U.S : A FAILED SYSTEM
-
The USDA report, Household Food Security in the United States, 2004, says that 38.2 million Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food insecurity, including nearly 14 million children. That figure is up from 31 million Americans in 1999. Out of this 38 million most are way below the threshold of $19k for a family of 4 as revealed by 'living wage analysis', which puts the living wage above $8 an hour based on this threshold, while the actual minimum wage at which most of these poor work, is under $6. So, if poor households have two TVs in the US (as Heritage Foundation authors Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson allege), how many meals will those two TVs buy if need be? And if one person in that "household" has to work and needs a car that takes up a huge chunk of his income leaving very little for all else can he or she do given a public transport system next to nothing in most US cities? Or if the "household" cancels their $40 a month cable subscription how many meals will that buy to make them "non-poor". If over 38 million are facing food insecurity in the US, it matters little if they have access to durables like TVs that can?t be traded in for three days of food for a family. These are all distraction indicators; they are not social indicators of well-being. The fact is that the poor given all human development indicators, even access to life (since they DIE at three times the rate and suffer from diseases much more than those above the poverty line) suffer tremendously.
Given the amount of wealth and resources used by a small percent of this country (the top 1% commanding more wealth than the rest of the 99% combined) that 13% poor, which translates into tens of millions is a huge number, above this huge number is another huge number that is extremely poor and living on the margins. It is an ongoing system of corruption and concentration and waste, where the rich get richer and the poor, poorer. There is everything wrong when the official poverty figures place over 37 million (and the unofficial almost double that) in a country of extreme wealth. (The official poverty figures are calculated as adequate food times three, the real figures would include things like rent, actual fuel costs, health care, proper education etc which easily doubles the official figures.)
I would argue the poor suffer even more in the US compared to other countries, due to greater relative deprivation, poverty amidst plenty and the breakdown of tradition and family to add to it. Empirically, as a factor of GNI, adjusted for Purchasing Power, the official US poverty percent is much worse than any country of the world. 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.
Put your own house in order comes to mind Mr. Asadi....
Regards,
-
Salam MAsadi, all.
The USDA report, Household Food Security in the United States, 2004, says that 38.2 million Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food insecurity, including nearly 14 million children.
corporate media and enjoys near total cultural hegemony.
I believe the above is wrong. I wonder who are those "experts" who came up with that report. If there is something in the US you won't suffer "directly from" is HUNGER and food insecurity. As a volunteer, I sometimes cook for an entire homeless shelter and I can tell you the amount of food thrown because nobody will take it is just unbelievable. I tell you what they eat in the homeshelter I don't buy it, they get tones and tones of donations from all kinds of food market chains and from everything, beef, turkey, tuna, cheese, cake, vegetables, pasta, rice, etc... EVERYTHING to a point we let all the poors and their children who come to us CHOOSE their food. If there is something God the All-Mighty blessed the US with is FOOD. The rate of obeses and overweight poors is so high that it contrasts with the concept of hunger we see in Sudan or Ethiopia to name few. The real problem with the poors is "mental heatlh", the majority of them are in a continious state of depression and anxiety that it is difficult to get them back on their feet even when they are offered rehab. I believe the food in the US can feed the entire world. It is really a blessing. The problem remains insfractructure and is political. Peace. Myr.
-
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.
-
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.htmlThe 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
-
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 -
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
peace
democracy is indication of a failed system.
-
Salaam
democracy is indication of a failed system.
and what exactly is your idea of successful system?
regards -
Salaam
democracy is indication of a failed system.
and what exactly is your idea of successful system?
regardsthere 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
-
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 -
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.
regardsthat 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
-
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. -
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. -
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.
-
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 elaborationdo 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 -
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.