U.S : A FAILED SYSTEM

MAsadi

Food insecurity in the US is a reality. Many studies including governement studies have concluded the same. You cannot use your personal experience of being a volunteer and then generalize to the entire country. That is just absurdly unscientific. Obesity furthermore is not related to caloric intake but to stresses faced, according to many studies as well. The official poverty figures and how they are caluclated would lead to similar food insecurity conclusions.

oneway

Food insecurity in the US is a reality. Many studies including governement studies have concluded the same. You cannot use your personal experience of being a volunteer and then generalize to the entire country. That is just absurdly unscientific. Obesity furthermore is not related to caloric intake but to stresses faced, according to many studies as well. The official poverty figures and how they are caluclated would lead to similar food insecurity conclusions.

MAsadi,

I'll tell you what's absurdly unscientific Cherry picking stats from old reports, as you have done, when the very methods used to produce those stats have been repeatedly challenged to the point that the US government is funding formal review of the techniques. Here are the preliminary conclusions of that review panel, from Phase 1 of their study

MEASURING FOOD INSECURITY AND HUNGER

Conclusions

Conclusion 1 The concept and definition of hunger as measured in the
Food Security Supplement, and how they relate to food insecurity, are not
clear. In addition, it is not clear whether hunger is appropriately identified as
the extreme end of the scale.

So your conclusions are based on studies where hunger is not even explicitly defined.

Conclusion 2 Food insecurity is important to measure. It is a multifaceted
concept, each facet of which is appropriate to consider as latent and continuous.
It is appropriate to use item response theory models to measure these
dimensions. However, the Rasch IRT model may not be appropriate in the
current application. If the Rasch model is not appropriate, then using the
sum scores of the items also is not appropriate.

The statistical techniques currently being used for the measurements are in question.

Conclusion 3 Threshold scores applied to estimates provided by IRT
models can be used to categorize households into levels of food insecurity.
However, the appropriate categories and labels need to be examined
further.

Again, the definitions of the categories are not clear according to the review panel, which can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Conclusion 4 A household interview survey may be one appropriate vehicle
to query households about their food security experiences and to measure
the prevalence of food insecurity among households.

The body of the review further explains that the surveys used in the hunger studies have issues including problems inherent in survey-based studies, the content of the surveys themselves, and the fact that the surveys cover households rather than measuring individual responses (i.e. survey respondents estimated hunger for other household members, further reducing accuracy).

Conclusion 5 Prevalence estimates of food insecurity as currently obtained
are not well suited for evaluation of the effectiveness of food assistance
programs. It is unclear that monitoring the prevalence of food insecurity
at national and sub-national levels would be suitable for evaluation of
these programs.

Copyright ? National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Measuring Food Insecurity and Hunger Phase 1 Report
http//www.nap.edu/catalog/11227.html

The entire utility of the studies as currently conducted is thrown into question.

So, certainly there are various forms of hunger in the US and there are many affected by it. However, even if your numbers were correct -- and the above conclusions demonstrate that they are not reliable estimates -- you're talking about 1-2% of the population having some food insecurity issues at some time. Your further conclusions about being poor in the US being worse than being poor elsewhere are nothing but your own propagandist fantasies. All the immigrants, legal and illegal, streaming across our borders apparently missed your memo as they come here seeking better lives and greater opportunities for their families.

The US is far from perfect, but people come here to escape the failures of other systems because they'd rather have the opportunity to achieve greatly, even if it means risking hunger, than to endure the caps on individual liberty found elsewhere.

So, let the real scientists figure it out and take your anti-US propaganda elsewhere.

/oneway

stillearning

Salaam

For example, in Nigeria the official poverty rate is around 58%, which is around four and a half times more than the US official rate, but the GNI of Nigeria is 45 times less than the US. These figures are an official disgrace and signify the failure of a system that advertises its fictitious successes 24/7 via the corporate media and enjoys near total cultural hegemony
.

I am no fan of the USA govt but the above is just plain ridiculous. Without going into the technacalties of these reports. If the above logic was correct all the poor in the USA would be rushing to the Nigerian embassy for settlement in that particular country. Where as no poor from Nigeria would even in their wildest dreams consider such a scenario. Although i dont have any official statistics to prove either way, I have slight inkling that somehow this may not be quite what one would expect. It might help the writer of the above to contemplate RELATIVITY.
regards

unknownuser

Food insecurity in the US is a reality. Many studies including governement studies have concluded the same. You cannot use your personal experience of being a volunteer and then generalize to the entire country. That is just absurdly unscientific. Obesity furthermore is not related to caloric intake but to stresses faced, according to many studies as well. The official poverty figures and how they are caluclated would lead to similar food insecurity conclusions.

Salam Maasadi, all,

I think you are among those who consider the "government studies" to be the bible. That's the problem with these reports. they are completely disconnected from the reality. We see all kinds of "studies" done by bureaucrates who are most of the time unaware of what is done on the field. My experience is not the only experience, I have been working with doctors, nurses, and social workers on the field who had the same observation and went through a same experience, food is NOT the issue in this country. You wrote "Obesity is not related to caloric intake"??????? so if I follow your logic we should all be obese given the stress amount to which most of people are subject nowadays. Seriously, I'd like to see those "reports". Obesity is a life style before anything else and is directly linked to the calories people swallow everyday, I wonder therefore why most of them have to go through a surgery to reduce the size of their stomach if it is not related to the amount of food. Someone has to be really naive to believe in these "reports" if I can call them "reports". But anyway, I think I said what I have to say because I feel we have to be fair when we report an issue. It is not Quranic to point to a country for shortcomings while the reality is completely different. Peace. Myr.

KGB

Hi ONEWAY

How come you did not comment on Current Affairs discussions? I thought you left forum but you are still here and it is always interesting to have discussion with an honest person like yourself.

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Mr Asaid et al,

While I appreciate and have benefitted from your work, I feel you need to question the notion of 'information' in your discourse. You have wholly accepted information from other sources (such as the USDA) and I'm unsure as to how you verified this information. Myr on the other hand, experienced something first-hand and so her experience to her is more Quranic than yours, in my view.

In my reading of al-quraan, we must experience the poverty and hardship of people firsthand and then report about it. Statistics shouldn't play a role in the Quranic discourse.

SwedenMajidah

Salaam all,

Yes exactly, I also agree with MYR who have this experience on her own.

And I'm not a fan of paperworks if I must be honest )

Maria

unknownuser

peace

democracy is indication of a failed system.

stillearning

Salaam

democracy is indication of a failed system.

and what exactly is your idea of successful system?
regards

unknownuser

Salaam

democracy is indication of a failed system.

and what exactly is your idea of successful system?
regards

there are no such thing as a succesful system. It is an illusion entirely. The only "system" that will ever work is natural anarchism. its 100% based on personal responsability and understanding, not words of law with ministers and capitols. You walk the law, not just talk the law. And if you need to hear the law spoken, it implies that you have some serious issues to deal with.

democracy is something that will work on a small farm with 50 hippies. As soon as it becomes bigger it becomes a faceless tyrant without guilt. Wich is pretty much our condition in the western world atm. but we are so well fed and entertained that freedom doesnt matter.

peace

stillearning

salaam

there are no such thing as a succesful system. It is an illusion entirely. The only "system" that will ever work is natural anarchism. its 100% based on personal responsability and understanding, not words of law with ministers and capitols. You walk the law, not just talk the law. And if you need to hear the law spoken, it implies that you have some serious issues to deal with.

Good luck. Ptrobably makes sese to you and your friends who have no issues to deal with. Rest of us imperfect beingswill make do with less than 100% perfect systems.
regards

unknownuser

salaam

there are no such thing as a succesful system. It is an illusion entirely. The only "system" that will ever work is natural anarchism. its 100% based on personal responsability and understanding, not words of law with ministers and capitols. You walk the law, not just talk the law. And if you need to hear the law spoken, it implies that you have some serious issues to deal with.

Good luck. Ptrobably makes sese to you and your friends who have no issues to deal with. Rest of us imperfect beingswill make do with less than 100% perfect systems.
regards

that is all fine with me, if you by that mean that i can go my ways and do as i please without your system preventing me from being a sovereign nation on my own. Furthermore i dont really understand what you think is so unrealistic about what im saying, all it takes is efford. Allow me to elaborate

do you kill people? if not, why? is it because a book tells you? would you be killing people if there was no law against it to be found?

peace

phoenix1

peace

i think anarchism is too idealistic. You can't put that much trust in people.
we have to have laws and people to enforce those laws.

unknownuser

peace

i think anarchism is too idealistic. You can't put that much trust in people.
we have to have laws and people to enforce those laws.

no we dont, because it always become a tool of abuse. we have no other choice unless we want the current system to loop over again. Look around you, we are living in babylon, in rome, in soddom and gomoreh all at once!
democracy is 24 white guys hanging a black guy. thats democracy.

unknownuser

Peace magi and all. Magi; I have a great deal of agreement with your posts in this thread...and previously i was an advocate of 'anarchy',which on paper,is a brilliant system...However i have taken stock of the world i see,and the 'practicality' of 'anarchy' on a wide scale...I do not see it working large-scale,as many people have little idea of practical morality,or how to deal with others in a civilised manner...One short journey to my local pub,park or city centre at night time,more than illustrates my point...The behaviour of some,when left to their own devices, results in carnage,chaos and mayhem...Anarchy could work in small scale communities,with 'enlightened unified values and behaviour,and a unified method for 'peacefully' solving disputes...
I agree democracy can sometimes lead to faceless tyranny,exploitaion,incompetence and abuse...But thats why we need ideas from guys like you,phoenix and others to make it better...
I will give you an example of a potentially great,practical system of political system,...in my opinion....'The well run nuclear family'...
I need personal morality to keep me in check with my wife (and vice versa .) ,my children build on their 'in-built' morality with advice from me,my wife,extended family,and society...This is like a situation of 'beneficial' 'anarchy'...But every once in a while i can get out of line ,or discipline/rules/boundaries are needed somewhere to counter-act a 'negative situation/behaviour'...Now i agree some enlightened,experienced members of the human race can 'solve'these 'disputes'(in some situations.) naturally,and without formal law....but what about the man who 'beats' his wife,or the wife who wrongfully denies her husband access to the children after divorce?...The unrepentant thief,extremist etc,etc.?..
What i fail to see fully dealt with (if anarchy were to be a viable,large-scale practical political system.) in the versions of anarchy i have read,is how to deal with different versions of morality,disputes and truely 'criminal behaviour'...
I welcome your comments and ideas in trying to come up with a viable,practical,moral political system...Take it easy.
Peace all.

Leyla

Peace

Magi

I highly agree with you on your critical view of democracy. The biggest problem here is probably that democracy is just a label with not much practicability.
There is this theory of the sovereign of the people ... but in reality we all know how things go.
Do e.g. the actual needs of the people really count more in the politics of European nations than the influence of financially potent capitalistic fraternities?
Surely not, this is quite observable.

Furthermore, majority rulings don?t give a guarantee on a right decision. Majorities are, by their nature, highly manipulable.
Just do a poll on capital punishment by a death sentence .... you will always have a different answer in different circumstances.
During public antiamerican debates the majority in Europe would vote against death sentences but during a public treatment of a case of someone sexually abusing and then brutally murdering several children a much larger number would vote for it .... .
majority votes fluctuate from one extreme to the other, depending on climate, media influence, social and financial situation, national security etc..

I?ve been for a time interested in anarchist political theory. It is a fascinating analysis of political possibilities and I feel sympathetic for the people proposing it.

However, acording to my humble opinion, as with most leftist theories anarchism unfortunately lacks to see some crucial elements of the basic human nature.
The ummah of humanity is not self organizing like a fungus. It works much more like a pack of wolves or a hive of bees.
Humans organize through looking up to people who take an initiative that means something to them.
This can sometimes go horribly wrong (as in the cases of some dictators) but it can also go pretty good ( as e.g. in the cases of the messengers of God).
It can also turn out as outright silly (like with idolization of football stars, boygroups etc.).
But the basic fact always stays the same and can not be taken from human hearts
People want to relate to an example that they can emulate and that they can look up to.
A kind of living focus of social organization.

Even when one will be able to organize an anarchist domain, leaders will emerge and leaders will be followed. Specialists will emerge and specialists will be trusted etc.

Furthermore, human beings have essential rights. Executing laws is first of all about protecting the rights of others. I do have a right of protection of my basic essential needs. Only when this is aknowledged people will be able to live in peace.
From a quranic point of view laws are made for us. For our own benefit. God is al Ghaniy, he does not need anything.
But we need a system that guarantees respect for our personal rights to be able to develop, both personally and socially.
Children have a right that society organizes in a way that people can not get away with sexually abusing and murdering them, woman have a right that society organizes in a way that they are not treated as of no account by men, the poor have a right that society organizes in a way that capitalistic exploiters can?t get away with their personal fun etc. etc. etc..

bye,

Leyla

P.S. Sorry for that lengthy post. I try to keep it simple, as it is preferred by some here, but I think some extra words are always needed if one really wants to clarify ones position.

stillearning

Salaam all

The initial article implied that there is more poverty in the USA than Nigeria.
A simple deduction from this would that poorest in USA would want to migrate to Nigeria-I have not read the reply from the original author to this question.

that is all fine with me, if you by that mean that i can go my ways and do as i please without your system preventing me from being a sovereign nation on my own. Furthermore i dont really understand what you think is so unrealistic about what im saying, all it takes is efford. Allow me to elaborate

Of course you can be soverign nation by yourself (good luck). However soon as you interact with another human your actions effect them hence we require rules and regulation to try to minimise the negative impact your action might have.
You cannot do as yo please if it has consequences for other people
As for your elaboration

do you kill people? if not, why? is it because a book tells you? would you be killing people if there was no law against it to be found?

I am not sure that you can even vaguely comprehend human nature. So do you think that if we had no laws against killing then people would not kill-otherwise I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
regards

ThaPhenom

I generally lean towards Libertarian values, however the problem with hardcore Libertarianism/Anarchy is that it does not protect the weak. I believe an unlimited Libertarian system will bring out the worst in human nature, and the combination of evil and power will overwhelm many. I'm all for laws preventing people from infringing on the rights of others, but the problem is people take it too far. As far as I'm concerned, your rights end when they begin to infringe on other individual personal liberties.

Oh and btw, the US is not a democracy in the purest sense. And there will ALWAYS be winners and losers, we have to recognize this.

MAsadi

Myr writes

Salam Maasadi, all,

I think you are among those who consider the "government studies" to be the bible. That's the problem with these reports. they are completely disconnected from the reality. We see all kinds of "studies" done by bureaucrates who are most of the time unaware of what is done on the field. My experience is not the only experience, I have been working with doctors, nurses, and social workers on the field who had the same observation and went through a same experience, food is NOT the issue in this country. You wrote "Obesity is not related to caloric intake"? so if I follow your logic we should all be obese given the stress amount to which most of people are subject nowadays. Seriously, I'd like to see those "reports". Obesity is a life style before anything else and is directly linked to the calories people swallow everyday, I wonder therefore why most of them have to go through a surgery to reduce the size of their stomach if it is not related to the amount of food. Someone has to be really naive to believe in these "reports" if I can call them "reports". But anyway, I think I said what I have to say because I feel we have to be fair when we report an issue. It is not Quranic to point to a country for shortcomings while the reality is completely different. Peace. Myr.

Walikum salam

Deriving conclusions from your personal experience is restricted to the narrow non-randomly selected group you have had experience with. Generalizing from that is unscientific and quite erroneous. The studies that I quote have been replicated. You can also arrive at a similar conclusion using living wage analysis. Denying that is denying fact. The article does not conclude that there is worse poverty in the US compared to Nigeria, it does conclude however that as a factor of GNI the US poverty figures far outnumber that of Nigeria and show a system that has failed and is quite inhumane where wealth makes a circuit only among the rich. Unless you can challenge this assertion scientifically, giving personal experience stories is no proof just like the personal experience that Christians present as proof for their theology.

unknownuser

I am not sure that you can even vaguely comprehend human nature. So do you think that if we had no laws against killing then people would not kill-otherwise I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

peace yall

No you are turning it upside down. People dont kill people because a strong feeling inside tells you its not ok. Not because a law says so. If you miss that basic feeling of "not ok" then no law can prevent you from killing anyway.

Enquirer and Layla I hear your points and obviously agree a long way down the line. I have just personally come to the realisation that i dont need anybody but God and myself, and basically i want other people to leave me alone if they do not come in peace or good intentions. I dont want nobody to tell me what to do, not even my mother, as none of them will be responbsible for what i chose in front of God. I do listen to advices tho

As layla pointed out, we are a tribe race. And when the tribe becomes to big, we all become isolated within it. When we become isolated, we become easy targets of predators. wich we are.

thus the whole devide and conquer cheme played at us (fucking again!!!) serves just this, that we have a hard time sticking together as unities. Why do you think the powers that be are hell bend on "globalisation"?? not because it will strengthen the nation, but because it will weaken the individuals and their tribe nature, because who is my tribe in a tribe that covers everybody?

It comes down to this for me. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BUSINESS and i will provide the same for you. Take you business to my house, e.g by stealing, and now it is my business and i will act accordingly, even if the cost is my own life. Wich is a small price for justice.
Lay down to die in the street in front of my house from poverty, and now it is my business, as i cannot allow another human to suffer knowingly. THe world is not my problem, but my neighbour is. WHAT he does is still none of my business as long as it does not limit me.

Anarchism is the only structure that will allow for the rights of minorities, simply because people with good intentions will soon band together in tribes. as they do allready, tho limited by a demoncracism.

But as i have stated before, each group in their own has to be a militia. All members must be trained in, first the way of peace, then the way of arms. because that is, always was, and always will be the price of freedom. Even "founding father" Thomas Jefferson said that any people should riot every 20 year, otherwise the system would turn on them. guess what happened??? it turned on them!

In a peacefull nation the government is afraid of its people, in a corrupt system it is the other way around.