

With the unexpected success has come some unexpected controversy. The book’s popularity has prompted the author of another children’s nutrition book to note similarities between the two titles, even as sales of her book are being lifted by Ms. Seinfeld’s fame. . . .
One writer specifically cited, “The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids’ Favorite Meals,” by Missy Chase Lapine, published in April by the Running Press, an imprint owned by Perseus Books, LLC, an independent publisher.
The books by Ms. Seinfeld and Ms. Lapine feature similar recipes for macaroni and cheese that have vegetable purees mixed in. Both books also have recipes for chocolate pudding with pureed avocado. However, while the concepts are similar, the recipes differ in their specifics.
“Our author is concerned that there are many significant similarities between ‘The Sneaky Chef,’ and the Seinfeld book,” says David Steinberger, chief executive of Perseus, in an email. “We agree that the books appear to be very similar in many ways. But we don’t know enough about how this happened to accuse anyone of wrongdoing. We have a bestseller in ‘The Sneaky Chef.’ We feel it is a terrific book and right now we are focused on selling more copies of it.”
In a telephone interview, Ms. Seinfeld, a mother of three, said that “I’ve never held that book in my hands, and I swear that on my life. When I was told there was a book of a similar type, I told myself I would never go near it. And there is no way I borrowed anything. Why would I spend my time doing that? I never claimed to have invented pureeing: Many grandmothers would say it is something they’ve always done. I created something that I thought would help other families.”
[Steve] Ross [President] of HarperCollins [Seinfeld’s publisher] says there are similarities among all books that treat sneaking nutritious elements into children’s food, of which he said there is “practically a library.” . . .
In her introduction, Ms. Seinfeld explains how she came up with her book: “Then, one evening while I was cooking dinner, pureeing butternut squash for the baby and making mac and cheese for the rest of us, I had the crazy idea of stirring a little of the puree into the macaroni. And so I did.” . . .
Ms. Lapine originally submitted her proposal to Collins, says Mr. Ross. But it was rejected on May 23, 2006, because it was deemed too similar to another book, “Lunch Lessons: Changing the Way We Feed our Children,” that Collins eventually published, Mr. Ross says.
Less than two weeks later, on June 9, an agent submitted a proposal for Ms. Seinfeld’s book. A different Collins editor decided to set up a meeting because of the author’s celebrity status, and the editor thought it was an interesting subject, says Mr. Ross. . . . As a result, Collins bought the book. . . .
Ms. Lapine’s book will be No. 9 on the New York Times paperback advice list for Oct. 28.

The article is not about the plagiarism aspect, but more about how the book is selling millions and they can’t keep it on the shelves since the Oprah appearance. That’s a big reason, I’d sure, in why this publisher–owned by Rupert Murdoch–is denying that there’s a rip-off in play here.
Hmmm . . . Sounds very suspicious to me. Remember, this is the same woman–Jessica Seinfeld–who dumped her new husband Eric Nederlander just after their three-week honeymoon because she met a man with much deeper pockets, Jerry Seinfeld.
So, is Jessica Seinfeld a plagiarist? Will Oprah get to the bottom of it on her show, the same way she play-acted feigned anger and indignance at author James Frey, another fraud whom she turned into a best-selling author?
Don’t bet on it. She features Jerry Seinfeld in the November issue of her “O” Magazine. And she has a prominent role as a judge in his animated “Bee Movie.” And HOprah doesn’t go to the bathroom where she eats.
**** UPDATE: Looks like there are even more “similarities” between Mrs. Seinfeld’s book and the one that preceded it, according to the New York Daily News’ Rush & Molloy. Double Hmmm . . .

Lapine baked her spinach brownies with Al Roker on the “Today” show; Seinfeld shared her spinach brownies with Oprah on that show last week.

**** UPDATE #2: The evidence is mounting that Jessica Seinfeld’s book is a rip-off. Per reader Barry Popik, the New York Times has even more, and Jerry Seinfeld is now defending his wife (triple hmmm . . .):

Mr. Seinfeld, who joined his wife on the phone, said, “Let’s be realistic – my wife isn’t in this for the money or the publicity.” He added, “I really don’t think we have another Watergate here.”
The basic concepts for several of Ms. Lapine’s recipes – spinach in brownies, avocado in chocolate pudding and sweet potato in grilled cheese sandwiches – also appear in recipes offered by Ms. Seinfeld.
Ms. Lapine, a mother of two daughters who lives in Irvington, N.Y., said that when she compared her book with Ms. Seinfeld’s, she was “uncomfortable” seeing that “those unusual combinations that I thought would brand me as a lunatic showed up here, too.” . . .
Ms. Lapine’s publisher contacted HarperCollins this summer after an early brochure for “Deceptively Delicious” showed an illustration of a woman holding carrots behind her back, similar to a drawing on the cover of “The Sneaky Chef.” Collins changed its plans for the cover, although, Mr. Ross said, that could have been because “it just looked too awkward to have her holding a plate of brownies with one hand and carrots” in the other.

Riiiight.

By Debbie Schlussel
As I’ve been saying for a few years, we were safer BEFORE 9/11 than we are now, AFTER it. Now, there’s even more proof behind my statements.
I was away yesterday, flying to a major city to do a TV show. And wouldn’t you know, while I was removing my boots, jacket, sunglasses, and confining my liquid toiletries to a quart bag of 3-oz. containers all for the folks at the Transportation “Security” Administration (TSA), bombs were getting passed TSA screeners at Los Angeles’ LAX Airport and Chicago O’Hare 75% and 60% of the time(!), respectively.
I’d say, “Attention, Terrorists . . . ” with this story. But the terrorists already know. It’s just you, the great American masses–upon whom the joke is–who are in the dark. We’re not safe. The TSA screenings are not just window-dressing. They’re comedy–A waste of time. TSA screeners are Bud Abbott. We’re Lou Costello. Who’s on First? Bombs on Second Plane.

Yup, while I can’t have a tube of toothpaste that’s 4 ounces or an extra tube of lipgloss in my purse, undercover agents got these things through 75% of the time, according to a January 2007 classified TSA report, which excellent USA Today TSA-beat reporter Thomas Frank obtained:

* Detonator and explosive hidden in briefcase lining;
* Inert explosives inside CD players;
* Fake dynamite and timer in toiletry kit;
* Phony plastic explosive and battery inside hollowed-out book; and
* Inert explosives and detonator in back support concealed clothing.

All of these things got through security 75% and 60% of the time. You got 10 terrorists trying this, 7.5 of them will succeed at LAX and 6 of them at Chicago O’Hare.
And USA Today’s Frank reports that, like I’ve said, security is getting worse, NOT better:

A report on covert tests in 2002 found screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies.
Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs, according to a separate report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

More details to make you cringe:

Security screeners at two of the nation’s busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.
Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.
At Chicago O’Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons ‚Äî including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco.

Yup, private companies always do best what government does worst.

The report looks only at those three airports, using them as case studies to understand how well the rest of the U.S. screening system is working to stop terrorists from carrying bombs through checkpoints.
The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago stunned security experts.
“That’s a huge cause for concern,” said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department’s former inspector general. Screeners’ inability to find bombs could encourage terrorists to try to bring them on airplanes, Ervin said, and points to the need for more screener training and more powerful checkpoint scanning machines.
Screeners who miss detonators, timers, batteries and blocks that resemble plastic explosives get remedial training[, says TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe].

Well, that’s great if you’re on the plane that just blew up. No biggie, the TSA guy/chick who didn’t prevent my death will now get remedial training.

The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago are “somewhat misleading” because they don’t reflect screeners’ improved ability to find bombs, Howe said.

“Misleading”? I think a 75% failure rate is quite blunt and frank. You don’t need to be Einstein to understand it.
It’s actually quite simple: Terrorists have free reign at our airports, while we’re stuck in long lines getting undressed, felt up, and forced to dump our unopened water bottles.
We’re hassled and degraded, while those who want us dead are not. The terrorists have won.

Muslim TSA Screener Inspects Nun @ Detroitistan Metro Airport
(Photo Shot by Traveler Dean Shaddock)

By Debbie Schlussel
How do you get one of America’s most unduly conceited, arrogant people to pay attention to you?
You name your ass, er . . . your horse’s ass, after her.
How quaint. And fitting.

But Which One is the Horse’s Ass?
(Islamofascist Oprah Artwork courtesy of Preston Taylor Holmes of Six Meat Buffet)

By Debbie Schlussel
I coined the phrase “Dearbornistan,” but the whole Detroit area is The Greater Empire of Metro Detroitistan (or Dhimmistan–take your pick).
The latest example of this is the tiny, tiny, tiny blurb the Detroit Newsistan “dedicated” to a major story:

Romulus: Screeners Shut Down Terminal
A toy hand grenade shut down part of the McNamara Terminal at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport for nearly an hour on Monday, officials said. The screening gate in the center of the terminal was closed about 2:15 p.m. when officers found a suspicious package sent through screening by an elderly woman. The terminal reopened just after 3 p.m

.

Real or Fake?: Can You Tell the Difference?
Gee, just after the FBI and TSA warned us (and airports) to be on the lookout for toys being used to hijack and/or blow-up planes.
Strangely, they don’t disclose the identity of the person carrying the toy grenade. Gee, I wonder why?
Maybe the “elderly woman”‘s name is Hamida. And why would an “elderly woman” be taking a toy grenade on a flight?
Where there’s smoke . . . .

By Debbie Schlussel
I can’t think of a single female comedian. Yes, there are plenty of women who call themselves “comediennes” or comedians or stand-up comics. But none of them are funny. Not a single one.
Rosie O’Donnell. Not funny. Fun to laugh at her, but, still, not funny. Ellen Degeneres. Gay and man-like, but not funny. Crying on national TV about giving up a dog in violation of a contract with a dog shelter. Definitely not funny. Loud, obnoxious New York Yenta Joy Behar on ABC’s “The View.” Sorry, no laughs. Just sad. Whoopie Goldberg? Even the stupid fake name ain’t funny. Name any well-known female comedienne. Not funny, not funny, not funny.

Churchill Was Funny; Julia Louis-Dreyfus Comes Close
The only one who even comes close, in my mind, is Julia Louis-Dreyfus. And that was only as Elaine on “Seinfeld.” And that was because her lines were written by . . . men. And on that show, she was basically one of the guys–their female alter ego. On “Saturday Night Live,” she was never funny, and on her new show on CBS, she’s not funny. Joan Rivers sometimes comes close to being funny. Or used to. But that’s about it.
That said, it’s not really a shocker that even the effeminate, girlie-manish Brits say that men are funny/witty, women not so. So says a survey by British Comedy TV Channel “Dave”, in which the top-10 list is exclusively male. The only woman that came close as a top wit was #12, Margaret Thatcher. Oscar Wilde was #1. One of my faves, Winston Churchill came in 5th and the article recounts one of his best lines:

Accused by a female MP of being drunk, the wartime premier is said to have replied: “Madam, you are ugly. But in the morning I will be sober.”

I also like the one, where he’s told by a woman at a party that if she were his wife she’d poison his drink. He responds, “If I were your husband, I would drink it.”
Here’s the one they cite from Thatcher–good, but not even close:

Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.

That’s not funny, so much as witty.
British feminists are up in arms, including writer Emily Dugan of The Independent who names her female top ten, none of whom are funny, and many of whom are dead. Jane Austen? HUH?! She’s not funny. A good writer, but she’s depressing. Or was. Virginia Woolf–funny? Hello . . .? Some Muslim chick named Shazia Mirza? These days, if you’re Muslim and call yourself a comedian, every PC-freak in the nation pretends you’re funny. But you’re not.
Bottom line: Women “comedian/ennes/whatever”–not funny. Just the way it is.
Who do you think is funny in America (living or dead)?

By Debbie Schlussel
I must throw out my liquid lip gloss (while having a hidden container of perfume elsewhere), because it might blow up a plane. But they can’t even keep the identities of commercial drivers with HazMat Hauling Certificates safe from terrorists who might exploit them.
Yup, that’s the good ole’ Transportation “Security” Administration for ya. Too scary for Halloween season:

Two laptop computers with detailed personal information about commercial drivers across the country who transport hazardous materials are missing and considered stolen.

The laptops belong to a contractor working for the Transportation Security Administration and contain the names, addresses, birthdays, commercial driver’s license numbers and, in some cases, Social Security numbers of 3,930 people, according to an Oct. 12 letter from TSA to lawmakers.
The contractor, Integrated Biometric Technology, told TSA that the personal information was deleted from the computers before they were stolen, the letter stated. But after the second laptop was stolen, TSA investigators discovered that a person with data recovery skills could recover the personal information that the contractor deleted. TSA spokesman Christopher White said none of the information on the computers has been misused.
News of the security breach came the day before TSA begins collecting similar personal information from employees with access to areas at the port of Wilmington, Del. The Transportation Worker Identification Credential program is set to launch in Wilmington on Tuesday. Eventually 750,000 employees across the country with access to port areas will be required to submit information for background checks.
“We’re outraged that on the eve of expanded worker screening for port workers, it appears that TSA and its contractors failed to protect the confidential information of other transportation workers who underwent similar background checks,” said Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO’s transportation trades department. But White said the TWIC program would be run through TSA computers and not the contractor’s.
Since the two laptops were stolen, TSA has instructed the contractor to fully encrypt hard drives. The TSA program, called the Hazardous Materials Endorsement Threat Assessment, collects information for security-clearance purposes for any driver who transports hazardous materials. These assessments were mandated in the Patriot Act. Integrated Biometric Technology will provide one year of free credit-monitoring services to the 3,930 people affected.

Earlier this year, TSA lost a computer hard drive with sensitive bank and payroll data for 100,000 employees. The hard drive contained historical payroll data, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, time and leave data, bank account and routing information, and details about financial allotments and deductions.
“It would be nice if the department in charge of homeland security would actually be able to secure the data on their own computers,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

Yeah, that would be nice. Gee, I wonder who stole the laptops. Just someone who wanted a free computer and happened to pick the two laptops with the info you’d need if you wanted to impersonate someone who has access to poison that could murder Americans? Um, that was part of the plot in Showtime’s excellent first season of “Sleeper Cell.” Quelle Coincidence. They (our enemies) ain’t stupid.
If the TSA can’t protect such sensitive data and two laptops, how can it be entrusted to protect millions of American travelers? Answer: It can’t.
(TSA Chief Kip) Hawley, You’re Doin’ a Heckuva Job.
Too Stupid for America. But, hey, they are really good at Islamic sensitivity training seminars . . . .

By Debbie Schlussel
I’m prohibited from reviewing “American Gangster,” until the day it debuts, a week from tomorrow. Still, while it’s based on the true story of Harlem drug kingpin/gangster Frank Lucas, I ask two questions:
1) Does Black America really need another movie that glorifies the gangster biz and the drug trade–a movie that shows the nice homes, the beautiful women, and other luxuries you get from pushing and pimping, including the power to kill a man on the street ‘cuz you da man–but shows none of the dark side?

Yes, Italians have their mob movies, and so do other ethnic groups. But none of these communities are in the dire straits in which Black America finds itself. And none of them have their hip-hoppers–their biggest, most idolized celebs–glamorizing drugs and the life of luxury: bling, cars, “hos and bitches” et al. Even Frank Sinatra–whose career was first established by the Mafia–didn’t glamorize the violence and life of crime he surely knew his enablers led. Today, in urban America, it’s a different story.
Some of the biggest Black celebrities star in this movie and not just Denzel Washington, who is aiding and abetting in spreading this corrupt message. USA Today has a whole article noting the prominent hip-hop figures in this film–rappers Common, T.I., and the Wu Tang Clan’s RZA. They’re glamorizing this life by being in this movie.
2) Were we in Vietnam to help thugs and gangsters transport heroin to America’s steets? Was that really a big part of our presence in Vietnam, then?
No and no. I think stopping the VietCong had something to do with it. But you’d hardly know that if you got your version of history from this movie. Sadly, that’s where a significant part of brain-defective America learns history, today.
Stay tuned for my complete review of “American Gangster,” November 2nd.
***
Bonus Question: Remember all the violence the Sean “Spicoli” Penn movie, “Colors,” inspired at showings of that movie? How much violence do you think “American Gangster” will inspire?
We may not see it in the theaters. But it will markedly add to the collective psyche of a community that hardly needs it, especially now.
This movie is scary, because it’s so well done and its message is so darn frightening.
Its working title was “The Return of Superfly.” Doesn’t that tell you something?

By Debbie Schlussel
NEAT ‘N’ NASTY. That’s what you get when you scramble the letters of “NANNY STATE.” Yes, sometimes anagrams create the truest definition of them all.
In the case of the Los Angeles City Council, The Nanny State is now The Statist Nanny City. But it’s still NEAT ‘N’ NASTY.
You see, the Council wants to stop any new fast food chains from opening in the city. They want to institute a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. until city planners can find ways to attract new healthy-fare restaurants.
That’s absurd. The market has decided. L.A. City Councilmembers South Los Angeles constituents have decided. And they want fast food.

Stop the Nanny Statists
They don’t want “healthy fare.” They want cheap, fast, and greasy. Despite the Morgan Spurlocks in their city government, Los Angelenos like to supersize it.
Councilmembers believe that a diet heavy on fast food is contributing to a rise in obesity in Los Angeles. Uh, no. People who can’t control their own impulses and are too lazy to go exercise their gluttony off is the reason for the rise in obesity. Shutting down restaurants and redlining areas of town to keep out fast food restaurants ain’t gonna solve that problem.
Aside from that, there’s the issue that fast food restaurants provide the best quantity of food at the lowest price, making it the most affordable nutrition for people in lower-income areas. What–you’re gonna send minimum-wage and welfare check consumers to Whole Foods a/k/a “Whole Paycheck” to buy organic Belgian Endive and bulghur wheat for dinner?!
For the record, I don’t eat at fast food restaurants. For the most part, they aren’t kosher. But I believe in the freedom of your right to choose where you eat, not my right to choose it for you. That’s the beauty of our country, where freedom and the marketplace are supposed to reign supreme. The marketplace decides what our choices are, not government nannies who intrude upon our lives and tell us how to live.
More:

The proposal would halt the issuance of city zoning permits to new fast-food restaurants in the neighborhoods for at least one year and up to two years.
Councilwoman Jan Perry, who represents one of two South L.A. districts, says she has not encountered significant opposition as her proposal goes before a council committee later this month. She says other cities will be watching.
“Other municipalities may want to emulate it if it leads to the inclusion of new . . . restaurants or grocery stores,” she says. [DS: G-d help us. Coming soon to your town.] . . .
“Dictating to other groups of people what they should eat or want to eat is about the most patronizing kind of activity I can imagine,” says Barry Glassner, professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, whose campus is located in South L.A. . . .
A study by the Los Angeles Times found that 45% of the 900 restaurants in South L.A. are fast-food chains or restaurants with minimal seating, compared with 16% of 2,200 restaurants in Los Angeles’ Westside. . . .
It should be no surprise fast food is popular, particularly in an area such as South L.A., says Kenneth Herbst, assistant professor at the Babcock Graduate School of Management at Wake Forest University and a specialist in food marketing.
“Many enjoy the taste fast-food offers, and taste is so important,” he says. “Fast foods often meet a price point with which many segments feel comfortable.” . . .
Takiia Rivers, 16, says she didn’t see what the fuss is about. “I don’t necessarily know that there are too many” fast-food restaurants, she said.
“No, it’s OK now,” said her friend, Mariela Sanchez, 17, carrying the last of her meal from Taco Bell. . . .
Just defining what constitutes fast food isn’t always clear. The proposal would exempt sit-down restaurants where servers take orders. And people’s idea of choice can differ, too.

Two years before a new fast food restaurant can open–because the City says so. Hello . . .? That’s Communism. It’s statism in its worst incarnation.
The only way you get healthier restaurants in town is if there is a market for it. And clearly there isn’t. You cannot legislate health and weight-loss
No-one needs the Los Angeles city council to play nanny. This is still a free country. Property owners should be able to sell or rent to whomever they want, greasy spoon or not.
Today, it’s about McDonald’s and Taco Hells. Tomorrow, it’s about conservative or Jews or Christians or doctors or some other equally arbitrary statist exclusion.
Time for NEAT ‘N’ NASTY–The NANNY STATE–to go bye-bye. Doesn’t Los Angeles have other more important problems . . . like crime, drugs, teenage pregnancies, etc.?
I guess they don’t have those probs in Los Angeles.