Big shocker: gentrification is good for communites. So says ABC News’ Oliver Libaw. And poor people are, according to a new study, less likely to move away from gentrifying neighborhoods than other kinds of neighborhoods.

What is worse? Being forced out of an up-and-coming neighborhood by increasing housing costs, or being forced out by rising crime rates? Why, after all, do neighborhoods gentrify? Developers see a market for higher-priced housing in a neighborhood, of course, but that market only exists potentially because it’s being underserved elsewhere in the city. That means the city is growing richer on average — that’s not a bad thing. What can get in the way are government regulations making development harder or installing rent controls.

Anyhow, more and more urban poor are able to afford housing in edge cities and exurbs. It’s a good story. Check it out.

What gets missed by those who oppose the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that banning virtual child porn is unconstitutional is the fact that cultural texts examining child sexual abuse will be dragged into the net along with things meant only to arouse prurient interest among pedophiles.

The sexual abuse of children is of course a terribly tragedy, but it is movies like “The Tin Drum” and novels like “Lolita” that will be punished most prominently. Indeed, pedophiles are well known for finding the most innocent photographs of children posing in Sears catalogues or teen stars in “Tiger Beat” arousing. There is no way to control evil thoughts, but we can do a much better job of actually punishing the people who abuse children.

A good start would be letting nonviolent drug users out of prison so that child molesters do the hard, long time that they deserve. Michael Lynch and Steve Chapman both wrote good columns on the subject. Julian Sanchez also has something to say about it, as does Amy Phillips.

Jacob Sullum has written an excellent column on the U.S. Justice Department’s recent attempt to overturn Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act.

Sullum argues that assisted suicide is not medicine, but that the federal government has made it impossible for individuals to control how they die. Sullum writes:

The drug laws reinforce the idea that suicide is a medical issue because they grant physicians exclusive access to the substances that offer a relatively easy and painless way to die. If people could buy barbiturates over the counter, they would not have to beg doctors for a prescription, and the Death With Dignity Act never would have been proposed.

He is absolutely right, as usual. That said, Ashcroft should keep his nose out of it. A state law regarding assisted suicide is not a federal issue.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) has got another scheme to protect kids from online porn. Brian Krebs and David McGuire of Newsbytes write:

The measure offered by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., would instruct the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to set up a new domain name — such as “dot-prn” — for pornographic Web sites. Owners of adult sites would have 12 months to move their businesses following the creation of the new domain.

The bill, dubbed the “Family Privacy Protection Act” also would require e-mail advertisements that include explicit content to be clearly labeled as containing sexually oriented material.

Sigh. Same old problems in new packaging. First of all, what’s a pornographic site? If a site has information on safe sex or breast cancer or has sexual information of an academic nature, is it pornographic? Who determines the label? If it’s self-assigned, it loses any chance of working. If it’s assigned by a government agency, it puts a clear chill on free speech, since many users will set up their browsers to block the porn domain name, thus discouraging people from talking about sex or sexual issues.

As for labeling e-mail, I must say that I’ve never had trouble deciphering when an unsolicited e-mail contains pornographic content. It’s usually right there in the subject line. It’s called the delete button — use it.

A lot of people immediately dismiss any claims that a movement for a fat tax is gaining ground. But while it might seem outrageous to have some sort of food industry settlement a la the tobacco deal, or to tax fatty foods as much as we tax cigarettes or liquor, it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

Many of the same elements which allowed those other sin taxes to come about are in place for fatty foods. First and most importantly is a certain degree of socialized medicine, which buttresses many arguments for why personal decisions must be socialized as well. Without government funding of health care, there would be no argument that what you do with your own body somehow has a burdensome effect on the public at large.

Second there is the reality of the epidemic: according to the government, 36 percent of Americans are overweight and 23 percent are obese. And there is a mountain of evidence showing the relationship between obesity and all sorts of nasty things like heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, etc.

The only element missing is demonization. Yes, there is glorification of thinness and demonization of the chubby or obese on television, in movies or in fashion magazines. But it’s not likely that most people see McDonald’s in the same light they see Phillip Morris. Also, most people feel that, unlike smoking, a cheeseburger, a slice of pizza, or a Krispy Kreme doughnut every now and then can’t hurt. But since nicotine is addictive and it is, of course, impossible to quit, it’s a different story.

But don’t be too sure. Too often today, health advice is only a step short of health coercion. Which is a shame, since it causes people to be even more skeptical of sound health advice and more likely to rebel against it.