RSS
Hunger Strikes America
New Report: 49 Million Americans at Risk of Hunger.
I'm one of them. I haven't had my breakfast yet. I'm hungry.
UPDATE: I just had a banana. Make it 48,999,999.
I'm one of them. I haven't had my breakfast yet. I'm hungry.
UPDATE: I just had a banana. Make it 48,999,999.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:43 AM
28 Comments:
People going hungry. Yeah, that's great topic to make fun of.
So, once you got your banana, you decided to throw metaphoric feces at those going hungry?
Except 49 million people AREN'T going hungry. They certainly aren't starving.
Big difference between "food insecurity" and people dropping dead of starvation. None do.
The only kids truly "going hungry" in this country are those who are being abused by the parents or caregivers. Food remains as cheap and plentiful in this country as at anytime in history.
There are free meals for kids at schools. Free meals for adults at various shelters and food stamps for the poor.
With the unemployment rate up, of course more people are "food insecure" (more people are economically insecure period) but very few people have to go without food if they have a family, a caring neighbor, or a wit in their head.
The fun being made here is of an alarmist study that makes it sound like one-sixth of the population is about to drop dead.
When the biggest food related problem that poor people in America face is OBESITY it should tell you something.
Going hungry doesn't just mean "starving". It's also includes people who are forced to skip meals because they can't afford it.
Food prices have gone up. Try buying a half-gallon of ice cream sometime. They don't make that size anymore, but instead 1.5 quarts for the same price.
The obesity is also the result of poorer people buying cheaper and higher fat junk food over more expensive and healthy food choices.
Making fun of people wondering where their next meal will come from shows the type of person you really are. Sadly, it's the kind of disgraceful behavior we've come to expect of you.
Go to the local food bank or your church and "laugh" at what you call an alarmist study. You might want to wear a helmet, in case anyone gets their hands on a soup can.
Ummm. Ice Cream. No wonder Americans are so fat.
AnonDiano:
I am sure you have a solution to this crisis - I want to hear it.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
yes, government forced meals...
Scott - I think part of ANon's problem with Gil, is his choice of topics to poke fun at. The "potential" of children going hungry in our own country probably isn't something to laugh at. Come to think of it, Gils attempt at humor wasn't much to laugh at either. If the report is correct, the demand at food banks is up an average of 30% from last year, and up to 50% in certain areas. Maybe not a crisis yet, but certainly a reason to be concerned. And when we read stories in our own Daily Times about food bank shortages in Delco., we know the problem is on our own door step. You're the Mayor Scott. What's you solution? Thanksgiving is next week. What do you say we all pitch in and load that big Hummer of yours up with goodies and make a run to a food bank. I'll even volunteer to drive so you can ride SHOTGUN!
Pro Christ Pro Gun-
The answer's not in praying or shooting people.
ANon,
If metaphoric, or even literal, feces are going to be thrown, they ought to be thrown at the Democratic Congress and President.
Corn ethanol, the liberals' favorite fuel, is the root cause of global food shortages. It is a boondoggle of epic proportions and shaping up to be a humanitarian disaster.
In 1992, wacko crusader Al Gore wrote about "the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a 25-year period."
Of course, that assertion was as unlikely and ludicrous as his inventor of the Internet fiction. So the environmental activists went to work stigmatizing oil and its gasoline by-product.
Who can forget the impassioned street chants of "No blood for oil"?
Corn ethanol was the perfect substitute for the power-hungry Left. The massive subsidies required to make ethanol a viable substitute fuel yielded huge donations to the Democrat party from the giant agribusiness lobby, while placating the wild-eyed extremists with its natural and renewable labels.
Forget that ethanol has only 2/3 the energy content of gasoline.
Forget that ethanol requires a forty cents per bushel subsidy, almost $5 billion annually.
The giant agribusinesses quickly shifted gears from raising food for people to raising food for fuel and their Democrat subsidies.
Corn is at the base of the food chain, eaten directly, fed to the animals we eat, fed to the animals we use for milk and other dairy products, and used as a sweetener and distilled into alcohol. High prices for corn translate into high prices for everything we eat and drink. The Agriculture Department estimates that by 2016, ethanol will be 31% of the corn crop, up from just 14% in 2006.
Democrat policies have caused this uptick in hunger, along with Obama and the Democrats' 10.5% jobless recession.
Now, these self-righteous frauds will wail about another "crisis" to be solved by more and bigger government, without ever acknowledging their own culpability in this legislated catastrophe.
Jake - Well I think it's about time for you to take Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the Republican from Iowa, to the wood shed.
Jake:
It was also heard of that the increased corn (ethanol) prices was causing a huge increase in the price of the mexican staple - the corn tortilla - to the extent that even there were food riots.
Scott - Was that the lead story on the final Lou Dobbs show?
Jake - Do you use a cane or a seeing eye dog? Look at this from March 5, 2008 WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush said the United States should "get off oil" Wednesday as crude prices hit record highs and renewed his support for ethanol use despite concerns the corn-based fuel is driving up food prices and isn't more environmentally friendly than gasoline.
Jake, are you really so naive as to think that Republicans don't have a hand in this?
Jake - Do you use a cane or a seeing eye dog? Look at this from March 5, 2008 WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush said the United States should "get off oil" Wednesday as crude prices hit record highs and renewed his support for ethanol use despite concerns the corn-based fuel is driving up food prices and isn't more environmentally friendly than gasoline.
Jake, are you really so naive as to think that Republicans don't have a hand in this?
The push for ethanol has also been pushing science forward as well. New techniques are being developed that will
- speed up production (lower cost)
- improve yield (lower cost)
- reduce energy consumption (lower cost)
- break down the stalk and non-cob portions (so the food part goes back to food production)
- allow use of switch grass and other non-food crops on land that couldn't be farmed for food anyway
The demand drives the need for improving the technology. They are also developing advanced algae that produce oils or hydrogen. They are cracking the secrets of photosynthesis to duplicate and improve the efficiency.
Right now, it's like the stage of computers with dial-up internet or the early brick cell-phones. The "iPhone" of ethanol production will eventually arrive.
Bob,
If you limit your response to smarmy soundbites, you might not continue to be Anon-she-ano's favorite love toy.
But let's play your silly gotcha game:
In 2002, Hillary said during a Senate energy debate, "We are providing a single industry with a guaranteed market for its products -- subsidies on top of subsidies and, on top of that, protection from liability. What a sweetheart deal."
However, on July 2, 2007, Hillary told a Des Moines, Iowa crowd, "Now, Iowa is way ahead of the rest of the country. What you've done with ethanol...you're setting the pace."
What could have happened in that brief period of time to cause such a monumental flip-flop by the Democrat's leading candidate to regain the White House?
Could strategists have advised the huge fund-raising possibilities of taxpayer subsidies to giant agribusinesses for corn ethanol?
America has more coal than the Middle East has oil, but damn the consequences, we have an election to win.
Nuclear power makes a lot more sense and won't starve any children, but politics is more important than human decency.
Drilling for Alaskan oil would create jobs and provide energy security, but let's not use logic to undermine our environmental dogma.
Bob, if you are going to label people as hypocrites, you should wake up and focus on Democrat liberals rather than "all Christians".
Jake - Don't get so bent out of shape. There's enough hypocrisy to go around for everybody. Including you. I would have to agree with you that much of what Bush said was the equivenant of smarmy soundbites. But then what better way to reply to your one sided rants. What has happened once again Jake, is that you've missed the point. But I'm a patient man, so here's another example. Fred Thompson, who voted against ethanol subsidies when he was a U.S. senator now says that ethanol is “a matter of national security.” Jake, I have a problem with the cost of producing ethanol too, but I don't foam at the mouth everytime a conservative comes out in favor of it. Get over it Jake. Republicans like lobbyists too. Really! They do! Maybe you should read and consider what ANon contributed. Unlike your one sided rant, ANon points to some possible benefits from ethanol production.Its an interesting take on the subject. Read it with an open mind, and then research it. It will probably do you some good.
Jake - You want to bring up the christian hypocrisy thing again?
Of all the systems of religion that were ever invented,there is none more derogatory to the almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason and more CONTRADICTORY in itself than this thing called christianity.
i refuse to take anything a-non posts as serious until a-non himself gets serious and comes clean as to his identity. grow the cluck up and reveal your true identity, coward!
i suggest the rest of us do the same.
Bob and ANon-she-ano fancy themselves the smartest guys in the room, so it hurts their inflated egos when the many serious flaws in their liberal agenda are noted.
For instance, Bob pontificates about Washington's bipartisan hypocrisy, all the while conveniently forgetting that he brings up President Bush in practically every post. So nice of you to step back from your pointless and boring demonization of the previous Administration to admit that you think the Democrats are just the same.
And Bob dismisses Scott's on-target observation about the Mexican food riots. He can salute our apologist-in-chief on his world grovelling tour, but would rather ignore the suffering caused by liberal Democrat policies to our loyal southern neighbor.
But Bob, I do so enjoy your amusing lovefest with ANon-she-ano, as you both pretend some exaggerated analogy about Iphone agriculture justifies food insecurity, in favor of massive subsidies to favored Democrat donors.
What's beautiful is watching our local liberal left try to spin it both ways. They jump at the opportunity to bash anyone who doesn't share their deep sensitivity for this imminent hunger crisis, while obliquely acknowledging that Democrat corn ethanol legislation caused the crisis in the first place.
Now, they expect us to be enthralled with the wonderful side benefits of this flawed energy policy? Let's all cheer for innovation through deprivation. How about just getting rid of the bad policy, admit the mistake, and move forward with clean coal, nuclear power, and Alaska drilling?
By the way, Bob, I'm a big fan of algae-based biofuels. They make a lot more sense than this corn ethanol boondoggle.
Unfortunately, the Democrats will never let this game-changing breakthrough see the light of day. Every pound of genetically-engineered algae disposes of two pounds of carbon dioxide, so you'd think the wacko environmentalists would hail this significant development.
If they truly believed that carbon dioxide was a global-warming pollutant, shouldn't Al Gore and the screaming green movement embrace algae-based biofuels as a powerful new tool to combat the impending Armageddon?
Not so, because the Democrat's cap-and-tax power grab would be rendered irrelevant.
The liberal, big government, election money machine must take precedence over good science and sound policy.
Give me an amen, Bob, for more liberal Democrat hypocrisy.
Jake - Your last post does prove one thing. There are still huge reserves of natural gas in this country.
Steve - In the past we had duscussed the desire for homeowners to be energy self sufficient. Yesterday on NPR's science Friday, they had a prof. from MIT discussing new technology that uses solar panels to charge hydrogen cells. He said they were building the conversion units for about $30, and expected them to be available to the public in about 8 yrs. His goal is for each home to have its own energy source.
Jake - You show me Hillary? I'll give you McCain - On the Republican side, John McCain, a long-time ethanol critic, tied for third in Iowa. In August 2006, six months before the Iowa vote, McCain switched sides in the ethanol debate, telling a crowd in Grinnell, Iowa, that ethanol “is a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects.” Look at Doles ties to ADM. The agribusiness contributions to Bush.
Iowa is where corn is king. Harkin and Grassly are from Iowa. Both are ethanol supporters. Ones a Republican. Get it Jake?
As for my comment about Scotts post, I was just poking fun at Dobbs. Sorry (but not surprised) you didn't get the joke.
bob, sounds interesting, link any posts as you come across them.
do you think the federal government will give us massive credits when we'll eventually need to switch out our gas furnaces for electric ones? ugh...
Steve - The story was on Science Friday / NPR, and it was called Personalizing Solar Power. You can go to the NPR web site and listen to it. Its about 10 min. Quite interesting.
Times/AP story. Sat. Nov. 28th page 6. Almost half of U.S. children will be on food stamps at some point during childhood.
Bob,
You do understand the difference between parents using the government to get free food and children actually going "hungry."
Or don't you?
As of several years ago, the poorest grown children in the United States were bigger, stronger and better fed than the U.S. soldiers that stormed the beaches at Normandy.
As I have pointed out many times before, when it comes to caloric intake kids today (even "poor" kids) eat too much not too little.
There were always be those who are temporarily homeless or foodless due to extreme circumstances, but even those people are offered help by various agencies and charities until they can get back on their feet.
Except for a few runaway teens, children are not forced to sleep outside on grates, only derelicts and drug addicts do that.
The very definition of poverty in this country -- the government definition -- is ridiculously skewed, insofar as it is measured by income not consumption. Measured by actual deprivation, the "war on poverty" was won many years ago.
Gil - Of course I understand that. I was just giving your blog readers some additional food for thought. I wasn't making a statement or expressing an opinion. Matter of fact, If you read the article, you will notice that they address some of the issues that you mention. I tend to agree with you on this issue. I think the bigger problem is a lack of nutrition, not a lack of food. BTW, Scott never did take me up on the offer to make a run to the local food bank, but we did have a great photo op.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home