One of the core goals of first lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move!" campaign has been improving access to healthy, affordable food. Arguing that the poor diets of many low-income Americans are actually the result of "food deserts" -- neighborhoods where fast-food joints and convenience stores serving junk food vastly outnumber grocery stores selling fresh produce -- she has called for companies to invest in underserved areas.

Mrs. Obama will ring the food-desert alarm again on Tuesday during a visit to Chicago. She's scheduled to give closing remarks at a Let's Move! food-desert summit where mayors from around the country will share best practices for supporting communities that lack healthy food. She will also stop by a local Walgreens that recently expanded its wares to include produce and other grocery staples. The first lady caps off her hometown trip with a visit to Iron Street Urban Farms, a 7-acre site on the South Side that produces healthy, sustainable food year-round.

The Obama administration recently emphasized its own work around eliminating food deserts in its Creating Pathways to Opportunity report, which included a write-up on the Healthy Food Financing Initiative -- more than $400 million to bring grocery stores and other food retailers to underserved urban and rural communities. The program's goal is to eliminate food deserts in the next six years.

Food deserts have grown in the public consciousness and are considered by many to be health hazards that contribute to obesity and diabetes among the poor. However, skepticism has also grown about whether they're a real problem.

A national study by the Nutrition Transition Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, published this summer in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that better access to supermarkets doesn't improve people's diets. The research, showing that the cheaper cost of fast food is preferred by people, has been cited as proof that making fruits and vegetables available in food deserts is a (pardon the pun) fruitless effort.

The Root's John McWhorter wrote last year that the troubles of food deserts are a "myth," based on his similar observations in New York City, finding no "causal relationship between inner-city obesity and the distance of the supermarket." He notes that after two years the city's Healthy Bodegas Initiative, which stocked bodegas with fresh produce, only netted one in four stores reporting more vegetables purchased. McWhorter concluded that cultural tastes steer African Americans away from healthful foods, and supermarkets won't change that.

But none of this is surprising, says Mari Gallagher, president of the Mari Gallagher Research & Consulting Group. The firm specializes in community development and mapping, and its landmark 2006 study on food deserts helped popularize the term nationally. "I think anytime you reach a high level with an awareness campaign or a national effort, there are going to be detractors," Gallagher told The Root. "People try to pick this issue apart, but sure -- everything in isolation won't work. It's not just about plopping down a grocery store. It takes a ripple effect of everything together."

Among the range of solutions that Gallagher recommends are nutrition training, urban agriculture and getting more supermarkets into low-income neighborhoods -- in tandem. She also pushes back against the idea that food deserts aren't a big problem. Her firm's new study (pdf) found that in Chicago alone, the food-desert population consists of nearly 384,000 residents. Of those households, 40,000 do not own cars and 70 percent are African American.

With these statistics in mind, Gallagher insists that having mainstream supermarkets in underserved communities is a must. "It's a critical component to food access, and once you get over that hurdle then you can work on other things like the price of food and education," she said, adding that the latter pieces are meaningless without having healthy choices available.

"You might have a nutrition program in a hospital for patients who have diet-related cancers or diabetes, but as patients go home to their communities they can't find the food that the program recommended," Gallagher said. She thinks Chicago's Walgreens initiative, to be highlighted by the first lady on Tuesday, is a good step. "They're creating more competition now with other pharmacies, by making them think that they should step up and offer food instead of white bread, chips, pop and maybe some Vitamin Water."

Ultimately, Gallagher says there's no single problem, nor one single solution. "And that's good news," she said. "That means everybody in a community can do something instead of getting stuck in dichotomies."

Cynthia Gordy is The Root's Washington reporter.

About 20 minutes before he gave remarks at the long-awaited dedication ceremony for the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial today, President Barack Obama received a private tour of the monument.

Walking hand in hand with daughters Sasha and Malia, he scaled the length of the memorial's curved inscription wall, reading quotes from some of King's most memorable speeches and writings. After scrutinizing the 30-foot sculpture of King's likeness at the memorial's heart, Obama turned to tour mates Martin Luther King III and Bernice King, children of the late civil rights leader. He asked, "Are you all happy with it?" They responded in the affirmative.

The president didn't just take in the monument; he also left some things behind. In the memorial's time capsule, a large silver box to be buried at the site, he dropped in signed copies of two of his speeches. One, his January 2009 Inauguration Day speech. The other, his remarks at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, delivered on Aug. 28, 2008 -- 45 years after the March on Washington, where King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech.

Finally, the president left a message tying the struggle of the civil rights movement to the present day. "We forget now, but during his life, Dr. King wasn't always considered a unifying figure," Obama told thousands of spectators and dignitaries, after first illuminating the victories that King helped usher. "Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble-rouser and an agitator, a communist and a radical. He was even attacked by his own people, by those who felt he was going too fast or those who felt he was going too slow."

Bringing the Past to the Present

The president said he brought up King's controversial and hard-won progress because the movement's work is not yet complete. It's a sentiment all the more apparent in the wake of the economic crisis, rising poverty, crumbling schools, inadequate health care and persistent violence, he said. With that, the president encouraged the audience to draw strength from earlier struggles.

"Change has never been simple, or without controversy." Obama continued. "Change depends on persistence. Change requires determination. It took a full decade before the moral guidance of Brown v. Board of Education was translated into the enforcement measures of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, but those 10 long years did not lead Dr. King to give up. He kept on pushing, he kept on speaking, he kept on marching until change finally came."

Putting that approach into the modern-day context, he said that Americans today must likewise tirelessly strive for better:

"As we think about all the work that we must do -- rebuilding an economy that can compete on a global stage, and fixing our schools so that every child -- not just some, but every child -- gets a world-class education, and making sure that our health care system is affordable and accessible to all, and that our economic system is one in which everybody gets a fair shake and everybody does their fair share, let us not be trapped by 'what is.' We can't be discouraged by 'what is.' We've got to keep pushing for what 'ought to be.' "

From my vantage point, on the forecourt of the memorial with the White House press pool and about 500 guests -- including Attorney General Eric Holder, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Rep. Karen Bass, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- the response to the ceremony was enthusiastic but slightly reserved.

But at a larger stage for the thousands who flocked to the National Mall for the event, The Root witnessed a  response that was more emotional. During the president's speech, which visitors could see on two jumbo screens flanking the stage, chants of "four more years" erupted from the crowd. As the president and first lady joined a choir in singing "We Shall Overcome," viewers sang along with strength and conviction. And when Stevie Wonder brought the ceremony to a jubilant close by singing "Happy Birthday," the crowd sang out and clapped along.

Remembering Dr. King's Lesser-Discussed Teachings

The three-hour dedication program, hosted by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill, included remarks by the King family, Julian Bond and Cicely Tyson, as well as performances by Mary Mary, poet Nikki Giovanni and Aretha Franklin. While the ceremony had its moments of solemn reverence, and joy over having a permanent national tribute to King, much of the tone was brazenly and unapologetically political.

Similar to the president's remarks, Martin Luther King III reflected that his father's struggle for social and economic justice is far from over, citing high unemployment, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mass incarceration and "regressive tax breaks for the rich while breaking the backs of the poor" as his examples.

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, in surprisingly fiery welcome remarks, used his platform to advocate for D.C. voting rights -- an issue that King himself marched for in the 1960s -- calling taxation without representation "a state of tyranny." He implored the president and Congress to give D.C. residents voting representation.

Sharpton's speech focused on getting out the vote in the 2012 election. After mentioning the Occupy Wall Street protests, he said, "We're going to occupy the voting booth. We're going to take in those who stand for justice and retire those who stand in the way."

Even journalist Dan Rather jumped on his soapbox about "the corporatization and politicization of the news," bemoaning news corporations for colluding with special-interest groups and funders instead of serving the interests of the people.

Speaker after speaker, from Marian Wright Edelman to Rep. John Lewis, did not merely commemorate the past. Hardly anyone heralded the Disney-fied, nonthreatening image of King often used to define him, focusing instead on his teachings against war and the wealth gap, and his calls for radical, nonviolent dissent as the path for change -- then and now. All this set against the backdrop of his permanent monument on the National Mall made for a striking, historic moment.

"And that is why he belongs on this Mall --- because he saw what we might become," Obama said in closing. "That is why Dr. King was so quintessentially American -- because for all the hardships we've endured, for all our sometimes tragic history, ours is a story of optimism and achievement and constant striving that is unique upon this Earth."

Cynthia Gordy is The Root's Washington reporter.

This month Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) was the first member of Congress to visit the Occupy Wall Street protest -- but contrary to some reports, he says that he was not booed out of the place. The jeers from the crowd, Rangel told The Root, were directed instead at a lone heckler who interrupted his speech supporting the movement.

The Harlem lawmaker also said that the voice of a frustrated constituency -- even if it's just to say, "I'm mad as hell" -- is welcome and necessary for Congress to act on unemployment, foreclosure and the dissolving middle class. Rangel spoke with us about what he sees as Occupy Wall Street's potential and why he wants to focus on what legislators can do now, instead of evaluating "whether [Democrats] did enough" in the last Congress.

The Root: Why did you decide to visit the Occupy Wall Street demonstration?

Charles Rangel: I believe they're symbolic of the frustration and pain that people are feeling all over the country. I was very surprised, but very pleased, that this group of people just came out. I don't really think that they have to have any solutions for the problem. It reminds me of the movie Network, where the guy just yells out his window, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

I was planning to be down there with Grandmothers Against the War, who I meet with every year. And I did speak. There was one heckler. It never entered my mind that the crowd was booing me. It was my impression, as well as Charles Barron, who's a city councilman, that they were booing the heckler.

TR: Did you anticipate, though, that your presence would perhaps not be appreciated by some protesters?

CR: I'm a part of the federal government. I and other public officials -- Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer -- have expressed support for Occupy Wall Street. And although we're saying, "I'm with you," we are a part of the damn problem. People should not have to decide who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. They should just call on all of us to get the job done.

TR: What do you hope to see come out of Occupy Wall Street? You say they don't have to offer solutions, so what do you think the potential is?

CR: They believe that the top 1 percent has abused their financial powers at the expense of the 99 percent. And if they believe that Congress hasn't done their job, then I don't think they have to wait until 2012. They should call up their members of Congress, their state representatives and city councilmember and say, "You guys are supposed to come up with the answers -- what do we do next?"

If they keep doing that, then [officials would] know that their seats are in jeopardy unless they get something passed. I see the only solution to this being a legislative one. I see coming out of this a coordinated effort to pinpoint who is responsible for doing something to get our people back to work.

TR: From a legislative perspective, what have you been doing to address these frustrations?

CR: This Congress is like no other that I've been in in over 40 years. The partisanship here is where a certain group of people are not out to beat the other party, but they're out to get rid of the president. They have admitted that their primary political responsibility was not a balanced budget or economic growth, but to get rid of Obama.

Having said that, the question has to be whether they would want to get rid of Obama at the expense of losing their seats. I don't believe that America really believes that someone should die if they don't have health care. I don't believe that America thinks that we should ridicule gays that have fought in the war. I don't believe that America's proud of how many people a governor has executed.

But these spokespeople have claimed to speak on their behalf. If we had these protesters call up their representatives to say what they believe, I really think they would get a response. These protesters are doing more than anyone else that I can think of.

TR: But people are not only frustrated by the gridlock in this current Congress. They're also disappointed that the last one didn't challenge the financial industry's dominance over our economic system. How do you defend the job that Democrats did when they just had a strong majority in Congress?

CR: I don't think anybody can retroactively do anything. What could have happened or didn't happen or who was in charge before ... we could go back to slavery and see whether or not any particular group did enough. I'm saying that we're dealing now with this particular protest and what they have the power to do now.

There is an election in 2012. The real question is: Have the president and the Republicans started the election now in order to have the issues be decided by two people? The people need to say that we can't wait until November 2012, and start pushing on the policymakers now. I don't really see how relevant it is to explore what could have happened when we're dealing with a crisis right now.

Cynthia Gordy is The Root's Washington reporter.

President Obama again pushed for his jobs bill during a news conference on Thursday, challenging lawmakers who vote against it to explain that decision to American voters. But reporters wanted to know what the president had to say to people who are out of work, foreclosed on or barely above water -- particularly those who have been demonstrating for three weeks now at the Occupy Wall Street protests.

"I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel -- that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across Main Street, and yet you're still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place," he said from the White House East Room. "So yes, I think people are frustrated, and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works."

He continued that he's been trying to enact the financial regulatory reforms that passed in 2010 -- holding banks and other financial firms accountable for risky activities, and requiring servicers to provide consumers with clear, easy-to-understand information on what they're purchasing, all supervised by a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- but said that Republicans have held up its progress. Take, for example, Thursday's vote by Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee against the nomination of Richard Cordray as head of that financial-oversight bureau.

"Republicans have threatened not to confirm him not because of anything he's done but because they want to roll back the whole notion of having a consumer watchdog," Obama continued. "You've got Republican presidential candidates whose main economic policy proposals are 'We'll get rid of the financial reforms that are designed to prevent the abuses that got us into this mess in the first place.'

"That does not make sense to the American people. They are frustrated by it. And they will continue to be frustrated by it until they get a sense that everybody is playing by the same set of rules, and that you're rewarded for responsibility and doing the right thing, as opposed to gaming the system."

Why No Wall Street Prosecutions?

Despite Obama's touting of his attempts at regulatory might, Jake Tapper of ABC News pushed the president to explain the fact that his administration hasn't prosecuted any Wall Street executives who didn't play by the rules. This is where the president's good talk on financial regulation scaled back a bit.

"One of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehman's and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn't necessarily illegal; it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless," he said. "That's exactly why we needed to pass Dodd-Frank, to prohibit some of these practices."

And what about the practices that were illegal?

"The president can't go around saying, 'Prosecute somebody,' " Obama hedged. "But as a general principle, if somebody is engaged in fraudulent actions, they need to be prosecuted. If they violated laws on the books, they need to be prosecuted. And that's the attorney general's job, and I know that Attorney General Holder, U.S. attorneys all across the country, they take that job very seriously."

A Fair-Housing Advocate Responds

Obama's response, particularly on subprime lending not being "necessarily illegal," sounded oddly feeble. After all, this summer a Federal Reserve investigation into Wells Fargo alone found that more than 10,000 borrowers were inappropriately pushed into subprime mortgages or had loan documents falsified by bank personnel. Although the Federal Reserve crafted an $85 million settlement -- and two lawsuits by the cities of Memphis, Tenn., and Baltimore have accused the bank of steering African Americans toward the predatory loans -- so far the Justice Department has not pursued prosecutions.

"There's a degree to which the president's right in saying that some of the practices that proliferated weren't against any laws that existed at the time," Debby Goldberg, special project director for the National Fair Housing Alliance, told The Root. "At the same time, however, we're seeing there may be evidence that some of these practices did violate the fair lending laws. That's the kind of thing that we feel needs to be of high priority in terms of investigation and prosecution where violations are found."

Furthermore, Goldberg noted, even though the president said that his administration takes this seriously, he's had ample time to do more. "It's been a while," she said. "I think this administration has been more aggressive and more open to investigating these problems than the previous administration, but we have yet to see any real remedies come out for homeowners. That needs to happen urgently because every day that goes by means that more people are losing their homes."

Cynthia Gordy is The Root's Washington reporter.