low food security

[yeahwho]

WTF? Washington Post Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html)

The United States has set a goal of reducing the proportion of food-insecure households to 6 percent or less by 2010, or half the 1995 level, but it is proving difficult. The number of hungriest Americans has risen over the past five years. Last year, the total share of food-insecure households stood at 11 percent.

Less vexing has been the effort to fix the way hunger is described. Three years ago, the USDA asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies "to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access -- or lack of access -- to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound."

Among several recommendations, the panel suggested that the USDA scrap the word hunger, which "should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."

To measure hunger, the USDA determined, the government would have to ask individual people whether "lack of eating led to these more severe conditions," as opposed to asking who can afford to keep food in the house, Nord said.

The Ministry of Propaganda is now officially eliminating the U.S. hunger problem by transfer of terminology. :eek:

[sam i am]

I don't agree with your conclusionary statement.

Redefining "hunger" to better reflect the reality in America that VERY few go genuinely hungry for any substantial length of time is a way of distinguishing it from the kind of hunger that is still commplace in many other parts of the world : most notably the Third World.

People dying of starvation are definitely not the same as Americans who are "hungry" but can often eat Mac n' Cheese or get food at local food banks or churches.

[yeahwho]

I don't agree with your conclusionary statement.

Redefining "hunger" to better reflect the reality in America that VERY few go genuinely hungry for any substantial length of time is a way of distinguishing it from the kind of hunger that is still commplace in many other parts of the world : most notably the Third World.

People dying of starvation are definitely not the same as Americans who are "hungry" but can often eat Mac n' Cheese or get food at local food banks or churches.

I do not embrace utter bullshit as easy as you. I understand hunger in the U.S. w/o redefinition. Famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine) is another word altogether.

[sam i am]

I do not embrace utter bullshit as easy as you. I understand hunger in the U.S. w/o redefinition. Famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine) is another word altogether.

In that definition you linked to, famine is defined with a qualifier : widespread.

You can have starvation and hunger without it being widespread.

Finding a case of true starvation (non-voluntary) in the West is unlikely at best.

Hunger is a different story. How long it persists and what the circumstances surrounding said hunger are legitimate talking points, whether you CHOOSE to embrace it or not.

As for utter bullshit....well.....just read many of your posts and you can easily reacquaint yourself with the definition of that word:p

[yeahwho]

In that definition you linked to, famine is defined with a qualifier : widespread.

You can have starvation and hunger without it being widespread.

Finding a case of true starvation (non-voluntary) in the West is unlikely at best.

Hunger is a different story. How long it persists and what the circumstances surrounding said hunger are legitimate talking points, whether you CHOOSE to embrace it or not.

As for utter bullshit....well.....just read many of your posts and you can easily reacquaint yourself with the definition of that word:p

:rolleyes:

[sam i am]

:rolleyes:

Best post you've ever posted.:D

[yeahwho]

Best post you've ever posted.:D

I'm happy for you sam i am. If only the rest of the thinking Americans (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=low%20food%20security&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) could get by so easy with the elimination of hunger via propaganda this would be a perfect world for you, unfortunately most people are questioning the motives behind such thought patterns.

[sam i am]

I'm happy for you sam i am. If only the rest of the thinking Americans (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=low%20food%20security&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn) could get by so easy with the elimination of hunger via propaganda this would be a perfect world for you, unfortunately most people are questioning the motives behind such thought patterns.

It's soooooooo great to live in a world where you question everything and, especially, "motives behind...patterns." What a paranoid, schizophrenic world you must perceive through your "the world sucks and is out to get you" eyes.:rolleyes:

Relax and have some joy in your life, why dontcha?:) http://kittens.sytes.org/ or, for you dog lovers : http://dailypuppy.com/



You see....we conservatives DO have a heart:eek:

In case I miss the opportunity to say so later....Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, and, for those atheists out there, hope today gives you as much satisfaction with your limited existence as you can perceive scientifically with your senses:p

[Schmeltz]

Look, you just did it again: yeahwho made a pretty cogent point backed up with relevant material, and your response was to tell him to think about puppies and kittens. Then you tried to remake the thread into a Christmas card (completely unsure where that came from).

If you're unwilling to actually address the issues up for debate, why bother saying anything at all? It makes you look ridiculous.

[yeahwho]

I should just move to a world were people don't question people who willingly want to eliminate the term hungry and replace it with low food security. And in this world I too should demean and and ridicule those who question the values of the authority that changes words to fit in better with a policy I pay for as a taxpayer.

That would be the right thing to do. But because I'm such a paranoid schizophrenic planet fearing twit I just don't get it.

The only way to stop this madness is to accept USDA standards of how hungry people should be reclassified. Maybe I should see a hypnotist. I hear shock therapy does wonders for folks who think too much, that could be an option.

I think sam i am is attempting some sort of humor and for that I give him credit, we should all loosen up every once in awhile. I'm fucking pissed off that the goverment is trying to downplay hungry (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hungry), nothing could be more fucked up than actually stopping the verbage that describes true pain.

[sam i am]

I should just move to a world were people don't question people who willingly want to eliminate the term hungry and replace it with low food security. And in this world I too should demean and and ridicule those who question the values of the authority that changes words to fit in better with a policy I pay for as a taxpayer.

That would be the right thing to do. But because I'm such a paranoid schizophrenic planet fearing twit I just don't get it.

The only way to stop this madness is to accept USDA standards of how hungry people should be reclassified. Maybe I should see a hypnotist. I hear shock therapy does wonders for folks who think too much, that could be an option.

I think sam i am is attempting some sort of humor and for that I give him credit, we should all loosen up every once in awhile. I'm fucking pissed off that the goverment is trying to downplay hungry (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hungry), nothing could be more fucked up than actually stopping the verbage that describes true pain.

The funniest part about that is that you equate true hunger to much worse problems with food supplies and those in REAL need of sustenance. By downplaying the true need in parts of the world where thousands, if not millions, perish from lack of sustenance, you make it SEEM like the US is the worst out there.

It's freaking disingenuous and obviously politically motivated because you CAN'T do anything about the real problems with REAL hunger in the rest of the world. It demeans those who have died or suffered while elevating something that is not even close to the same thing.



There. Happy with a REAL post?

The sentiments behind the well wishes for the holiday season were well-intentioned, BTW. No need to read between the lines.

[yeahwho]

The funniest part about that is that you equate true hunger to much worse problems with food supplies and those in REAL need of sustenance. By downplaying the true need in parts of the world where thousands, if not millions, perish from lack of sustenance, you make it SEEM like the US is the worst out there.

It's freaking disingenuous and obviously politically motivated because you CAN'T do anything about the real problems with REAL hunger in the rest of the world. It demeans those who have died or suffered while elevating something that is not even close to the same thing.

There. Happy with a REAL post?

The sentiments behind the well wishes for the holiday season were well-intentioned, BTW. No need to read between the lines.


So if I read you, and believe me I'm trying to understand what your saying, Not only me, but everybody who is questioning the latest gift from the USDA, the term "Low Food Security" is a way of showing respect to the rest of the world. Hey World, we, the USDA respect your hunger problems by no longer calling those who are hungry in the US hungry.

I have nothing to learn from you, your ideas are to promote some sort of superiority over everyone who posts here and then, like Schmeltz pointed out above, you look ridiculous. Even the agency (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/trends.htm) using this verbage is doing it in a way to demonstrate a real need for levels of hunger. Why? Because the very best studies to date show 3.9 percent of U.S. households (4.4 million) had very low food security (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm) at some time during 2005.

My topic in this thread is not about worldwide hunger, it is about definitions and downplaying of situations that are very real to those experiencing them. I am not going to become desensitized about those in my neighborhood who are hungry.

What the USDA has done is quite simple and obvious. The terms "low food security" and "very low food security" replaced the old descriptions of "food insecurity without hunger" and "food insecurity with hunger."

I agree with Timothy Lynch's (http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2006/11/28/news/editorials/1019472.txt) excellent piece on doublespeak. The more they do this bullshit the less they are actually doing for you and I, the people footing the bill through our tax dollars. I wish the fuckers would stop switching tactics and responsibility by changing the actual description.

[Ali]

Relax and have some joy in your life, why dontcha?:) http://kittens.sytes.org/ Aaaahhhh...

Thanks samiam those pics made my day!

[Funkaloyd]

Fucking cat was up all night making weird demon-baby noises. You know how to rub a guy the wrong way, Sam.

[Pres Zount]

I've had low food security for the past hour, so I'm going to make a sandwich.

[sam i am]

My very low food security has led me to Taco Bell.

[sam i am]

Fucking cat was up all night making weird demon-baby noises. You know how to rub a guy the wrong way, Sam.

That's my goal....to rub you the wrong way.

BTW, try that with the cat and see what happens!:p