BBC 606: poor attendances were a feature at the majority of the weekend’s 30 [English soccer] FA Cup ties.
Soccernet: Attendances at the FA Cup third round over the weekend were the highest for 25 years.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Chavez's Gulag
Many in the American and European lefts fetishize Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez. Chavez is an old school left wing populist of the kind you don't really see much any more.
He regularly takes on the meddling by 'imperial America,' though it hasn't stopped him from meddling in Bolivian, Peruvian and Colombian domestic politics. He revels in taunting President Bush. These are two of the major reasons why many of the left love him.
Many act like anyone who opposes American imperialism in general or Bush in particular is a guy worthy of canonization. Waving a book by Noam Chomsky only clinches it.
(Bush is allegedly reading something else)
Not being one to follow the herd, I've never subscribed to this simplistic theory. The principle that anyone who criticizes American imperialism or the Bush administration gets a free pass regardless of any other consideration. Such nonsense is nothing more than a variation of Bush's own infamous slogan "Either you're with us (his administration) or you're with the terrorists."
Granted, at least Chavez (sort of) allows opposition and democratic elections, unlike his buddy Fidel in Cuba. Though even that's only 'sort of.'
He recently shut down one of the country's oldest television stations because it wasn't sufficiently sycophantic to him. This is hardly the only assault on the media: as one former Chavez supporter explained to the independent watchdog group Reporters Without Borders, “Here we have freedom of opinion but not longer freedom of expression."
The human rights' situation faced by non-journalists isn't much better. Such as extrajudicial killings, rampant police abuse, torture and generalized impunity.
In an extremely chilling account, the liberal South African newspaper Daily Mail and Guardian described Venezuela's prison system as being 'widely considered one of the world's most brutal and corrupt.'
When a newspaper that extensively covers Zimbabwe calls a prison system 'one of the world's most brutal and corrupt,' that's quite a statement. I wonder if some of those who regularly condemn conditions at Guantanamo Bay will, even once, criticize Chavez's own Gulag. Or are only right wing government supposed to follow human rights law?
By all objective accounts, there are clearly some good things Chavez has done. He's instituted many programs to help the poor, particularly in terms of health care and education. The standard of living for millions of Venezuelans has improved and that's surely a good thing.
However, his governing style calls in to question how sustainable this improvements can be. Funding is based on revenues gained from the high price of oil, of which Venezuela is a major producer.
Additionally, Chavez and his aides have focused on consolidating power around the presidency (the cult of personality effect) rather than strengthening the country's institutions, which would perpetuate and stabilize these programs. If these admittedly positive steps are based exclusively on the personality and charisma of Chavez, what happens if the strongman dies* or otherwise leaves the scene precipitously?
(*-I find it unlikely that Chavez will ever leave power gracefully and of his own free will)
I think the fundamental problem with a 'revolution' based on the cult of personality is that it's not really a revolution. Such systems lack a mechanism for self-correction, because (and this will sound familiar) the leader and the system are one. Criticizing the system is akin to attacking the chief and vice versa. Lacking a mechanism for self-correction, such systems inevitably implode. When the system finally does implode, will poor Venezuelans acquiese into starvation like the North Koreans or angrily revolt like the Romanians?
At the end of the day, Chavez is nothing more than a populist demagogue strongman who's built a cult of personality around himself. And I've always viewed such characters with extreme skepticism. Chavez is no more a uniter than Bush himself. They're both self-styled tough guy bullies who have built their presidencies on division and demonization. Neither should be imitated.
He regularly takes on the meddling by 'imperial America,' though it hasn't stopped him from meddling in Bolivian, Peruvian and Colombian domestic politics. He revels in taunting President Bush. These are two of the major reasons why many of the left love him.
Many act like anyone who opposes American imperialism in general or Bush in particular is a guy worthy of canonization. Waving a book by Noam Chomsky only clinches it.
(Bush is allegedly reading something else)
Not being one to follow the herd, I've never subscribed to this simplistic theory. The principle that anyone who criticizes American imperialism or the Bush administration gets a free pass regardless of any other consideration. Such nonsense is nothing more than a variation of Bush's own infamous slogan "Either you're with us (his administration) or you're with the terrorists."
Granted, at least Chavez (sort of) allows opposition and democratic elections, unlike his buddy Fidel in Cuba. Though even that's only 'sort of.'
He recently shut down one of the country's oldest television stations because it wasn't sufficiently sycophantic to him. This is hardly the only assault on the media: as one former Chavez supporter explained to the independent watchdog group Reporters Without Borders, “Here we have freedom of opinion but not longer freedom of expression."
The human rights' situation faced by non-journalists isn't much better. Such as extrajudicial killings, rampant police abuse, torture and generalized impunity.
In an extremely chilling account, the liberal South African newspaper Daily Mail and Guardian described Venezuela's prison system as being 'widely considered one of the world's most brutal and corrupt.'
When a newspaper that extensively covers Zimbabwe calls a prison system 'one of the world's most brutal and corrupt,' that's quite a statement. I wonder if some of those who regularly condemn conditions at Guantanamo Bay will, even once, criticize Chavez's own Gulag. Or are only right wing government supposed to follow human rights law?
By all objective accounts, there are clearly some good things Chavez has done. He's instituted many programs to help the poor, particularly in terms of health care and education. The standard of living for millions of Venezuelans has improved and that's surely a good thing.
However, his governing style calls in to question how sustainable this improvements can be. Funding is based on revenues gained from the high price of oil, of which Venezuela is a major producer.
Additionally, Chavez and his aides have focused on consolidating power around the presidency (the cult of personality effect) rather than strengthening the country's institutions, which would perpetuate and stabilize these programs. If these admittedly positive steps are based exclusively on the personality and charisma of Chavez, what happens if the strongman dies* or otherwise leaves the scene precipitously?
(*-I find it unlikely that Chavez will ever leave power gracefully and of his own free will)
I think the fundamental problem with a 'revolution' based on the cult of personality is that it's not really a revolution. Such systems lack a mechanism for self-correction, because (and this will sound familiar) the leader and the system are one. Criticizing the system is akin to attacking the chief and vice versa. Lacking a mechanism for self-correction, such systems inevitably implode. When the system finally does implode, will poor Venezuelans acquiese into starvation like the North Koreans or angrily revolt like the Romanians?
At the end of the day, Chavez is nothing more than a populist demagogue strongman who's built a cult of personality around himself. And I've always viewed such characters with extreme skepticism. Chavez is no more a uniter than Bush himself. They're both self-styled tough guy bullies who have built their presidencies on division and demonization. Neither should be imitated.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Big Brothers/Big Sisters
Big Brothers/Big Sisters sent me the following email:
January is National Mentoring Month … and we’ve set a goal to recruit 10,000 people who have an interest in volunteering this month. You know what a difference a "Big Brother" or "Big Sister" makes in the life of a child. The truth is, we need more generous people like you to volunteer as "Bigs". Especially as Big Brothers.
So please help us recruit Big Brothers with Tell-a-Guy e-cards. Send them to 5 male friends and help make a child’s dream come true. Too many boys who want one don’t have Big Brothers. These boys are ready and eager for someone to play catch with, a fellow computer-game lover, or a buddy to haggle over the last slice of pizza and then share a movie.
What better way is there to kick off the new year for these kids than finding them a Big?
For more information on becoming a Big Brother or Big Sister or the programs the organization offers, go to the BBBS of America website. The national site also provides information on local agencies.
January is National Mentoring Month … and we’ve set a goal to recruit 10,000 people who have an interest in volunteering this month. You know what a difference a "Big Brother" or "Big Sister" makes in the life of a child. The truth is, we need more generous people like you to volunteer as "Bigs". Especially as Big Brothers.
So please help us recruit Big Brothers with Tell-a-Guy e-cards. Send them to 5 male friends and help make a child’s dream come true. Too many boys who want one don’t have Big Brothers. These boys are ready and eager for someone to play catch with, a fellow computer-game lover, or a buddy to haggle over the last slice of pizza and then share a movie.
What better way is there to kick off the new year for these kids than finding them a Big?
For more information on becoming a Big Brother or Big Sister or the programs the organization offers, go to the BBBS of America website. The national site also provides information on local agencies.
Friday, January 05, 2007
A wolf can't change his spots
One of the disgraced architects of the Iraq Aggression was former Deputy War Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. He was rewarded for this debacle by being named head of the World Bank. Apparently his role in a destructive war gave him the necessary credentials to head an agency supposedly designed around constructive development.
Then again, this is not sarcastic. After all, one of his predecessors as head of the bank was Vietnam architect Robert McNamara.
As part of the Bush administration, Wolfowitz was clearly trained in the art of secrecy, opacity and obfuscation and came to abhorr accountability.
Apparently, Wolfowitz has transplanted this mismanagement style to the Bank.
Then again, this is not sarcastic. After all, one of his predecessors as head of the bank was Vietnam architect Robert McNamara.
As part of the Bush administration, Wolfowitz was clearly trained in the art of secrecy, opacity and obfuscation and came to abhorr accountability.
Apparently, Wolfowitz has transplanted this mismanagement style to the Bank.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Heroism
Reading various blogs and other media outlets, I've been struck by something. Something that seems part of a broader trend in this country. It seems that the only people who are considered heros are soldiers. The only people considered men (or women) of honor are soldiers. The only people considered brave are soldiers. The only way to show courage is to be a soldier. The only way to serve your country is to be a soldier.
I don't have anything against soldiers and do not wish to dispute these descriptions but when I was growing up, my dad was my hero. He used to be my hero long before I found out that he'd volunteered for the Air Force at the height of Vietnam. He was my hero because he was a great guy, because he was my role model, because he was the kind of person I wanted to grow up to be. But he would be one of "our heroes" because of his 3 1/2 years as a number cruncher in the Air Force, not because of his 33 years of being a parent or his decades of activity in the community or his years of teaching church school. To many, military service is the only service worth a damn. And I'm sorry but I resent that.
It's incredibly sad that the qualities I mentioned above are so rarely applied to non-soldiers or non-military professions. Are there not teachers or coaches or doctors or parents who are heroes? Is picking up an M-16 the only way to show honor? Do policemen show bravery? Do firemen show courage? What about humanitarian aid workers who go into many of the very same dangerous situations as soldiers, but without the protection of weapons, body armor, tanks and armed comrades? Are they brave, courageous, honorable heroes?
What about people who help feed the homeless? What about people who teach the illiterate how to read? What about people who spend their time helping at risk youths? What about people who voluntarily serve on school boards or neighborhood watch programs? Aren't these people serving their country? Maybe not by killing people and blowing shit up, which gets people's adrenaline going. But they are certainly trying to improve our society. I'm not asking for bumper stickers, parades, rallies, ribbons, newspaper editorials and daily presidential speeches in their honor, but don't these people deserve our plaudits once in a great while?
We praise our soldiers because they are fighting AGAINST something. It's no coincidence that all the 'support our troops' ribbons, etc. came after the launching of the so-called war on terror. I guess we didn't support our troops when they were "only" trying to keep the peace in Bosnia or Korea. But this is human nature and I understand this. Still, it's a sad mentality we have in this country that we forget to praise the people who are fighting FOR something. I wonder if it's simple thoughtlessness or if we as a society simply view physical courage as the only worthy sacrifice, the only contribution of value. Where's the balance?
We need to remember those who are fighting FOR something. For literacy. For humanity. For kids. For a better country. They're heroes too.
I don't have anything against soldiers and do not wish to dispute these descriptions but when I was growing up, my dad was my hero. He used to be my hero long before I found out that he'd volunteered for the Air Force at the height of Vietnam. He was my hero because he was a great guy, because he was my role model, because he was the kind of person I wanted to grow up to be. But he would be one of "our heroes" because of his 3 1/2 years as a number cruncher in the Air Force, not because of his 33 years of being a parent or his decades of activity in the community or his years of teaching church school. To many, military service is the only service worth a damn. And I'm sorry but I resent that.
It's incredibly sad that the qualities I mentioned above are so rarely applied to non-soldiers or non-military professions. Are there not teachers or coaches or doctors or parents who are heroes? Is picking up an M-16 the only way to show honor? Do policemen show bravery? Do firemen show courage? What about humanitarian aid workers who go into many of the very same dangerous situations as soldiers, but without the protection of weapons, body armor, tanks and armed comrades? Are they brave, courageous, honorable heroes?
What about people who help feed the homeless? What about people who teach the illiterate how to read? What about people who spend their time helping at risk youths? What about people who voluntarily serve on school boards or neighborhood watch programs? Aren't these people serving their country? Maybe not by killing people and blowing shit up, which gets people's adrenaline going. But they are certainly trying to improve our society. I'm not asking for bumper stickers, parades, rallies, ribbons, newspaper editorials and daily presidential speeches in their honor, but don't these people deserve our plaudits once in a great while?
We praise our soldiers because they are fighting AGAINST something. It's no coincidence that all the 'support our troops' ribbons, etc. came after the launching of the so-called war on terror. I guess we didn't support our troops when they were "only" trying to keep the peace in Bosnia or Korea. But this is human nature and I understand this. Still, it's a sad mentality we have in this country that we forget to praise the people who are fighting FOR something. I wonder if it's simple thoughtlessness or if we as a society simply view physical courage as the only worthy sacrifice, the only contribution of value. Where's the balance?
We need to remember those who are fighting FOR something. For literacy. For humanity. For kids. For a better country. They're heroes too.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Israel allows arms shipment to 'terrorists'
I rarely write entries on the perpetual Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mainly because it’s impossible to have a rational discussion about it with 95 percent of the people. If your comments are (perceived as) 51 percent against Israel, then you are anti-Semitic who wants Israel’s destruction. If your comments are (perceived as) 51 percent against the Palestinians, then you are an imperialist lackey who supports the genocide against them.
I was going to say that if you live in the US, any criticism of Israel makes you anti-Semitic. But then I realized it’s a little more nuanced. You can criticize specific actions the Israeli government of the day, provided that you provide at least 10 times more criticisms of the Palestinians in the same comment. But one thing you can never do is cast aspersions on their motives. They must always get a blank check for any mistake they make. If they a bombing raid causes ‘collateral damage,’ it’s the fault of everyone in the village for “tolerating” terrorists in their midst. Because an unarmed can easily go up to a guy with a cellar full of Uzis and tell him f- off. You can say the Israeli military and government make mistakes, so long as you figure out a way to blame someone else.
Unless you’re on the far left of the US or any part of the left in Europe, in which case you must state that Israeli soldiers willfully slaughter Palestinian children and drink their blood at parties. You must also point out that the global warming, world poverty and AIDS in Africa is also the fault of the Israelis. If an Israeli soldier coughs without covering his mouth, you must send out a missive to all your leftist friends denouncing Israel for intentionally spreading disease to ravage the Palestinians; you must also insist that the occupation of Palestine is ALWAYS the worst, bloodiest and most severe humantarian and political crisis in the world, no matter how much more expontentionally severe the crises in Darfur, northern Uganda and eastern Congo would be, according to any objective person. If a pizzeria is bombed in Tel Aviv or a some village schoolhouse gets hit with a rocket, it’s the fault of the Israeli government for the occupation. Not the guys who intentionally targeted civilians for murder. Probably the one thing I agree with Fox News (sic) about is their use of the phrase ‘homicide bombings,’ because that’s exactly what they are. Their main purpose is not suicide, but homicide.
I’m one of those rare people who believe there is that there is plenty of blame to share on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides and that blame is pretty close to equal. As well as the Arab, western European and American sides as well.
This is where I’m supposed to say they’re both to blame but (because I’m an American) the Palestinians are far more to blame or (because I’m on the left) the Israelis are far more to blame. It’s marginally acceptable to blame both sides, so long as you quantify it. I won’t quantify because it serves no purpose.
We live in an world where people can’t remember what they had for lunch two days ago but people in the Middle East can tell you in great deal all the wrongs that allegedly happened to their ancestors 60 years ago.
The bottom line is that there’s so much irrationality and hysteria surrounding this problem that it’s difficult to know how it will be solved. The only realistic solution I see is for divine intervention to give everyone in Israel and the Occupied Territories mass amnesia and everyone in the US and the Arab world the temporary inability to speak.
This is the part where I comment on a current events story. And where the rough balance of 50-50 blame goes to 55-45 and I end up accused of hating Israel and being anti-Semitic (which are of course the same thing, we’re told).
While Fatah ran the Palestinian Authority government, the Israeli government did everything it could to undermine it. It said they coddled terrorists. It said they were terrorists. It said they should be able to control things better despite having one hand tied behind their back by the Israelis. It said they were corrupt. It said that Yassir Arafat, and later Mahmoud Abbas, was not a partner for peace. Basically, it tried to delegitimize Fatah at every step.
Then, Israel’s strategy ended up working too well. The weakened Fatah was spanked in legislative elections by the fanatical Hamas organization. This wasn’t unexpected. Such puritanical movements always gain support when the regime in place is seen as corrupt and illegitimate. Think the Taliban in Afghanistan or Islamic Courts in Somalia. This development was far worse for Israel, or far better for Israeli extremists.
The US and European Union should how much it would respect democracy by placing an embargo on the democratically-elected government of the Palestinians. The already miserable living conditions in the occupied territories got even worse.
The Hamas prime minister went on a regional tour and collected tens of millions of dollars to replace the suspended US-EU aid. But Israel (who still control external borders) refused to allow him to return to Gaza with the money. They allowed him to enter Gaza, but without the money. The Israelis contended might be used to buy arms.
So imagine my shock when I read this piece which said that Israel would allow a shipment of weapons and ammunition into Gaza to Abbas’ presidential guard.
So the Israelis won’t allow into Gaza money SOME of which MIGHT be used to buy arms but they will allow into Gaza actual weapons? 2,000 automatic rifles, 20,000 ammo clips and some 2 million bullets, to be specific.
The Israelis spent years weakening Abbas but now that he was so weak that he lost control of the parliament, they decide to back him. Now the Israeli government is taking sides in internal Palestinian conflicts.
It seems clear that the Israeli government does not want a stable, peaceful Palestinian society. They probably feel that it’s better for Palestinians to take out their anger and murder each other than Israelis. The only problem is that without a stable, peaceful Palestinian society, the Israelis will never be able to extricate themselves for the mess that, by now, most Israelis want to eventually extricate themselves from.
I was going to say that if you live in the US, any criticism of Israel makes you anti-Semitic. But then I realized it’s a little more nuanced. You can criticize specific actions the Israeli government of the day, provided that you provide at least 10 times more criticisms of the Palestinians in the same comment. But one thing you can never do is cast aspersions on their motives. They must always get a blank check for any mistake they make. If they a bombing raid causes ‘collateral damage,’ it’s the fault of everyone in the village for “tolerating” terrorists in their midst. Because an unarmed can easily go up to a guy with a cellar full of Uzis and tell him f- off. You can say the Israeli military and government make mistakes, so long as you figure out a way to blame someone else.
Unless you’re on the far left of the US or any part of the left in Europe, in which case you must state that Israeli soldiers willfully slaughter Palestinian children and drink their blood at parties. You must also point out that the global warming, world poverty and AIDS in Africa is also the fault of the Israelis. If an Israeli soldier coughs without covering his mouth, you must send out a missive to all your leftist friends denouncing Israel for intentionally spreading disease to ravage the Palestinians; you must also insist that the occupation of Palestine is ALWAYS the worst, bloodiest and most severe humantarian and political crisis in the world, no matter how much more expontentionally severe the crises in Darfur, northern Uganda and eastern Congo would be, according to any objective person. If a pizzeria is bombed in Tel Aviv or a some village schoolhouse gets hit with a rocket, it’s the fault of the Israeli government for the occupation. Not the guys who intentionally targeted civilians for murder. Probably the one thing I agree with Fox News (sic) about is their use of the phrase ‘homicide bombings,’ because that’s exactly what they are. Their main purpose is not suicide, but homicide.
I’m one of those rare people who believe there is that there is plenty of blame to share on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides and that blame is pretty close to equal. As well as the Arab, western European and American sides as well.
This is where I’m supposed to say they’re both to blame but (because I’m an American) the Palestinians are far more to blame or (because I’m on the left) the Israelis are far more to blame. It’s marginally acceptable to blame both sides, so long as you quantify it. I won’t quantify because it serves no purpose.
We live in an world where people can’t remember what they had for lunch two days ago but people in the Middle East can tell you in great deal all the wrongs that allegedly happened to their ancestors 60 years ago.
The bottom line is that there’s so much irrationality and hysteria surrounding this problem that it’s difficult to know how it will be solved. The only realistic solution I see is for divine intervention to give everyone in Israel and the Occupied Territories mass amnesia and everyone in the US and the Arab world the temporary inability to speak.
This is the part where I comment on a current events story. And where the rough balance of 50-50 blame goes to 55-45 and I end up accused of hating Israel and being anti-Semitic (which are of course the same thing, we’re told).
While Fatah ran the Palestinian Authority government, the Israeli government did everything it could to undermine it. It said they coddled terrorists. It said they were terrorists. It said they should be able to control things better despite having one hand tied behind their back by the Israelis. It said they were corrupt. It said that Yassir Arafat, and later Mahmoud Abbas, was not a partner for peace. Basically, it tried to delegitimize Fatah at every step.
Then, Israel’s strategy ended up working too well. The weakened Fatah was spanked in legislative elections by the fanatical Hamas organization. This wasn’t unexpected. Such puritanical movements always gain support when the regime in place is seen as corrupt and illegitimate. Think the Taliban in Afghanistan or Islamic Courts in Somalia. This development was far worse for Israel, or far better for Israeli extremists.
The US and European Union should how much it would respect democracy by placing an embargo on the democratically-elected government of the Palestinians. The already miserable living conditions in the occupied territories got even worse.
The Hamas prime minister went on a regional tour and collected tens of millions of dollars to replace the suspended US-EU aid. But Israel (who still control external borders) refused to allow him to return to Gaza with the money. They allowed him to enter Gaza, but without the money. The Israelis contended might be used to buy arms.
So imagine my shock when I read this piece which said that Israel would allow a shipment of weapons and ammunition into Gaza to Abbas’ presidential guard.
So the Israelis won’t allow into Gaza money SOME of which MIGHT be used to buy arms but they will allow into Gaza actual weapons? 2,000 automatic rifles, 20,000 ammo clips and some 2 million bullets, to be specific.
The Israelis spent years weakening Abbas but now that he was so weak that he lost control of the parliament, they decide to back him. Now the Israeli government is taking sides in internal Palestinian conflicts.
It seems clear that the Israeli government does not want a stable, peaceful Palestinian society. They probably feel that it’s better for Palestinians to take out their anger and murder each other than Israelis. The only problem is that without a stable, peaceful Palestinian society, the Israelis will never be able to extricate themselves for the mess that, by now, most Israelis want to eventually extricate themselves from.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Hungry for solutions
"To admit the existence of hunger in America is to confess that we have failed in meeting the most sensitive and painful of human needs. To admit the existence of widespread hunger is to cast doubt on the efficacy of our whole system." -George McGovern
Note: This entry turned into quite a bit more than I'd originally planned. Sometimes, you just have to follow the story where it takes you.
The New Year is a time when people often take stock of their lives and how to make it better. So it seems appropriate that it also be a time when citizen take stock of their country and how to make it better.
Much of politics today focuses on the symbolic, especially the so-called culture war (and I am hardly immune from falling into that trap at times). For example, whether gays can get their union recognized by the state is largely irrelevant to most people's everyday lives, except gay couples themselves. It certainly won't harm anybody.
But the 'issue' makes for a great way to rouse fury of ordinary people looking for an outlet for their anger. And since ordinary people feel they have little control over the forces that really affect their lives, they direct their venom against someone lower down the political food chain. It's the kick-your-dog syndrome.
As this Reuters piece points out, millions of Americans have far more pressing concerns. Some 1.2 million New York city residents, nearly 15 percent of the city's population, face a regular choice between food and housing.
And it's not unique to New York. According to federal government numbers, almost 12* percent of all Americans (35 million people) struggled with hunger during 2005.
(*-That number may actually be 15.4 percent of all Americans, of 46 million people, thanks to a quiet bureaucratic re-definition of the word that erased the label, if not the actual fact of, hunger from 11 million people.)
The Food Bank of New York City distributes an average of over 89 tons of food EVERY DAY to community groups and other organizations. That's 65 million pounds of charity food a year for New York City alone.
And as the article pointed out, it's not just the unemployed, 'bums,' 'welfare queens' and drug users that are unable to buy their own food. The anti-hunger organization America's Second Harvest (A2H) did a study of those 24 million people who received its help. It noted that:
-36.4 percent were children
-10 percent were elderly
-36 percent of households helped had at least one employed adult
-32 percent had incomes ABOVE the federal poverty line
And it wasn't just New York city residents who had to choose between food and other necessities. A2H found that of its nationwide recipients:
-42 percent had to choose between food and heat or other utilities
-35 percent had to choose between food and rent or mortgage
-32 percent had to choose between food and medical care
Even those who already receive government benefits still suffer from food insecurity. A2H found that of its nationwide recipient households:
-35 percent received food stamps and still needed further help
-51 percent received WIC benefits and still needed further help
-62 percent with school age children participated in the school lunch program and still needed further help
The Food Bank's president fumed, "I would rather be giving my expertise to try and solve the hunger issue in a third world country, where they have no food. Here we have the food."
Somehow, I don't think whether Seattle airport has a Christmas tree is of much concern to the tens of millions of Americans who are simply worried about where there next meal will come from.
How to help:
-The Hunger Site
-America's Second Harvest
-World Food Day USA
-Find your local soup kitchen
Note: This entry turned into quite a bit more than I'd originally planned. Sometimes, you just have to follow the story where it takes you.
The New Year is a time when people often take stock of their lives and how to make it better. So it seems appropriate that it also be a time when citizen take stock of their country and how to make it better.
Much of politics today focuses on the symbolic, especially the so-called culture war (and I am hardly immune from falling into that trap at times). For example, whether gays can get their union recognized by the state is largely irrelevant to most people's everyday lives, except gay couples themselves. It certainly won't harm anybody.
But the 'issue' makes for a great way to rouse fury of ordinary people looking for an outlet for their anger. And since ordinary people feel they have little control over the forces that really affect their lives, they direct their venom against someone lower down the political food chain. It's the kick-your-dog syndrome.
As this Reuters piece points out, millions of Americans have far more pressing concerns. Some 1.2 million New York city residents, nearly 15 percent of the city's population, face a regular choice between food and housing.
And it's not unique to New York. According to federal government numbers, almost 12* percent of all Americans (35 million people) struggled with hunger during 2005.
(*-That number may actually be 15.4 percent of all Americans, of 46 million people, thanks to a quiet bureaucratic re-definition of the word that erased the label, if not the actual fact of, hunger from 11 million people.)
The Food Bank of New York City distributes an average of over 89 tons of food EVERY DAY to community groups and other organizations. That's 65 million pounds of charity food a year for New York City alone.
And as the article pointed out, it's not just the unemployed, 'bums,' 'welfare queens' and drug users that are unable to buy their own food. The anti-hunger organization America's Second Harvest (A2H) did a study of those 24 million people who received its help. It noted that:
-36.4 percent were children
-10 percent were elderly
-36 percent of households helped had at least one employed adult
-32 percent had incomes ABOVE the federal poverty line
And it wasn't just New York city residents who had to choose between food and other necessities. A2H found that of its nationwide recipients:
-42 percent had to choose between food and heat or other utilities
-35 percent had to choose between food and rent or mortgage
-32 percent had to choose between food and medical care
Even those who already receive government benefits still suffer from food insecurity. A2H found that of its nationwide recipient households:
-35 percent received food stamps and still needed further help
-51 percent received WIC benefits and still needed further help
-62 percent with school age children participated in the school lunch program and still needed further help
The Food Bank's president fumed, "I would rather be giving my expertise to try and solve the hunger issue in a third world country, where they have no food. Here we have the food."
Somehow, I don't think whether Seattle airport has a Christmas tree is of much concern to the tens of millions of Americans who are simply worried about where there next meal will come from.
How to help:
-The Hunger Site
-America's Second Harvest
-World Food Day USA
-Find your local soup kitchen
Monday, January 01, 2007
2006 P.U.litzer prizes
In honor of the end of 2006, Alternet offers the 15th annual P.U.litzer prizes.
The New York Times' Tom Friedman is mocked for his mindless praise of CAFTA which he said was a US free trade agreement with the Carribbean. Even those of us who are neither international affairs 'experts' nor famous columnists in the nation's most prestigious newspaper know that CAFTA would actually apply to Central America.
Most of the awards were merited, but the most deserving was:
In November, [Glenn] Beck -- an Islamophobic host on CNN Headline News -- launched into his interview with Congressman-elect Keith Ellison, a Muslim American, this way: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" Beck then added: "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." Is it possible that primetime bigots like CNN's Beck have something to do with the prejudices "that a lot of Americans feel"?
The New York Times' Tom Friedman is mocked for his mindless praise of CAFTA which he said was a US free trade agreement with the Carribbean. Even those of us who are neither international affairs 'experts' nor famous columnists in the nation's most prestigious newspaper know that CAFTA would actually apply to Central America.
Most of the awards were merited, but the most deserving was:
In November, [Glenn] Beck -- an Islamophobic host on CNN Headline News -- launched into his interview with Congressman-elect Keith Ellison, a Muslim American, this way: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" Beck then added: "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." Is it possible that primetime bigots like CNN's Beck have something to do with the prejudices "that a lot of Americans feel"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)