More on the fast food dilemma

The typical moralizing liberal wants to believe that poor people will probably remain poor, but with a little education about the evils of fast food and the affordability of healthy alternatives, our ghetto brethren will soon be out there doing 5k fun runs and bragging about there newly sculpted bodies.  In reality, the working poor have very limited time available after work.  They can spend that time cooking and eating a healthy meal and then to bed, or they can scarf down a greasy, salty junk food meal which pushes the buttons in their brain's pleasure centers.  Those of us lucky enough to have the money and time to indulge in other entertainments don't need the junk food rush.  To someone with little time or money, junk food is the only entertainment available.  Plus it provides the rush we all crave from time to time.  Instead of scolding the poor for their poor eating choices, society should make it a priority to help them out of poverty so they will have more choices for entertainment and satisfaction than consuming large quantities of salt and grease.  Changing the agricultural subsidies which make junk food artificially cheap (That $25.00 Micky D meal for 4 would probably cost twice as much without cheap corn paid for by you and me) will help, but poverty and limited choices for entertainment and physcic comfort are probably the main drivers of obesity in this country.