Harry, why, then, does the economy do better under Democratic presidents? In reality, not FOX News reality.

Keep voting for liberals poor people and you will always be poor. Guaranteed.

RUSerious, yes, we are in agreement. Unless by "purposeful" you've left the door open to the concept of the "food desert." That is, the claim that there's no food available to some poor people other than at, for example, a gas station and that relying on that food for sole sustenance is not "purposeful."

;)

ohhhh, someone....please fix my typo, can't believe I didn't catch it in my several proofreadings before posting...I surely hope you all know I meant "public assistance".

Sandman & a few others - let's define "handout"......I'd love to make a quarter of a million (or even 1/20 of a million) & have a low tax rate because I qualify for multiple deductions on my tax return. THERE's A HANDOUT! SNAP provides better nutrition; better nutrition has been proven to have health benefits (duh)which will reduce those medical handouts you argue against so strongly. Healthier people feel better about themselves, making them more likely to succeed and need less pubic assistance.

My 12:07 post @ Gazettefan

No one, from any walk of life, who eats in dangerous excess, thereby becoming obese, has anyone to blame but himself. I don't think I did, nor would, argue that point, nor the merits of obesity. (You understand I mean from purposeful excess or purposefully poor eating habits.)
As a matter of fact, based mostly on your 1/17/13 4:51 PM post, we may not even be "arguing" the same exact points. Obesity wasn't meant to be the main focus of my posts. But if I tried speaking to each of your points to clarify mine, you know what my post would like like, and even I'm getting tired of (re)reading them. Last night I tried to respond to your post, couldn't. It just kept saying "Page Unavailable" when I tried. I thought....one too many overly long posts; I was locked out.
And it seems to me, also based on your post, I wasn't doing a good job of getting my own points across.
Since it occurs to me that we might actually be agreeing on A FEW things, I'm going to let it go at that. This, of course, should not be confused with concession; it just means it's becoming apparent to me that we've been talking at cross purposes.

Eagle- I put some of my homegrown carrots in a tupperware "fridge smart" (with the vents). They lasted many months. It is fabulous stuff.

eagle1- I agree buying local is good but sometimes you just want to try something different. We are going in Feb and hit the olive oil shop. They have lots of oils and vinegars to pick from. I saw these places in Door County and to get more oils and vinegars like this w/o traveling 4 hours is great. You get to taste them before buying. Janesville DOES NOT have this! Not even Basics.
Loves park is about 25 minutes away. MAke a day of it and have fun.
http://www.theoliveoilexperience.com/abo...

RUSerious, maybe you can clarify the effect of the term "food desert" by explaining your "spike up" remark in the matter of obesity among the poor.

And in the matter of lack of donorship, you are acknowledging the rationalization problem. So, the question becomes: Who is ultimately responsible for the negative effects of the rationalization of the obesity problem: the people who don't make donations, people who complain about the problem, or the obese poor?

And that earlier poster who had hard times agreed that not being obese is the responsibility of each person.

What's interesting about computers is: if they have them, they therefore have access to a world of knowledge re: the matter of proper nutrition. Don't you agree? Plus, aren't the ones without cars likely to have email contact with people who do? And couldn't the money they save by not buying expensive junk food at the gas station be put toward having contacts with cars help with the transportation problem? Or do the obese poor get a pass on intelligent computer use too?

And you know I wasn't talking about occasional junk food, but that I was talking about poor obese people, with or without transportation, who eat it in dangerous excess.

not just you but this city has always had an attitude that anytime anyone suggests anything new different outside the box the excuses come rolling in. There has been a number of proposals over the decades for things to be built or brought in and immediately rather than developing plans to make them work, the excuses as to why they won't come pouring in. Did you know Janesville because of its centralized location was a proposed location for the mall of America, a large Waterpark and also the initial proposed location for the Milwaukee Brewers single A baseball team (Snappers). But there is a real toxic attitude in this town about change, progress and advancement. You are not unlike many of the people I have suggested taking a drive to Valli's I get the same excuses, it's too far, it costs too much for gas, I don't like Rockford, I buy local, whatever, just excuses, which are always easier than trying new things and places. These are the same people that have never left this town or have any desire to, so not too surprising.

I'm not saying you can't choose to do that or make it work if you can store the produce or carpool. I'm saying these are not options for everyone.
.
I have no idea what you mean about "excuses for change", in this context. The article is about low-income people who need a local produce option. Of course if you are middle class and have a vehicle your options are much more comprehensive, so what exactly are you charging me with?

janesvillean, yes it will cost a bit more in gas but you can bulk up on produce when it is that fresh, we have had green peppers last as long as 4-5 weeks after purchase, I am lucky to get product to last 4-5 days from the local places. The meat prices are well below anything in this town as well and the quality is just as good. All I can say is you are aptly nicknamed on here since this town is always full of excuses for change, it has always been that way, sadly it always will be.

"with me" I mean.

jvlean..."janesvillean
Jan 16, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal

Wow, that tip on reasonably priced produce probably does not factor in the gasoline cost of driving a 60 mile round trip (at $3.50/gal and a generous 30 mpg vehicle, that's a $7.00 surcharge on your produce). And if you don't have a car...."
I know that but I have $7 and three people are going with mean. Looks neat to cheak out.

GFan...our conversation is like talking to a dead horse. (Are mixed
metaphors also a sign of uncertainty? Am I twice as uncertain as you think I was before?)
But-you bring up an interesting suggestion: "The weakness of rationalization
for convenience." I see it time and time again when people say they don't
give (time, money or resources) to (whatever charity or cause), because those people don't deserve
help. They're lazy.
Also "And, do they have computers? Interesting if they do, and how likely is
it that view this site?" I have no idea if "they" have computers, but I
assume it's not too difficult to get access to one. Why would it be
"interesting" if they do? Are you suggesting that they probably DON'T have
access to computers, or just plain shouldn't? And do they view this site? I
have no idea, but why wouldn't they? But if you suggest they do not, what
difference does it make if I (we) use "exculpatory language "?
But actually, whether or not these attitudes are viewed by the people in
question, I CAN see these attitudes, and the narrow-mindedness and
intolerance angers ME! An earlier poster talked about his previous hard
times, and probably knows all too well the attitudes that I'm talking about.
Hopefully he also saw people without preconceived ideas about him and his
situation; those attitudes are what motivate people. I'm sure you know
negativity breeds negativity (and vice versa).
You also suggested: "exposure to my comments wouldn't aggravate that problem
for anyone with any sense". So, do you acknowledge there ARE some people in
shaky situations who actually have sense? If so, why do you concentrate on
those who don't? I readily acknowledge some people in shaky circumstances
are there for reasons they could fix; some would not be so easy. Or are you talking about
the rest of us shouldn't be bothered by the exposure to the insensitive
comments? I can see that.
Interesting (and troubling) news story about someone who finds himself
struggling financially; should he be faulted?
http://www.channel3000.com/news/Driver-s...
And your "responsible enough to reject excuses for eating junk food." I
occasionally eat junk food as I have admitted (though I usually don't prefer
it, so I guess I use excuses to eat it), and I am neither fat, lazy or poor.
Do I get a pass?

And, RUSerious, consistent with my assertion that exculpatory language worsens a problem, exposure to my comments wouldn't aggravate that problem for anyone with any sense -anyone who is responsible enough to reject excuses for eating junk food.

They are sensible and responsible, aren't they?

The weakness of rationalization for convenience. Isn't that particular weakness more responsible for eating junk food than anything else?

And, do they have computers? Interesting if they do, and how likely is it that view this site?

That's right GFan, but which kinds of people and which kinds of weaknesses do you mean?
We should try never, ever to give credence to the possibility that circumstances other than laziness had anything to do with the situations of these overweight poor people (they go hand in hand, right?), or they might mooch off taxpayers/charity forever, right?
I breathed a sigh of relief to see there was not a spike in "food stamp" cases since you first brought up the dreaded word f**d d****t. Once they find an excuse to abuse...they jump right on it. Right?
Kind of like when there's a story with anything in the title referring to "low income" or "aid" or....."food stamps"...that brings out a certain class of people, too. Those weaknesses are just as unjustifiable as the ones to which you refer.
If it was in my power, I would attempt to not enable the weakness I see in certain people which allows them to feel morally superior to those who are poor or overweight; (You always see these things together, right?) But I don't control the stories which seem to bring out the beast in certain people, encouraging them to pass judgment on those who are down on their luck.
Do I know there are abusers, those who feel entitled, those who are lazy? Of course I do, but with some of you who only see that segment of people receiving some sort of help, I thought I might just enlighten you a bit-let you know there are others really trying to get out. But I doubt if it will do any good. Some of you would see an "abuser" in every black Friday large screen tv sale line talking on an expensive cell phone, every person in a check out line with expensive meat and pop (but no vegetables), everyone who is overweight, every smoker....

Wow, that tip on reasonably priced produce probably does not factor in the gasoline cost of driving a 60 mile round trip (at $3.50/gal and a generous 30 mpg vehicle, that's a $7.00 surcharge on your produce). And if you don't have a car....

RUSerious, triggering an effect is far different than overcoming a weakness of human nature.

The point is: Don't enable a weakness with language that sanctions it.

Enough about the food desert. I wish I never would have brought it up! Oh that's right, I didn't.
I shouldn't keep leaving stuff laying around that can bolster your arsenal. But it appears that could be anything that I say, as long as I don't acquiesce to your point of view.
Speaking in metaphors shows my uncertainty? Not a chance. It's just something I do, that's all. Is that all you've been seeing in my posts?
And the subject of obesity has never been my main grudge with certain posters (except when they use it as being synonymous with people who are not their financial equal). It is people who look down upon people on shaky financial ground, lumping them in one seedy group, as if all deserve contempt.
The "(psychologically global) effects of sanctioned excuses."? And I will counter that by saying the opposite trigger can have the opposite effect. But the rational person would know that there are as many reasons for a person's financial instability as there are for the financial successes of others (reasons that are tolerable and those that only deserve our contempt-for both ends of the spectrum!). Yes I know; many if not most rich people worked hard to get where they are. That's admirable, if they did it fairly. Some even started out poor (were they contemptible then?) How about those who started out well off and lost their fortunes? Are they now contemptible?
Don't you think I KNOW there are those people that frogger (and others) loves to hate? But something is very wrong if those are the only ones acknowledged. We don't need another person to look down on "those people", so I will gladly put in my $.02 when stereotypes are the main argument.
Should there not be someone to speak for those who are worthy of praise even if they are currently in an insecure situation? Unless you are one who thinks they don't exist(?)

RUSerious, yes, the term "food desert" is harmful. It's a fact of the human experience that people of all kinds lean heavily on rationalizing bad thoughts and bad behavior. The last thing a person in the dire straits of poverty needs is a sanctioned excuse for being obese -harmful indeed.

And like it or not, frogger points out what may very well be the global (psychologically global) effects of sanctioned excuses.

And I respectfully suggest that you be careful about relying on metaphors to make a point. Metaphors tend to indicate uncertainty on the part of the user. Metaphors are not all they're cracked-up to be when comes to discussing concrete facts.

Eagle, that pretty much sums it up.

ru- another- badger care. Have three kids. oops we may get divorced- but here comes another kid. How did that happen. Both smoke 2 packs a day. Both over weight. Bought a house they canot afford. Bought cars they cannot afford. Oh but the bank said they can. Yep banks fault. Couldn't be THEIR fault. Wife could work and make lots of money with her degree but wont. Husband work making min wage and wont look for something that pays better.

"You stated: "so far the only people I have seen use the system are abusers." What kind of people do you associate with anyway, and how many are you talking about, and how did you gain access to all of their personal information?"
RU- people I have not hung out with but had to work with who CANNOT work more than 33 hours and are able but cannot because they wont get their $100 a month rent. I have told you about these people before. I have no respect for people who abuse the systems and CAN work but WONT.

You guys have to teach me the fine art of the one-liner.
Gazettefan: Referring to your comment: "I think you left out the category ...", You're being facetious aren't you? I'm sure you know I could have added many, many more categories, but anyone reading my long, drawn out post was undoubtedly pleased that I did not.
There are so many variables as to why someone is poor (or are we trying to decide why some are poor AND obese?), that barring something catastrophic in an individual's life, several variables probably come in to play in individual circumstances, some for which they could and should be held accountable (of course I know that!), some beyond their control.
What exactly is your main question anyway? Or are you just trying to make the point that the term "food desert" does more harm than good? I know for sure that some people will allow themselves to be "enabled" and others cringe at the prospect. (You don't want me to list any variables here, do you?) Why don't we just consider people by their individual circumstances and leave it at that? It takes more effort, but it would save a lot of frustration. If we have the power or are in circumstances to help change it, that's great. If we're just observers, then we owe it to all involved to make sure we know what's really going on before we speak (and I don't mean watching someone use a Quest card in a grocery store, even if they are obese and have a cell phone). If a person feels better bad mouthing (any stereotyped situation), then they should gather together with like-minded friends and do it in private where their oversimplified conceptions will be appreciated. (ie; poor=fat system abuser, fat=poor system abuser, system abuser=fat+poor...and they all smoke, and drink to excess, and are the ones you see (while you're shopping) standing in long lines for several large TV's on Black Friday;) you get the picture.
Meantime, referring to that post of mine from last month: good find...when I was looking, I ran across it, but never read down past "I talk too much...". But now I will repeat another part of it:
"GFan-have you ever been driving down a winding road and begin to feel you've covered that territory before? You know there is probably a lot left to explore and you have not lost interest, but the vehicle you're in and the time allotted are not adequate for this kind of journey."

what about people putting crappy food in their bodies and not exercising being a cause of obesity?

Eagle1, what about "food deserts" being the cause of obesity?

RUSerious, I said "one day."

I never said you invented the "food desert." I referred to it as a term of art in the matter of creating corrosive excuses for some people.

In the rest of your comment to me, I think you left out the category of people who are poor have no reliable or periodic transportation but are not obese. Don't being poor and having no transportation go hand-in-hand with eating less -by necessity or choice -less money for food and some wisdom? If this is the case, then, such people wouldn't be obese even if they only ate junk food.

The term "food desert" does more harm than good.

RUSerious, I totally get it, I have been in that boat of"How did I get here" and I worked my way out of it, I have family that however take the easy way and don't better themselves but look for the next handout. To try and illustrate that to some is pointless they label people that need help all as useless, just as many label all rich people as greedy, it's a pretty pathetic example of ignorance.

December 20th 2:13pm

http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...

I'll read the rest of your comment in awhile.

GFan, first and most important (to me): I looked for a post where I said I had to eat junk food because I was in a food desert, just to see what I could have possibly written for you to take that away from it. My "junk food" moments are more likely because I have little time, and nothing to do with money or transportation. If I see junk food at a gas station and it's hours before I can take more than minutes to eat something, I grab something (like a candy bar or a donut). I'm sure you've never done that, right? Then I don't consider it a food desert, it's an oasis. You are really stretching to make your point fit. I threw in a personal comment, you understand, but one who enjoys engaging in battle will make an arsenal out of anything they find laying around.

For example: your suggestion that it was I who was "conjuring-up enabling, exculpatory terms of art such as "food desert?"...remember, GFan, it was YOU who brought it up. It was I who foolishly chose to discuss YOUR topic.

Upon rereading your 3:57 post, I know you certainly didn't expect me to respond point for point, so I will just say: There are poor fat people, poor normal sized people, poor skinny people, mid-income fat people, mid-income normal sized people, mid-income skinny people, rich fat people, rich normal sized people, rich skinny people, people from all incomes (or no income) who don't drive, but most people without a car are probably poor. There are people without a car who live steps from a good sized food store, people without a car who live miles from a good sized food store, and every distance in between. Some people without their own transportation can always get someone to drive them, some can sometimes get someone to drive them, and some never have reliable transportation. There are also poor, mid-income and rich people who are either fair, honest, dishonest or downright cheaters. Do you think these things are fair possibilities? What else do you want to know? Did I cover everyone and every aspect of what we should know about them?

Frogger: You stated: "so far the only people I have seen use the system are abusers." What kind of people do you associate with anyway, and how many are you talking about, and how did you gain access to all of their personal information?
Apparently Eagle gets it, why do you two choose to belittle and declare people as worthless, shiftless no-goods if they are not your financial "equals", even when you do not know their life's circumstances or how they got where they are? You can't possibly know that about everyone, do you? I know plenty of those kinds of people, and plenty who do not deserve the circumstances they are in (and others who do). The former are why I can go on for many rambling paragraphs, because they do not deserve to have gossips and holier-than-thou types constantly speaking ill of them.

Thank you, Eagle and frogger. Sounds well worth the drive from Janesville or Beloit.

eagle- http://www.valliproduce.com/
valli produce. Just helping ;)

RUSerious, does "not having transportation" mean all the time? I ask that question because on another story you posted a comment to the effect that you had to eat junk food one day because you were in a "food desert?"

And does "not having transportation" naturally make those people obese, that is, is it possible to to be poor and live in a food desert without transportation without becoming obese? If it is possible, then, doesn't that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the term?

We're back to questionable language. Does "remedy" automatically exclude the quality of "prevention?" And can prevention include not conjuring-up enabling, exculpatory terms of art such as "food desert?"

Oh and here is another tip on produce the best and most reasonably priced produce in the area is not a the farmers market it is at Valley's Produce (it's a full service market) in Loves Park and Rockford, well worth the drive, we go once a month the produce is outstanding and freshest you will find and dirt cheap.The produce section is nearly the size of the west side sentry store, the meat department has amazing deals as well. I am all for the farmers market we enjoy them but they are limited on what you can find, so Valley's is a great place to get the rest. If someone was in need of a ride down there we would be more than happy to accomodate.

It is funny to read the volleying back and forth of handout and welfare accusations between corporate and the useless. Neither is acceptable, what is acceptable is what RUSerious alluded to, the people that are making an effort but still need help, if we can focus on them and eliminate the other crap things would be smoother but then again many of you would have no scapegoats or reasons to complain.

"donnaw
Jan 13, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
The Walmarts of the world, as well as the fast food places, Farm and Fleet, Home Depot, Menards, etc, all employ mostly part time people, as well as disabled people. For the most...."

Well said.
Can these be sold for cash as well? Yep more free stuff. Again, if they don't have enough to eat why are so many poor people obease?
Good program if used correctly. These items can be bought in the grocery store. It isn't like these things are not available to them. Am I incorrect? You cannot buy carrots on foodstamps but can buy NAME BRAND junk food? Some of the veggies are more money at the market too for understandable reasons.

ru-so far the only people I have seen use the system are abusers. Sure there are people out there that need help, I get that.

Maybe some of these people could grow some stuff themselves. It isn't rocket science. I assume the abusers wont do so though. Why work for food? What gets even more tough is seeing the TAXES going up more, more, more and fees and now going up more to cover people who wont fend for themselves and are able to do so.

"truth1
Jan 14, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal

MooShoo- Nope..Sorry..Good healthy foods at the grocery store are the cheapest...People just have to learn how to use a stove."
plus +1

Island
"You can go to the farmers market and spend A LOT LESS on produce than you would at Woodmans."

You are confused! Gone shopping at farmers market lately? $10 for a couple big fat tomatoes. You could raise your own for $2 a plant and a container or plant in the ground.

Things that other people do who don't get free this, that, and other stuff do to save money.

Um, sorry people are not spending their money to by fancy products at the farmers market. There are restrictions on what they can buy. Just because stores sell produce, doesn't make it affordable. You can go to the farmers market and spend A LOT LESS on produce than you would at Woodmans. I think it's great people are able to stretch that money on healthy, locally grown produce while supporting our local farmers.

I think there should be restrictions on what can be purchased with SNAP benefits similar to the WIC program. Last I checked Target, Walmart & grocery stores sell produce so not sure what the great to do is about a farmer's market except that perhaps there is more opportunity to buy gourmet products with tax dollar money.

Although the farm markets are probably the best, if they're going to get free money it's best spent there.

MooShoo- Nope..Sorry..Good healthy foods at the grocery store are the cheapest...People just have to learn how to use a stove.

Truth......All shoeboy would have to do is waddle over to the mirror to come to terms with the reality of your statement:)

Oreallly....you forgot about the Walker haters.

"Seems like 10% of the stories in this paper are about public assistance programs." It's a topic that can be relied on to get locals' blood boiling. Other favorites are the public schools, Mercy Hospital, and sidewalks.

MooShoo- If you think the only people who are fat are rich white guys, you haven't looked around at a lot of the people on "assistance".

SNAP... brought to you by all the hardworking people of WI.....no need to work or bother making an effort to better yourself...keep voting for Obama...this is what you get....

Democrats will continue to fatten up the food stamp recipient numbers. That's where they get their voters ! Food stamps now in 20% of all U.S. households, despite the fraud, poor judgement, and moral hazard the program creates.

Sandman - Handouts? I suppose all the corporate welfare dealt out by the Walker administration and Washington is just fine with you.

First of all...janesvillean...Good post. I think many don't believe these people you're talking about really exist, (for example, those Wal-Mart employees who work hard, are marginally self-sufficient, want to keep the job simply because they are among the employed, but it still is not enough to totally sustain them.) Many would rather assume, for some reason, that those who benefit from SNAP, etc., are low-life, blood sucking, hard drinking, fat growing bums with bacteria growing between their countless chins.
Gazettefan...correction noted. I see now it's an asterisk. I first saw it as a quotation mark, and kept myself from pointing out there should have been two (because I know that I, for one, don't always follow the rules for writing etiquette here.) I apologize for my error. But still, those don't seem to be your words. You usually write so much more eloquently. Where did you find that "definition"?
Your question: "Who doesn't have transportation to healthy food?" Do you want names, generalities, or what? You can't seriously think there aren't some without their own transportation(?) However, I like to think there are many civic minded citizens who do what they can to alleviate that. But there have to be some who are missed. You don't think so?
Finally, I admit it; the "missed opportunity" in your last line eludes me. Unless you mean that the very fact that many deny the existence of something makes it all the more difficult to remedy.

The Walmarts of the world, as well as the fast food places, Farm and Fleet, Home Depot, Menards, etc, all employ mostly part time people, as well as disabled people. For the most part these are entry level, low skilled jobs. Most of us started out in jobs like these. I worked three part time jobs earning my way thru school. Some people work their way up the ranks in these companies and get into management if this is their choice. There is opportunity for those who want that path. If you don't like the money they pay you need to improve your skills thru education and training and go for something else. That's life. Walmart doesn't owe you anything. They offer cheap prices which allows many people to better afford feeding and providing for their families. Walmart, Burger King, Menards, etc are not charities.

donnaw, Sandman is the one who suggested "the JOB ADS section" as a magical cure for poverty. I merely pointed out how few jobs may be found there nowadays.
.
There are very few non-disabled working-age adults who are eligible for more than a few months of SNAP benefits. Two thirds of those receiving benefits are children, elderly, or disabled. Many of the remaining participants are earning an income, but not one that is large enough to meet the food needs of a family their size. The largest employer in the US, for example, is Walmart, and they keep many of their employees on part-time hours. This trick makes great profits for the Walton family billionaires, six of whom have more wealth than the bottom 30% of the United States population (90 million people), many of whom likely work for Walmart. In other words, it is possible to be working extremely hard for an unforgiving employer at spit wages and still be unable to feed your family. Yes, employees of the Walton family billionaires are feeding their families tonight thanks to SNAP. Feast on that "true fact" if you want to start your little morality sniping again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...
http://www.winningwordsproject.com/walma...

RUSerious, the question really is: Who doesn't have transportation to healthy food?

And, that's not a quote in my earlier comment. The mark at the end of the first sentence is an asterisk to indicate that there's a footnote at the bottom, where there is another asterisk.

By the way, you missed an opportunity to claim that even the mere talk of the perfidy of food deserts causes a footnote to be much bulkier (obese) than the statement in which the footnoted term is actually used.

...and by the way, whose quote is that in your Jan 13, 2013/10:05 post? It does not sound like your writing or mine. I have to say, it is poorly written no matter which "side" you're on (my apologies to the author), and I wondered why you used that particular quote.

Gazettefan, will you please refrain from using my username related to the topic of food deserts that YOU engaged ME in under the story of a power ball win, the discussion where I said "If the claim was accurate, I'd certainly have to say that would only be a part of the problem." However, I did agree that transportation could be an issue with some people and their distance from larger, less expensive stores, and suggested that the concept could very well be true for some, more likely in bigger inner city areas (where I DO NOT live and cannot observe).
We apparently have different views on the subject, and different perspectives from which to form our views. That's fine, isn't that how most things work? But I thought for a moment there last fall that we were having a "conversation", but it was more like a "set-up" to feed your need for one-upmanship. You engage people in conversations in order to have someone to argue with, and I'm not interested.
I am well aware of Janesville's Farmer's Market on seasonal weekends, and am also aware that some people have been "encouraged" to take advantage of it by receiving vouchers through Community Foundation of Southern Wisconsin, Inc. And these SNAP opportunities sound great for all involved. (Though tell me, because I seriously don't know: where else can one shop without aid of transportation in downtown Janesville?)
In the future, please refrain from implying that I initiated a conversation (as you have under 2 recent stories that I know of) about food deserts and their major affect on humanity.

Yes, this is truly a great thing. And it does serious damage to RUSerious' claim that downtown is a food desert*.

*The mythical food desert is a place where poor people without transportation to where they can buy healthy food are obese because the only food available to them is unhealthy and highly caloric i.e. that stuff they sell at the gas station on Main St.

This is a great way to encourage healthier habits, and a great way to support local producers. I love the idea of cooking classes, but I'm hoping it's open to everyone - not just SNAP recipients.

janesvillian...getting a job thru a newspaper help wanted ad is passé. Anyone looking for a job now uses other sources such as the Internet, networking with friends, etc , cold calling on places one wants to get a job, job fairs, etc. So if you judge how many jobs are available by just looking at the amount of help wanted ads you see you are not getting the true facts.

Sandman seems detached from the reality of local employment opportunities. The classified section I saw the other day was both sides of ONE SINGLE page. That's jobs, apartments, cars, and lost pets inclusive.

Yeah, right. Do the handouts ever stop? Seems like 10% of the stories in this paper are about public assistance programs.

Do you give them free papers too!!! If so, make sure they contain the JOB ADS section!

Seems like a good way to increase the likelihood that SNAP money winds up getting spent on wholesome, healthy food.