carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/25/85)
Rick McGeer writes: >Mike, if there is widespread hunger in America, I'll concede your >case and give you better evidence: my cats eat well, and my parent's >dogs (in Canada) are bloated....but I don't think that there is. >Meese two years ago called the hunger problem "largely anecdotal", >and there was an outcry, and a study -- but I haven't seen numbers. >What percentage of Americans go hungry, and of those, how many go >hungry because of lack of resources and how many because they simply >don't eat well, even though they have the means to do so? According to the Chicago Tribune, around 20% of Americans suffer "periodically" from some degree of hunger or malnutrition or are under the constant threat thereof. (Not counting those on diets. :-) I don't know the source for this figure, but the Trib ran a series last fall on the subject in which they reported the results of their own investigation. It is hard to be precise because there are different definitions of hunger, and it also depends on whether you are counting before or after the receipt of private charity or welfare benefits. Obviously the problem is not as bad as it is in Africa, but the significant fact is that there is a hunger problem at all in a nation that produces huge food surpluses. I think it was the President's Commission itself that termed the problem "largely anecdotal." In this context "anecdotal" means that people such as newspaper reporters have gone out and seen with their own eyes that the problem exists. Rick can find some evidence for himself across the bay in SF, if he will look for the soup kitchens and talk to the people there. Or drive down to the highly productive agricultural area south of San Jose, around Castroville and Salinas. I'm not sure what Rick means about people going hungry "because they simply don't eat well, even though they have the means to do so." I don't think there are many people, besides ascetics, who knowingly choose to be chronically hungry. If people don't eat well because they are ignorant or don't know how to budget, that is clearly a part of the problem. Some poor people buy name brands instead of generic foods because they can't read the English labels and have seen the name brands advertised on TV. Here are one or two anecdotes that appeared in the Tribune series (article by Christopher Drew): ________________ In many ways, Katherine, a 28-year-old black woman living on [Chicago's] South Side, is a typical welfare mother. She grew up in a public housing project and now depends solely on public aid to support herself and her 8-year-old daughter. Never married, she tried to break out of this cycle of dependency by working when she was in her early 20s. But she gave up hope for employment after her other child, a baby boy, crawled into a refrigerator and suffocated while in the care of a sitter. These days, Katherine isn't as worried about her daughter's safety as she is about putting enough bread on the table to feed her. While the general cost of living has jumped 25 percent in the last four years, Katherine's food stamp and welfare benefits have risen only half as much, from $336 a month to $378. As a result, she said, even sticking to a limited diet such as hot cereal for breakfast and turkey wings and potatoes for dinner isn't enough to keep her cupboards from running bare. ... Katherine's problems illustrate how sharp cuts in the nation's aid programs have forced many of the poor to scrounge more than ever for a square meal. Few are starving, but many clearly are seeing less balance in their diets, and medical researchers say this is contributing to an alarming increase in malnutrition-related diseases in some parts of the country. ... The Tribune, in interviews with social workers and welfare recipients, found clear evidence of greater suffering because of the food-assistance cutbacks and of a need for more training and counseling to help people get out of the welfare rut. But it was also clear that private sources are easing some of the worst problems -- though many charities insist they can't get enough food to meet the demand -- and that the poor don't always make the wisest budget choices. In places such as Chicago and New Orleans, a typical Southern city with a large poor population, most of the welfare recipients interviewed reported running low on food much more often than they used to. And their descriptions of their diets -- long on starches and fatty cuts of meat and short on fruits and vegetables -- would have made any nutritionist cringe. "Everything's gone up so much, and we have not got much of an increase" in benefits, Donna London said as she stood in line at Hope House, a Catholic Charity in New Orleans, late last month for a bag of canned and dried goods for herself and her 11-year-old son. "So my food runs out before the end of the month, and I got to come here to survive." "I eat neckbones and pig tails and, once a week, a cheap cut of chicken or turkey legs with macaroni or potatoes," said Thelma Boyd, 67, who is confined to a wheelchair and lives alone in New Orleans in a tin-roofed shack... "The doctor said I'm supposed to drink fruit juice, but I can't afford it, so I drink Kool-Aid instead." Doctors in both cities have linked such dietary deficiencies to increased health problems, such as last year's 24% increase in pediatric admissions at Cook County Hospital for stunted growth, dehydration and weight loss. ... Food bank officials confirm that they have been reaching many of the people in need, especially since Congress authorized the Agriculture Department three years ago to temporarily distribute surplus milk and cheese to the pantries. But they said they don't have the resources to help many of the worst cases, including an increasing number of homeless people who can't get food stamps because they don't have a permanent address. [Chicago Tribune, 11/25/84] -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/28/85)
How can there be hunger in America? Isn't there an abundance of food, as well as private charities and an extensive welfare state? Welfare benefits for the poor are minimal. In most states, welfare (including food stamps) does not bring families up to the poverty line, and in some cases leaves them considerably below it. (See T. Joe, C. Rogers, and R. Weissbourd, *The Poor: Profiles of Families in Poverty*, Center for the Study of Welfare Policy, University of Chicago.) Around 30 million Americans are below the poverty line; there are numerous families of four or more who are trying to make it on $400-$500 a month or less. There is plenty of evidence of malnutrition among the poor. A Center for Disease Control study about ten years ago showed that around 15% of the poor children examined showed symptoms of anemia and 12% were stunted in height. The infant mortality rate is often used as an index of the nutritional well-being of a people, since the rate reflects the nutrition of the mother. In the US the rate is around 14 per thousand, almost twice that of Sweden. For nonwhites in the US, the rate is 22 per thousand. In certain areas such as the Fruitvale area of Oakland, the rate reaches 36 per thousand. There is "Third World" malnutrition such as kwashiorkor (a protein deficiency disease) in places such as as Mississippi where the welfare benefits are miserably inadequate. If you need any more convincing please read *Starving in the Shadow of Plenty* (1981) by Loretta Schwartz-Nobel. Sample quote [an elderly woman is speaking]: "On Friday, I held over two peas from lunch. I ate one pea on Saturday morning. Then I got into bed with the taste of food in my mouth and I waited as long as I could. Later on in the day I ate the other pea. Today I saved the container that the mashed potatoes were in and tonight, before bed, I'll lick the sides of the container.... these days I boil the bones till they're soft and then I eat them." Yet Ed Meese and other Reagan henchmen inform us there is no serious hunger in America, while brandishing their budgetary meat-axe. In my opinion Reagan and his rich cronies are not evil, just grossly stupid. The fact that our noble leaders can deny America's serious hunger problem helps to explain why hunger and malnutrition continue to exist in a nation that produces the largest food surpluses in history. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/30/85)
In article <200@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Rick McGeer writes: > >I'm not sure what Rick means about people going hungry "because they >simply don't eat well, even though they have the means to do so." I >don't think there are many people, besides ascetics, who knowingly >choose to be chronically hungry. If people don't eat well because >they are ignorant or don't know how to budget, that is clearly a part >of the problem. Some poor people buy name brands instead of generic >foods because they can't read the English labels and have seen the >name brands advertised on TV. > Well, I might not have worded it exactly like Rick, but it is my experience that many of the hungry are that way because of some form of mental illness or neurosis. There are those who have money but believe themselves to be poor and there are even more who for one reason or another are unable to function in a job for any length of time even where they have the necessary skills (a friend of mine hired someone who habitually failed to show up for work and never called in to say he wouldn't be coming in - needless to say my friend fired him) In short, in America most of the hungry are socially dysfunctional in some way, in countries like Ethiopia most of the hungry are relatively ordinary people who would have no trouble supporting themselves in a dynamic economy. >Here are one or two anecdotes that appeared in the Tribune series >(article by Christopher Drew): >________________ > >In many ways, Katherine, a 28-year-old black woman living on >[Chicago's] South Side, is a typical welfare mother. She grew up in >a public housing project and now depends solely on public aid to >support herself and her 8-year-old daughter. > >Never married, she tried to break out of this cycle of dependency by >working when she was in her early 20s. But she gave up hope for >employment after her other child, a baby boy, crawled into a >refrigerator and suffocated while in the care of a sitter. > This is in fact just the sort of thing I am talking about. A young woman unable to hold a job because of an obsessive, irrational fear. Her daughter is really not allthat much(if at all) safer with her home, and there is no reason to believe she would have been any more successful in preventing her son's death than the babysitter. Such accidents happen *occassionally*, but they do not normally prevent the survuvors from functioning normally. And the risk remains quite small(I and my siblings spent many hours with a babysitter with no untoward events at all). Perhaps what should be done instead of providing free food is to provide free psychiatric counseling so that she can get over her fear and return to the job market. In cases like this food only treats the symptom not the real problem. To solve this sort of thing *something* must be done to eliminate the *cause* of the unemployment(irrational fear, inability to maintain responsibility, delusions &c.) As a matter of fact this is one of the most difficult things to handle, since we are talking about human minds rather than simply physical things like fodd supply and distribution. I really do not know what can be done about it and I would be willing to listen to any likely idea. In the meantime, though, it looks like the best we can do is continue to feed these people through charity(goverment and private) and hope for something better to come along. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (10/05/85)
In article <203@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >How can there be hunger in America? Isn't there an abundance of >food, as well as private charities and an extensive welfare state? >Welfare benefits for the poor are minimal. Not only are they minimal, they are enshrouded in a mass of red tape that forms a protective coating between the poor and the money. The reason for this is that the *real* beneficiaries of the welfare system, the bureaucrats, have a vested interest in keeping it that way. My sister works for a church in Philadelphia, where for several years her job was to cut red tape for the poor there. She was a full time worker, and her entire effort (and considerable education) was used merely to undo the efforts of the bureaucrats, so the people she was helping could get the benefits they were nominally entitled to. To me, this says that we have a wretched system where the abilities of both the bureaucrat and my sister are being essentially wasted. Fire the bureaucrat, let him get an honest job. Let the people keep their money, maybe they'll give some of it to my sister's church. Let my sister and her church actually help the needy directly. *Everybody* will be better off. >There is "Third World" malnutrition such as kwashiorkor (a protein >deficiency disease) in places such as as Mississippi where the >welfare benefits are miserably inadequate. Look, I grew up in Mississippi and my mother was a case worker for the welfare dept in Natchez. People do *not* starve in the streets there-- all the horror stories that are current among Northern liberals are simply hogwash. References like this to Mississippi tend to make me mistrust your other references considerably more than I would otherwise. >Yet Ed Meese and other Reagan henchmen inform us there is no serious >hunger in America, while brandishing their budgetary meat-axe. Real social spending is *up* since Reagan took office, and means-tested programs are essentially even. Actually, as a percent of the budget, the means-tested "welfare" programs are unobjectionable. I primarily oppose them on the grounds that they have a horrible effect on the normal process of self-improvement by which the poor became the middle-class until the mid '60's. --JoSH
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/06/85)
[carnes@gargoyle] > According to the Chicago Tribune, around 20% of Americans suffer > "periodically" from some degree of hunger or malnutrition or are > under the constant threat thereof. > ... Obviously the problem is not as bad as it is in > Africa, but the significant fact is that there is a hunger problem at > all in a nation that produces huge food surpluses. Why do you think there is ? If we believe the Tribune, there is merely a "hunger OR malnutrition" problem. The disjunction is true even if there is only a malnutrition problem. And malnutrition is compatible with overeating. > I'm not sure what Rick means about people going hungry "because they > simply don't eat well, even though they have the means to do so." I > don't think there are many people, besides ascetics, who knowingly > choose to be chronically hungry. Well, there is anorexia nervosa, and other mental and nervous disorders. > If people don't eat well because > they are ignorant or don't know how to budget, that is clearly a part > of the problem. No, this is a different problem. One would be an economic one (if it existed), the other is educational or medical. Economic hunger proceeds from either shortage of food (hardly the case in US), or from its dearth compared to existing sources of income such that the food cannot be acquired. Is this the case? Let us see. An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies 100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours (and you don't even have to cook it). Carbohydrates and fats are even more accessible. From the point of view of basic nutrition, people can be divided into 4 economic classes: (1) "Very poor": cannot afford enough carbohydrates (or calories). (2) "Poor": enough calories, not enough protein. (3) "Middle-class": enough protein. (4) "Rich": can afford to *choose* the form in which basic nutrients come (e.g. can replace eggs with fish or meat at will). In this classification, all Americans fall into the "rich" category. > [2 case histories described] Your quoted examples, meant as cases of extreme poverty, only confirm this: in both cases the people eat meat or fowl *every day*; within limits they choose it. And this is by their own plaintive accounts ! If the billion people in China, who, as you said in another post- ing, are now "decently fed" (and, in a way, this is quite true) could only join the ranks of these "hungry" people , to eat goodies like turkey wings and hot cereal every day, something better on weekends, - population here would at once grow by a billion. *Poverty* is a relative, culture-dependent term. But *hunger* is absolute; it is physiological. What is not hunger in China, or Russia (where the diet you described would be an upper-middle-class one), is not hunger here. Whatever nutritional problems exist in this country, they cannot, in fairness, be called "hunger". If you can earn, receive, steal or borrow a dime an hour, you can't (except voluntarily) go hungry. Personally, I don't care if foodstamp allocations are doubled; compared to other welfare programs, they seem to do less harm and more good. And, even if poor people eat well, why shouldn't they eat even better? I only mind this pseudoproblem of hunger (in developed countries, that is) for two reasons. First, because it is a red herring, diverting attention from what is really important. Just as the "problems" of abortion or capi- tal punishment do. Second, it distorts judgement in estimating the comparative efficiency of economic systems. If capitalism in a developed country created hunger, this would, indeed, be an ar- gument against capitalism. But it doesn't. Jan Wasilewsky
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/14/85)
First some definitions. By HUNGER I mean the chronic underconsumption of food and nutrients. By MALNUTRITION I mean an impairment to physical and/or mental health resulting from failure to meet nutrient requirements. JoSH writes: >In article <203@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >>Welfare benefits for the poor are minimal. > >Not only are they minimal, they are enshrouded in a mass of red tape >that forms a protective coating between the poor and the money. >The reason for this is that the *real* beneficiaries of the welfare >system, the bureaucrats, have a vested interest in keeping it that >way. I agree that the red tape is a large part of the problem. But I believe that the reasons for it are a good deal more complex than JoSH seems to think. >Look, I grew up in Mississippi and my mother was a case worker >for the welfare dept in Natchez. People do *not* starve in the >streets there-- all the horror stories that are current among >Northern liberals are simply hogwash. References like this to >Mississippi tend to make me mistrust your other references >considerably more than I would otherwise. The report of the Physician Task Force on Hunger in America, sponsored by the Harvard School of Public Health, has recently been published as a book, *Hunger in America*. It contains eight pages on hunger in Mississippi. A sample, chosen almost at random: So stark is hunger in the Delta today that it shocked even the local doctors who accompanied our field investigation teams.... In nearby Marks, Mississippi, a recent screening of over 90 children for the Headstart program found that over half were anemic. Home health aide Odell Williams reported that some families simply have nothing to eat.... Emergency food providers in Jackson established a food bank in response to increased need for emergency food. Warren Yodes, director of that city's Operation Shoestring, reported that demand has increased 300% since 1981.... A Tutwiler, Mississippi, social worker reported that of every 100 hospital in-patients she sees each month, about one-third are malnourished elderly people. Most, she said, have nutrition-related diseases: hypertension, stroke, diabetes. She told us that they experience recurrent hospitalizations because they lack resources for proper food.... Given the kind of hunger we had previously observed in the New England states, it is difficult to say that hunger is all we observed in Mississippi. We really saw people as close to the brink of survival as one is likely to find in this nation. This study was undertaken by members of the medical establishment, not raving leftists. If JoSH is still skeptical, he should contact the Jackson pediatrician Dr. Aaron Shirley, president of the board of the Mississippi Medical and Surgical Association, who probably knows as much about the hunger situation in his state as anyone. *Hunger in America* should be read by anyone who gives a damn that there is a serious hunger problem in this nation that produces huge food surpluses. This book contains the results of a thorough study of the problem, presents enough hard data to satisfy anyone, and is the definitive publication on the subject. The report states that "available evidence indicates that up to 20,000,000 citizens may be hungry at least some period of time each month." Furthermore, according to the study the problem is getting worse, not better. Jan Wasilewsky writes: >Economic >hunger proceeds from either shortage of food (hardly the case in >US), or from its dearth compared to existing sources of income >such that the food cannot be acquired. Is this the case? Let us >see. > > An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies >100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours >(and you don't even have to cook it). >Carbohydrates and fats are even more accessible. > > From the point of view of basic nutrition, >people can be divided into 4 economic classes: >(1) "Very poor": cannot afford enough carbohydrates (or calories). >(2) "Poor": enough calories, not enough protein. >(3) "Middle-class": enough protein. >(4) "Rich": can afford to *choose* the form in which basic nutrients > come (e.g. can replace eggs with fish or meat at will). > >In this classification, all Americans fall into the "rich" >category. Not even close to being true. See below. >Whatever nutritional problems exist in this country, they cannot, >in fairness, be called "hunger". If you can earn, receive, steal >or borrow a dime an hour, you can't (except voluntarily) go >hungry. But millions of Americans *cannot* earn, beg, borrow, or steal even that much. They include children, the elderly, the mentally and physically ill, the disabled, and the unemployed. If they had any adequate sources of income, very few of these would still be hungry. How does Jan square this with his belief that food automatically distributes itself in nations where there is high food productivity? > Personally, I don't care if foodstamp allocations are doubled; >compared to other welfare programs, they seem to do less harm and >more good. And, even if poor people eat well, why shouldn't they >eat even better? I only mind this pseudoproblem of hunger (in >developed countries, that is) for two reasons. First, because >it is a red herring, diverting attention from what is >really important. I am mystified as to what Jan thinks is more important than food. Missles and bombs, maybe? >Second, it distorts judgement in estimating >the comparative efficiency of economic systems. If capitalism in >a developed country created hunger, this would, indeed, be an ar- >gument against capitalism. >But it doesn't. I would argue that while capitalism doesn't exactly "create" hunger, it is an important contributing factor because it tends to generate poverty, inequality, racism, and sexism. But that's a long argument. I would also argue, as indeed I have already, that such countries as China, Cuba, and Nicaragua have made giant strides in reducing hunger in their countries, mainly because of policies that redistribute power over food-producing resources in the direction of more equality. Even the US in the past has been able to significantly alleviate its hunger problem through intelligent government policy. Once again from the Physician Task Force report: ______________ Hunger and malnutrition were serious problems in this country in 1968. Then as today, national organizations, church groups, and universities investigated and found hunger. Government agencies, as today, found hunger. And as today, doctors went into regions of the country and reported that it was a widespread and serious problem. The nation responded to that problem. In the decade between 1970 and 1980 we extended the food stamp program from the 2 million poor Americans which it covered at the time to some 20 million people. While this did not cover all Americans living in poverty, other nutrition programs provided assistance. We expanded the free school lunch and breakfast programs. We established elderly feeding programs (congregate meal sites and Meals-on-Wheels for shut-ins) to insure that our senior citizens did not go hungry. And we established the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program to insure adequate nourishment for low-income pregnant women and their infants. These programs were established in response to hunger among American people, and they worked. Teams of doctors in 1977 retraced the routes they had covered the previous decade when they found serious hunger and malnutrition. Summarizing their findings, the medical teams stated: ...the facts of life for Americans living in poverty remain as dark or darker than they were ten years ago. But in the area of food there is a difference. The food stamp program, the nutritional component of Head Start, school lunch and breakfast programs, and to a lesser extent the WIC program have made the difference. [Nick Kotz, *Hunger in America: The Federal Response*] In a few years this nation basically eliminated hunger as a problem. ___________ The Physician Task Force report documents in great detail the evidence that since 1977, hunger has again become a serious problem: "There have been 15 national studies on hunger in the past three years; at least that many more state and local studies on hunger have been carried out during the same period of time. What is clear is the *uniformity* of their conclusions: Hunger has returned to this nation, and all evidence indicates that it is continuing to grow as a problem." *Hunger in America* makes a number of recommendations which are summarized as follows: --We call upon Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress to take immediate action to feed the hungry. The House and Senate leadership should prepare an emergency legislative package to respond to the hunger crisis. The components of the plan should include: ---Strengthening the food stamp program. ---Strengthening school and other meals programs for children. ---Utilizing the WIC and Medicaid programs more fully to protect high-risk children. ---Expanding elderly meals programs to be certain that all low-income elderly have access to congregate meals or the Meals-on-Wheels program. ---Protecting families by strengthening income support programs. --Congress should pass legislation to create a permanent and independent body to monitor the nutritional status of the population. --We ask that appropriate Congressional committees direct responsible administrative agencies to report on a quarterly basis progress made in eliminating hunger, until such time as it has been ended in America. --We ask the US Congress to establish a Bipartisan Study Commission to recommend legislative changes to protect all our citizens from the ravages of poverty and its attendant ills in the future. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
lazarus@ucbvax.ARPA (Andy Lazarus) (10/16/85)
> Jan Wasilewsky writes: > > >Economic > >hunger proceeds from either shortage of food (hardly the case in > >US), or from its dearth compared to existing sources of income > >such that the food cannot be acquired. Is this the case? Let us > >see. > > > > An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies > >100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours > >(and you don't even have to cook it). > >Carbohydrates and fats are even more accessible. > > > > From the point of view of basic nutrition, > >people can be divided into 4 economic classes: > >(1) "Very poor": cannot afford enough carbohydrates (or calories). > >(2) "Poor": enough calories, not enough protein. > >(3) "Middle-class": enough protein. > >(4) "Rich": can afford to *choose* the form in which basic nutrients > > come (e.g. can replace eggs with fish or meat at will). > > > >In this classification, all Americans fall into the "rich" > >category. > > Not even close to being true. See below. > > >Whatever nutritional problems exist in this country, they cannot, > >in fairness, be called "hunger". If you can earn, receive, steal > >or borrow a dime an hour, you can't (except voluntarily) go > >hungry. > > But millions of Americans *cannot* earn, beg, borrow, or steal even > that much. They include children, the elderly, the mentally and > physically ill, the disabled, and the unemployed. If they had any > adequate sources of income, very few of these would still be hungry. > How does Jan square this with his belief that food automatically > distributes itself in nations where there is high food productivity? > This is a good response but it misses the principal fallcay in janw's arithmetic, viz., that it is also necessary to buy shelter, utilities, clothing, education materials for children, etc. I do agree that everyone could afford an egg an hour -- raw (no stove), eaten in the street (no apartment) while stark naked. This would seem to create some addl. problems..... andy lazarus
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (10/16/85)
> *Hunger in America* makes a number of recommendations which are > summarized as follows: > > --We call upon Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress to take > immediate action to feed the hungry. The House and Senate leadership > should prepare an emergency legislative package to respond to the > hunger crisis. The components of the plan should include: > > ---Strengthening the food stamp program. > ---Strengthening school and other meals programs for children. > ---Utilizing the WIC and Medicaid programs more fully to > protect high-risk children. > ---Expanding elderly meals programs to be certain that all > low-income elderly have access to congregate meals or the > Meals-on-Wheels program. > ---Protecting families by strengthening income support > programs. Conspicuously absent from this list are the following: --- Eliminate all programs designed to reduce the amount of land under cultivation and hence keep up food prices. --- Do away with legislation granting monopolies to certain food producers (e.g. milk producers) which also keep up food prices. --- Eliminate all tarifs and import quotas on food, designed to keep food prices high. all of which libertarians favour, of course. Adopting somewhat statist methods, I don't see any proposals like the following: --- Establish government-run food stores in affected areas which offer low prices by concentrating on "no-frills" staple foods and offer nutritional advice. (run on a non-profit, non-loss basis) I would guess that food prices (at the retail level) might be cut in half by measures like this. Could it be that the government is not interested in anything which doesn't require a beaurocracy? Radford Neal
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/16/85)
/* Written 8:17 am Oct 16, 1985 by janw@inmet.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ [carnes@gargoyle] > >Economic > >hunger proceeds from either shortage of food (hardly the case in > >US), or from its dearth compared to existing sources of income > >such that the food cannot be acquired. Is this the case? Let us > >see. > > > > An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies > >100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours > >(and you don't even have to cook it). > >Carbohydrates and fats are even more accessible. > > >Whatever nutritional problems exist in this country, they cannot, > >in fairness, be called "hunger". If you can earn, receive, steal > >or borrow a dime an hour, you can't (except voluntarily) go > >hungry. > But millions of Americans *cannot* earn, beg, borrow, or steal even > that much. They include children, the elderly, the mentally and > physically ill, the disabled, and the unemployed. If this assertion is true, then you are right. This is the issue under discussion. I doubt it. I see "Help wanted" signs screaming from McDonald's and Burger King. There are lawns to mow, floors to clean, invalids and babies to sit: jobs for adults and chil- dren and old people. No, I DON'T want them to flock, cap in hand, to ask for these jobs. I am glad they can refuse them. But, dammit, why can't you admit the fact? I know, personally, people living on SSI; they get adequate nutrition. I see some beggars, but they are not mothers with emaciated babies; they are men, usually alcoholics. Words are cheap. Show me. OK, this is Boston, and you say Mississipi is different. JoSH has lived there, and he denies it. I know him from his postings; why should I believe some unknown doctors more ? Why don't these hungry people move to a better place ? Haitians do, braving high seas and immigration officials. Why not Mississi- pians who don't face these obstacles ? Possibly because they are *not* hungry ? > If they had any > adequate sources of income, very few of these would still be hungry. But are they ? Circular reasoning. > How does Jan square this with his belief that food automatically > distributes itself in nations where there is high food productivity? Square what ? The visible absence of hungry people, or the reports you quote ? I have seen reports of miracles, too. But they were always somewhwere else... How do I explain the reports ? Well, there are powerful interests involved here, political, departmental, professional and economic. Do you expect hunger specialists to declare their job redundant ? (I just noticed that report uses some weasel wording like worse than New England or as bad as anything in this country.) > > Personally, I don't care if foodstamp allocations are doubled; > >compared to other welfare programs, they seem to do less harm and > >more good. And, even if poor people eat well, why shouldn't they > >eat even better? I only mind this pseudoproblem of hunger (in > >developed countries, that is) for two reasons. First, because > >it is a red herring, diverting attention from what is > >really important. > I am mystified as to what Jan thinks is more important than food. > Missles and bombs, maybe? I wonder what gave you that idea. I have not, to my recollection, used the word "missile" since I started writing to the net. To the well-fed, many things are more important than food. Americans I see are well-fed. If you ask what I think should be important ... it's a long subject. For example, space colonization (the key to the survival of human race); genetic engineering (it may change human nature). Many other things, too. Hunger in underdeveloped countries is very important, of course. Pollution, mineral depletion, nuclear war threat, bureaucratic degeneration of society. > >Second, it distorts judgement in estimating > >the comparative efficiency of economic systems. If capitalism in > >a developed country created hunger, this would, indeed, be an ar- > >gument against capitalism. > >But it doesn't. > I would argue that while capitalism doesn't exactly "create" hunger, > it is an important contributing factor because it tends to generate > poverty, inequality, racism, and sexism. But that's a long argument. True. But I'd argue that capitalism is both the most productive *and* the most equitable system so far invented. It does not generate these four things you've named, it has reduced them enormously. > I would also argue, as indeed I have already, that such countries as > China, Cuba, and Nicaragua have made giant strides in reducing hunger > in their countries, mainly because of policies that redistribute > power over food-producing resources in the direction of more > equality. Progressive statistics ... (Gabor Fencsik's term). How do you know ? You say Cuba... I don't think that Cubans went hungry under Batista. In mid-Sixties I heard (second-hand, I admit, but I trusted my sourse) that Soviet sailors boast how one can choose any girl one sees in Havana, for a meal. In summer 68, I saw an article from Granma (reprinted in a Czech newspaper). Counter- revolutionary elements, it said, are organizing long lines before restaurants, to create an appearance of shortages; and that those guilty of it would be executed. I believe things are better now. I've heard that in China they are *much* better *than be- fore* - which means better than bad. Is this necessarily some- thing for us to emulate ? And why are they better ? Because China made a step to capitalism, like Russia during NEP. A step to capitalism in any "socialist" country means more food, espe- cially for the poorest class. The officials get fed anyway, in special stores. Speaking of capitalism, why not compare China, nutritionwise, with Hong Kong, or with Singapore ? Do you doubt the result? Richard: this is an issue of fact, not of preference. Show me. (But I'll read your book. You've at least achieved that much). Jan Wasilewsky /* End of text from inmet:net.politics */
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/17/85)
Please let's not promote eating raw eggs. From what I've
read it will screw up your absorption of the B-complex
factor biotin and is probably a neat way to end up with
salmonella. :-)
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}alonso@princeton.UUCP (Rafael Alonso) (10/17/85)
Richard Carnes writes: > > Jan Wasilewsky writes: > > > > > An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies > >100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours > > But millions of Americans *cannot* earn, beg, borrow, or steal even > that much. They include children, the elderly, the mentally and > physically ill, the disabled, and the unemployed. If they had any According to the Mercer County (NJ) Welfare office, a qualifying family of 4 (husband, wife, 2 kids) would receive $465/month in cash from them (if the family has no other income; the amount is decreased if they do). The max food stamp allowance is $268/month (if family has no income); for food stamp benefits, the $465 is counted as income, lowering the family's food stamp allotment to $194/month. Assuming the family is permanently on welfare, they are supposed to use some of their basic benefit for food, as well as the food stamps. If they do not, they then have about $1.59 per person per day for food (194*12/365/4). Is this adequate? It's easy to answer this question. One can define a basic diet and determine the portion cost in local stores. Rafael Alonso PS. If only egg sandwiches are eaten ( best guess: bread slice ~ 3 cents, egg ~8 cents -> 22 cents), $1.59 seems sufficient. PPS. Other relevant points: The family may also receive a shelter allowance. Benefits may be lower in other states. Ghetto stores are more expensive, (can they go elsewhere?). Poverty correlates with ignorance -> bad budgetting. Ghetto blasters cost about $100, sneakers ~$40. $140 = food for 88 days. Survival is not enough. There are charity kitchens available.
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (10/17/85)
>>Look, I grew up in Mississippi and my mother was a case worker >>for the welfare dept in Natchez. >The report of the Physician Task Force on Hunger in America, >sponsored by the Harvard School of Public Health, Listen, I hate to break it to you, but these guys existence depends on maintaining a belief that there are problems out there. Why are socialists so ready to believe that people quit acting in their own self-interest as soon as the word "public" appears in their title? [janw:] >> An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies >>100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours Forget even that--dried dog food, for example, will provide you with a fully balanced diet of good healthy stuff for a few cents a day. I've eaten it, out of curiousity--it's palatable enough, if you're hungry. We could provide, free for the asking, no questions, a full-time diet, and even deliver it to their homes, for all the people Richard claims are hungry, for less than half of one percent of what we spend on socialist programs now. Why does Richard not espouse this? Because he is *not interested in hunger per se*. He is interested instead in *using* hunger to further his political ends of increasing government control of the economy. He is, in a word, EXPLOITING the hungry. --JoSH
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/17/85)
In article <4056@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > Forget even that--dried dog food, for example, will provide you > with a fully balanced diet of good healthy stuff for a few cents > a day. I've eaten it, out of curiousity--it's palatable enough, > if you're hungry. We could provide, free for the asking, no questions, > a full-time diet, and even deliver it to their homes, for all the > people Richard claims are hungry, for less than half of one percent > of what we spend on socialist programs now. Why does Richard not > espouse this? Because he is *not interested in hunger per se*. > He is interested instead in *using* hunger to further his political ends > of increasing government control of the economy. He is, in a word, > EXPLOITING the hungry. Actually, I've considered the "Purina human chow" idea for at least 10 years. It should be delivered for free (or pennies) to anyone, perhaps with some checks to prevent our subsidizing pets and home meat production. A similar system of free or inexpensive clothing and shelter could also be worked out. These could greatly reduce expenses for a number of classes, such as students. Meals for prisoners would be more economical. Etc. But the problem in the US isn't just keeping people alive: heck, we're the richest nation in the world. Of course we can do that. I perceive the problem to be to keep our society integrated. To keep class distinctions small enough so that revolution, violence, and hatred cannot easily be fomented in powerful (because they are large) underclasses. Building class distinctions, such as "poor people eat [dogfood] human chow" is a dangerous way to solve problems. People raised on human chow won't initially like regular food, and will find it embarrassing to eat with others, because of the status-oriented desire to conceal "lowly" origins. (A great deal is known about the psychology of food-sharing and learning to eat new foods. Their social importance should not be underestimated.) We routinely laugh at comedies based on status and class distinctions, but most people on the net are well sheltered from them (as compared to many other people in many nations.) I don't think fostering such distinctions is a desirable goal, and I'm willing to be taxed more money so that someone on welfare can buy the same foods I do in the same stores to provide us with a basic and psychologically important common ground. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (10/19/85)
In article <784@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >Actually, I've considered the "Purina human chow" idea ... >But the problem in the US isn't just keeping people alive: ... >... the status-oriented desire to conceal "lowly" origins. ... >... I don't think fostering such distinctions is a desirable goal,... You and the poverty industry both. But such distinctions were the major force that caused people to work their way out of poverty. The absolute worst thing that welfare has done is to destroy the incentive, the stigma of poverty. But make no mistake: As Mike has so kindly pointed out, the actual physical problem of hunger is quite separate from the social engineering goals of those who talk about it most often. To quote myself, >> [The socialist] is *not interested in hunger per se*. >> He is interested instead in *using* hunger to further his political ends. >> He is, in a word, EXPLOITING the hungry. --JoSH
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/20/85)
/* Written 11:11 am Oct 18, 1985 by janw@inmet.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >> An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies >>100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours [josh] > Forget even that--dried dog food, for example, will provide you > with a fully balanced diet of good healthy stuff for a few cents > a day. I've eaten it, out of curiosity--it's palatable enough, > if you're hungry. You are quite right, and it gives my conclusion another margin of error of at least a decimal order. One or two such margins are already built into my argument. The reason I didn't use your ex- ample is not just because I'd never got around to taste dog biscuits (but I bet I've eaten worse, out of necessity, in other times and places), but mostly because I anticipated a spate of articles from very compassionate people (who have never seen a hungry person in their lives), all wittily entitled "Let Them Eat Dog Food". Jan Wasilewsky P.S. I tried them, and I won that bet. But I don't like liver flavor at all. Beef is best.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/21/85)
In article <454@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: > Conspicuously absent from this list are the following: > > --- Eliminate all programs designed to reduce the amount of > land under cultivation and hence keep up food prices. > > --- Do away with legislation granting monopolies to certain > food producers (e.g. milk producers) which also keep up > food prices. > > --- Eliminate all tarifs and import quotas on food, designed > to keep food prices high. These are all programs designed to keep commodity prices high so that producers remain in business. (Some have additional goals, such as soil conservation.) Reducing commodity prices has extremely little effect upon retail shelf prices of most foods. Take a $2 box of corn flakes, for example. There's probably less than a cent worth of corn or any other ingredients in it. Processing, packaging, distribution, and advertising are what cost the rest. Changing the price of the corn won't affect the price of the flakes significantly. This is an extreme example, but most other commodities have large markups at the retail level that mask much of price changes at the commodity level. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/21/85)
In article <4080@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > But make no mistake: As Mike has so kindly pointed out, the actual > physical problem of hunger is quite separate from the social engineering > goals of those who talk about it most often. To quote myself, > > >> [The socialist] is *not interested in hunger per se*. > >> He is interested instead in *using* hunger to further his political ends. > >> He is, in a word, EXPLOITING the hungry. I suppose you must quote yourself, since nobody else seems to think in such a twisted manner. :-( How would I be exploiting the hungry by giving them the food they want? I'm certainly not coercing them. I'm not asking anything in return: just making a case why we should do more than feed the hungry minimally. A definition of exploit in my dictionary sounds like what you have in mind: to make use of selfishly or unethically. How do you suggest I am exploiting anyone by arguing for better than minimal food? Maybe if I was stubborn enough to let people starve instead of getting the full program I would prefer? But I'm sure you would stand by proudly watching them starve and beat your chest exclaiming "Well, at least I'm not expoiting them by making them accept food!" -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (10/22/85)
In article <791@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <4080@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >> [The socialist] is *not interested in hunger per se*. >> He is interested instead in *using* hunger to further his political ends. >> He is, in a word, EXPLOITING the hungry. > >How would I be exploiting the hungry by giving them the food they want? If your true motives, as I claim, are political rather than altruistic, you are obviously exploiting them. Since the programs you espouse have, if Carnes is to be believed, failed to provide adequate nutrition while spending hundreds of times as much as would be necessary to do so, their political and social engineering nature is clear. >I'm certainly not coercing them. I'm not asking anything in return: just >making a case why we should do more than feed the hungry minimally. Do more indeed, much more, and still not feed them minimally... You don't have to be coercing someone to exploit them--indeed, consider Mr. Carnes' Marxist definition of exploitation: You (like the Capitalist) offer someone something he cannot afford to refuse, to get money out of *someone else*. You are not concerned with the person you give the bait to, he is just the means to an end. You are *using* him. >A definition of exploit in my dictionary sounds like what you have in mind: >to make use of selfishly or unethically. How do you suggest I am exploiting >anyone by arguing for better than minimal food? This is as if you owned a slave and argued, "How can I be exploiting him? The exercise he gets working for me improves his body. He is better off than before." But you have ignored the very factors that determine exploitation, and they are exactly parallel in the case of your slave and your welfare recipient: (a) you ignore that the interaction is benefiting you tremendously in other ways, and (b) you have reduced the unfortunate person to *dependence* on you, something which I consider a moral evil in itself. >Maybe if I was stubborn >enough to let people starve instead of getting the full program I would >prefer? How ingenuous. Our sole point of agreement, you will remember, is that there is a level of support a tiny fraction of your "full program", that would provide complete nutrition and totally eliminate physical hunger. >But I'm sure you would stand by proudly watching them starve and beat >your chest exclaiming "Well, at least I'm not expoiting them by making >them accept food!" >Mike Huybensz More lies. You know perfectly well that's not my position. My position is that it would be good to make available "human chow" instead of the monetary (or moneylike) programs we have now. The main reason is that current programs provide a strong disincentive to self-improvement and self-sufficiency. They are the bait in the poverty trap. Furthermore, this is orthogonal to the question of whether such aid should be provided by the government. I would oppose programs like the current ones even if administered by churches and foundations. They actively hurt the poor. Mike and those like him are using the poor as pawns in a game of power politics. Their "concern" is a smokescreen, and the fact that their programs actually make the hard road out of poverty harder, concerns them not at all. The more poor the better, as long as they can be shown eking out a desperate hand-to-bureaucrat-to-mouth existence. --JoSH
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/22/85)
In article <215@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > >Jan Wasilewsky writes: > >> An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies >>100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours >>(and you don't even have to cook it). >>Carbohydrates and fats are even more accessible. > >>Whatever nutritional problems exist in this country, they cannot, >>in fairness, be called "hunger". If you can earn, receive, steal >>or borrow a dime an hour, you can't (except voluntarily) go >>hungry. > >But millions of Americans *cannot* earn, beg, borrow, or steal even >that much. They include children, the elderly, the mentally and >physically ill, the disabled, and the unemployed. If they had any >adequate sources of income, very few of these would still be hungry. >How does Jan square this with his belief that food automatically >distributes itself in nations where there is high food productivity? > Oh barf! *Anyone* who is not totally immoblized or incarcerated can earn *at* *least* 0.25 an hour by begging! (In fact the figure is probably closer to a full dollar). All that is necessary is to stand/sit/lie at a busy street corner and ask everyone if they can spare some change.(Or if you are mute, write a sign) You would be amazed at how many people will give out a quarter! Just one person per hour will net enough to buy over two eggs. A mere four givers per hour will net a dollar. And I have seen many mentally and physically ill people doing just this. Admittedly this generates barely sufficient funds to buy food, but it *does* do that much. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not in favor of a pure capitalist economy, and I support government anti-poverty programs. I would like to see all the beggers able to get thier needed food in other ways. I just found your statement above to be too wild to let pass without some comment! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/22/85)
In article <4105@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > In article <791@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >How would I be exploiting the hungry by giving them the food they want? > > If your true motives, as I claim, are political rather than altruistic, > you are obviously exploiting them. Since the programs you espouse have, > if Carnes is to be believed, failed to provide adequate nutrition while > spending hundreds of times as much as would be necessary to do so, their > political and social engineering nature is clear. Since I'm just a working person, rather than a politician, the least you could do when attributing false motives to me is to call me a misguided tool. :-( And of course we will take it on faith that you have absolutely no political, social engineering, or economic motives for your opposing social program, and thus certainly couldn't be exploiting the poor. :-( Nor have the programs advocated "failed": they've provided nutrition for millions, and continue to do so. But they do need to be improved in an assortment of ways, including reaching more who need the help. This is one of the reasons I opposed Reagan and his ilk with their ideological (rather than need-based) cutbacks in social programs. > You don't have to be coercing someone to exploit them--indeed, consider > Mr. Carnes' Marxist definition of exploitation: You (like the Capitalist) > offer someone something he cannot afford to refuse, to get money out of > *someone else*. You are not concerned with the person you give the > bait to, he is just the means to an end. You are *using* him. Oh, heavens! Let's all sit on our hands lest we accidentally "use" someone! Anything we decide, including doing nothing, can be construed as "using" someone. Whereas you, by proposing to lessen benefits by substituting "human chow" for a more usual diet, are much more directly interfering in what the poor might consider their own best interests. Or do you propose to decide their best interests for them also? > My position is that it would be good to make available "human chow" > instead of the monetary (or moneylike) programs we have now. The main > reason is that current programs provide a strong disincentive to > self-improvement and self-sufficiency. They are the bait in the > poverty trap. Evidentally you haven't done much trapping. Cheap food baits as well as expensive food (providing the nutritional value is similar.) Any program will provide some disincentive. Your idea would just make the trap harder to escape from in a variety of ways. Such as providing incentive for the first generation of recipients to spend discretionary dollars on normal food rather than any sort of long-term investment in education, business, etc. Such as forming a basic social barrier between the following generations (which isn't used to normal food) and the rest of society. > >A definition of exploit in my dictionary sounds like what you have in mind: > >to make use of selfishly or unethically. How do you suggest I am exploiting > >anyone by arguing for better than minimal food? > > This is as if you owned a slave and argued, "How can I be exploiting him? > The exercise he gets working for me improves his body. He is better off > than before." Your analogy fits your scheme better: "let's feed our slave minimal rations, if he wants better he can plant his own garden. We'll claim this provides incentive for self-improvement and self-sufficiency, when in reality he'll be so busy trying to survive that he won't have any time for either of those, let alone political organizing!" The people-chow idea brings to mind the breeding of a class of cheap labor grown on animal feed to be exploited by the libertarians/capitalists. > But you have ignored the very factors that determine > exploitation, and they are exactly parallel in the case of your slave > and your welfare recipient: (a) you ignore that the interaction is > benefiting you tremendously in other ways, and (b) you have reduced the > unfortunate person to *dependence* on you, something which I consider > a moral evil in itself. Your people-chow proposal bears these two faults equally. (a) In addition to any ways current social programs might benefit one or the other of us, it has the benefit of being cheaper to Joe Libertarian. (b) If I'm dependent on you for gruel or steak, I'm still dependent. We're both talking about programs that remove hunger as an incentive for independence. We're thinking of other factors to produce desire for independence. You want to create an underclass and rely on status consciousness. I prefer other ideas. > Furthermore, this is orthogonal to the question of whether such > aid should be provided by the government. I would oppose programs > like the current ones even if administered by churches and foundations. > They actively hurt the poor. Feeding the poor people-chow actively hurts them, by teaching them that they are merely domesticated animals used for labor or kept as pets. > Mike and those like him are using the poor as pawns in a game of > power politics. Their "concern" is a smokescreen, and the fact that > their programs actually make the hard road out of poverty harder, > concerns them not at all. The more poor the better, as long as > they can be shown eking out a desperate hand-to-bureaucrat-to-mouth > existence. JoSH and those like him are using the poor as pawns in a game of power politics. Their "concern" is a smokescreen, and the fact that their programs actually make the hard road out of poverty harder, concerns them not at all. The more poor the better, as long as they can be shown eking out a desperate hand-to-capitalist-to-mouth existence. :-( -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/24/85)
>We could provide, free for the asking, no questions, >a full-time diet, and even deliver it to their homes, for all the >people Richard claims are hungry, for less than half of one percent >of what we spend on socialist programs now. If it were as easy as you say, then by all means -- DO IT! >Why does Richard not >espouse this? Because he is *not interested in hunger per se*. >He is interested instead in *using* hunger to further his political ends >of increasing government control of the economy. He is, in a word, >EXPLOITING the hungry. -JoSH FLAME ON!! Why does JoSH complacently propose feudalistic rationales which benefit only those who are already well established? Because he is *NOT interested FREEDOM FOR ALL*, only *freedom of those conformist whities to permanently establish their hold of the stolen wealth of this continent.* Because he wishes *to create and become part of a permanent propertied gentry*, similar to that from which the founders of this nation fled (and, no doubt, intended to establish for themselves). He would, in 4 words, EXPLOIT the hungry -- FOREVER! Never mind that we stole this land from red peoples, EXACTLY as the South African slave-masters are attempting to do right now. Never mind that we stole from the black peoples, raping their descendents of all dignity and inheritance. Never mind that we bleached the minds and cultures of all who have succeeded here, erecting a new religion of mechanical sterility, material gain, and worship of the flimsy anglo-male image. FLAME OFF!! Sorry, JoSH -- but I feel your comments about Richard were totally off the mark. Not that I care much for Marxism or Big Bureaucratism, but Richard hardly deserves the kind of BS you dumped on him! Our social welfare systems in the past have indeed been ineffective. Like most socialist proposals, they have suffered from lack of accountability, and inability to motivate those whom they are helping to become self-reliant. Please remember, however, that the hungry people Richard referred to were those, in particular, who cannot possibly escape -- unemployables, like those who are very old or those who are very young. Maybe we can let the old people suffer and die. The young undernourished ones, however, will be with us for some time. Economically, they are an investment. There are also many who are mentally ill, retarded, and otherwise permanently unemployable. If we will not help these hidden people (our society has many such souls stashed away -- I have seen them), ideally, by providing creative and productive roles for them, we are not fit for the gift of rational consciousness we so fortuitously possess. -michael
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (10/29/85)
In article <615@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > Why does JoSH complacently propose feudalistic rationales which benefit > only those who are already well established? Because he is *NOT > interested FREEDOM FOR ALL*, only *freedom of those conformist whities > to permanently establish their hold of the stolen wealth of this > continent.* Because he wishes *to create and become part of a > permanent propertied gentry*,... Actually, I am already part of the propertied gentry, and am very comfortable on the proceeds of state theft, as lkk has mentioned. Most of the leftist academics in similar positions take a very dim view of my attempts to rock the boat... > Sorry, JoSH -- but I feel your comments about Richard were totally > off the mark. They were probably unnecessarily harsh. However I believe they contain a core of truth. I cannot but consider as hypocritical, pleas for more massive spending, when orders of magnitude more than would be necessary to fix the problems they cry about, are spent on the "poverty industry". > Please remember, however, that the hungry people Richard referred to > were those, in particular, who cannot possibly escape -- unemployables, > like those who are very old or those who are very young. I would quite honestly like to see a program of all-you-can-eat mush, and similar deals for other necessities. The question of whether it should be publicly of privately run is completely separate. --JoSH
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/11/85)
>> But millions of Americans *cannot* earn, beg, borrow, or steal even >> that much. They include children, the elderly, the mentally and >> physically ill, the disabled, and the unemployed. > > If this assertion is true, then you are right. This is the issue >under discussion. I doubt it. I see "Help wanted" signs screaming >from McDonald's and Burger King. There are lawns to mow, floors >to clean, invalids and babies to sit: jobs for adults and chil- >dren and old people. No, I DON'T want them to flock, cap in >hand, to ask for these jobs. I am glad they can refuse them. But, >dammit, why can't you admit the fact? I know, personally, people >living on SSI; they get adequate nutrition. I see some beggars, >but they are not mothers with emaciated babies; they are men, >usually alcoholics. Words are cheap. Show me. OK: visit one of the more than 50 soup kitchens in Boston that serve over 4,000 meals a day and ask the people who are in daily contact with the hungry. Call the Project Bread Hunger Hotline of the Paulist Center and explain to them that there are no chronically hungry people in Boston -- because these are the people who need to be told that they are mistaken, not us hardheads on the net. Tell them all they have to do is look up the help wanted ads in the Globe, and give everyone who shows up in the bread lines a job instead of a meal. > OK, this is Boston, and you say Mississipi is different. JoSH >has lived there, and he denies it. I know him from his postings; >why should I believe some unknown doctors more ? Of course: JoSH is an authority on the hunger situation in MS because he grew up there and you know him from the net. His testimony is to be preferred to that of Dr. Aaron Shirley, a Jackson pediatrician and president of the state medical association, who has extensively studied the hunger situation in his state and testified before Congress on the subject. >Why don't these hungry people move to a better place ? Haitians >do, braving high seas and immigration officials. Why not Mississi- >pians who don't face these obstacles ? Possibly because they are >*not* hungry ? Here is another area where you can perform a great service to the nation's poor. Visit Mississippi and explain to 85-year-old widows in wheelchairs that they would be better off if they moved to New York where the welfare benefits are higher, away from everything they know. Another place to visit is the Texas Valley, where you can explain (in Spanish) to numerous illiterates the benefits of moving to another state. Also schedule a stop at the Navajo reservation in Arizona. >How do I explain the reports [of hunger]? Well, there are powerful >interests involved here, political, departmental, professional and >economic. Do you expect hunger specialists to declare their job >redundant ? You haven't provided an explanation of the reports of hunger. You have only asserted that you are disinclined to believe them because "powerful interests" of some kind may account for the hunger reports. Presumably, a pediatrician who treats malnourished children doesn't want his job to become redundant, so he invents tales of thousands of malnourished children. Or something like that. >To the well-fed, many things are more important than food. Americans >I see are well-fed. No doubt. And the Americans you see are a representative sampling of the population, right? JoSH writes: >>The report of the Physician Task Force on Hunger in America, >>sponsored by the Harvard School of Public Health, > >Listen, I hate to break it to you, but these guys existence >depends on maintaining a belief that there are problems out there. I am waiting for an explanation of how the existence of the medical and public health professions depends on the belief that the US has a serious hunger problem. >Why are socialists so ready to believe that people quit acting in their >own self-interest as soon as the word "public" appears in their title? I have seen no criticisms of the methodology, etc. of the Report -- which I would be very interested in seeing. All I have seen is the ad hominem argument that the Report is just what you'd expect coming from these guys. The authors of the Report include surgeons and pediatricians at major hospitals, deans of schools of public health and schools of nutrition, clergymen, and other well-known communist agitators. Among the local physicians participating in the field investigations was e.g., Irwin Rosenberg, M.D., Director, Clinical Nutrition Research Center and Professor of Medicine, Univ. of Chicago; President, American Society for Clinical Nutrition. A KGB agent, no doubt. What we are dealing with here on the net are some people who cannot accept facts that challenge their view of the world. Instead of reading *Hunger in America*, the Report of the Physician Task Force, as I recommended, and making an informed judgment of its validity, they attack its conclusions in advance of knowing anything about the extensive research from which those conclusions were derived. A profitable and enlightening discussion presupposes certain shared values and beliefs, such as honesty, a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and agreement on what constitutes a reasonable argument. Where these are lacking, discussion is fruitless. Accordingly I will restrict my discussions to people who I know share these values and beliefs. I hope to learn much from discussion with people who share a love of scholarship and philosophy. Let me end with some excerpts from the Physician Task Force Report. If you are annoyed or bored by talk about hunger in America, you may as well skip it. ________________ The huge, overwhelming complex of buildings known as Cook County Hospital is located right in the middle of Chicago, the nation's third-largest city. It is an unlikely place to find kwashiorkor and marasmus, the Third World diseases of advanced malnutrition and starvation, which were reported to us in south Texas. As our team of doctors listened, joined by the Administrator of the hospital and the Chief of Internal Medicine, Dr. Stephen Nightingale, we learned that these conditions do exist in urban America: "They say we don't see kwashiorkor and marasmus in this country, but we do. I see 15-20 cases every year in my hospital." The person speaking was Dr. Katherine K. Christoffel, Chair of the Committee on Nutrition of the Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The hospital about which she spoke is Children's Memorial Hospital, where she is Attending Pediatrician in the Division of Ambulatory Services. Despite her impressive credentials, members of the visiting team of physicians remained skeptical until her report was corroborated by yet another Chicago doctor with his own impressive credentials and experience. Dr. Howard B. Levy is Chairman of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Hospital.... A member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the AMA, Dr. Levy joined us to express concern about what he is seeing: "We too are seeing kwashiorkor and marasmus, problems which I have not seen since I was overseas. Malnutrition has clearly gone up in the last few years. We have more low-birth-weight babies. We are seeing so much TB that my house staff is no longer excited by it; it excites me that they are not excited by this trend." Dr. Levy underscored the significance of what he was reporting: "clear, measurable, methodological phenomena" which demonstrate that the health of his patients is getting worse. More and more patients, Dr. Levy observed, have inadequate money to purchase food necessary to prevent growth failure and other nutrition-related problems among the pediatric population. ... Cook County Hospital gives out food itself and is asked regularly for more by hungry patients. Dr. Nightingale, the Internal Medicine Chief, said that he admits 20 people a day whose problems stem from inadequate nutrition. Pediatric social worker Brenda Chandler has patients come to her saying, "Do you have anything I could eat?" Dietitian Mary Jo Davis sees hunger among "patients" who are not really admitted to the hospital. "Almost every day we have people looking around trying to find out where the hospital leaves its garbage," she reported. ... Betty Williams of Chicago United Charities placed the mounting hunger problem in a unique perspective: "Our agency is over 100 years old, and this period is as bad as many of us can recall." ... To respond to the increasing demand, the number of soup kitchens in the city jumped over 80% in the last two years, and now serve 11,500 meals a week. The number of church-related food pantries increased 45% in the same period of time. ... In southwest Chicago our inquiry into the situation faced by laid-off steelworkers at the Wisconsin Plant could have taken place at the Armco Plant in Houston. Frustrated and angry, unemployed workers and their families stand in lines for 5-pound block of cheese and a loaf of bread. Frank Lumkin, president of the Save Our Jobs Committee, explained the dimensions of the problem. "It's having 100 bags of food to give to the families and finding 500 people show up, already in line, at 7:00 a.m." ... The hungry in Chicago are the families seen by the Visiting Nurse Association, whose district offices have been forced to open food pantries to respond to the lack of food among their patients. "These babies are hungry," implored executive director Margaret Ahern. But, according to her, not only babies. She cited many instances of parents and the elderly also going hungry, some whose caloric intake is as low as 550 calories and 24 grams of protein. "In the prison camps of Germany," she noted, "the daily ration was 800 calories and 40 grams of protein." The hungry are the patients at the South Lawndale Health Center. The medical director, Dr. Alvarez, and the clinic staff report that health problems related to poor nutrition are not uncommon. Some 10% of their pediatric patients have iron-deficiency anemia, and pulmonary tuberculosis is seen in young people they serve, itself often a result of compromised nutrition. Health workers note that, when they do home visits, they find families unable to purchase adequate food. Children often consume only coffee and an egg for a meal. The hungry, according to other Chicago agencies, are the undocumented workers whose fear of being deported prevents their even standing in line for cheese. ... Hunger in Chicago is the faces, young and old, black and white, of people living on the margins, and many who live beyond the margins of a full stomach: --The 81-year-old man and his wife who come for a meal at the Uptown Ministries, who live on $293 monthly in social security benefits and $24 in food stamps. They eat mostly grits and oatmeal, sometimes rice and beans. ... --The patient in a hospital who, along with her three children, stuffed food into their mouths by hand. They had had nothing to eat for three days. --The mothers whom doctors find diluting their infant's formula in order to make it last the month. [testimony by Mary Jo Davis] ... "These people are human beings," Charles Betcher reminded us when we visited the soup kitchen at the Uptown Baptist Church. "You can't live long on two pieces of bread a day." ... It is perhaps what Jack Ramsey, director of Second Harvest, umbrella organization for food banks around the nation, had in mind when he observed: "When you see government agencies making referrals to small food pantries that are running out of resources, that's an American tragedy." [Selected from many pages of similar accounts in *Hunger in America*] -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/12/85)
Here is my 2 cents worth on hunger in America. I did volunteer work at Saint Anthony's dining room in San Francisco a while ago (I quit because I got very sick one time after going there- serious diseases are rampant among the people who seek the food- and also I decided that the real problem was in social organization, i.e. what is needed is social reform rather than volunteer work. You don't see such things in intelligently run countries like Denmark, Austria, Norway, and Sweden.) Anyway there is a real and very serious problem with hunger that I have seen with my own eyes. The condition of those people is absolutely deplorable, and it is a national disgrace to allow this situation to exist. They spend hours waiting in line for food that is worth about 75 cents (or maybe less). Say a piece of stale bread, a scoop of some mish-mash, some other small starchy thing, a pat of butter, a small paper container of sugar, and a cup of coffee (a small carton of milk for the children). Oh, about Richard Carnes. I have seen several flames directed at him lately. In my opinion he is the single most intelligent and interesting contributor to the net. Keep on keeping on, Richard!
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/14/85)
>/* tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) / 4:46 am Dec 12, 1985 */ > . . . what is needed is social reform >rather than volunteer work. What is "social reform?" >You don't see such things >in intelligently run countries like Denmark, Austria, >Norway, and Sweden. Perhaps not, but the people (or the people in power) in those countries may heve a different set of priorities than those here. In any case, the US, for the most part, isn't "run," intelligently or otherwise. Running is appropriate for machines, not countries. >The condition of those >people is absolutely deplorable, and it is a national disgrace >to allow this situation to exist. Why should anyone who did not cauuse these circumstances to come about feel disgrace? Is it our responsibility to help them? Why? >Oh, about Richard Carnes. I have seen several flames directed >at him lately. In my opinion he is the single most intelligent >and interesting contributor to the net. I think so too. So what? Michael Sykora
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/15/85)
>/* tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) / 4:46 am Dec 12, 1985 */ > . . . what is needed is social reform >rather than volunteer work. What is "social reform?" >You don't see such things >in intelligently run countries like Denmark, Austria, >Norway, and Sweden. Perhaps not, but the people (or the people in power) in those countries may heve a different set of priorities than those here. In any case, the US, for the most part, isn't "run," intelligently or otherwise. Running is appropriate for machines, not countries. >The condition of those >people is absolutely deplorable, and it is a national disgrace >to allow this situation to exist. Why should anyone who did not cauuse these circumstances to come about feel disgrace? Is it our responsibility to help them? Why? >Oh, about Richard Carnes. I have seen several flames directed >at him lately. In my opinion he is the single most intelligent >and interesting contributor to the net. I think he's one of the most intelligent contributors also. So what? Michael Sykora