One in five people in California do not have access to food every day. To help lower this rate we are asking people in the community to do what they can to help. The (school program name redacted--Darren) is holding a food drive starting March 23rd ending April 5th. Please bring non-perishable foods into your classroom, such as canned foods and grains. If you would like to donate perishable foods, such as fruits and vegetables, please bring them on the night of open house when we will be collecting food and monetary donations.That was the first announcement in our school bulletin today.
Now, there's nothing wrong with having a food drive. Charity is a wonderful thing, and dare I say it, is the Christian way to solve local problems. But what's up with that first line? Does anyone really believe it?
I would like to know the source of that statistic. Yes, California has among the highest rates of poverty in the entire country. However, our spending on health and human services is second only to our spending on K-12 education (click on Summary Charts here). Our schools will feed poor kids not one but two meals a day, and we give parents EBT cards to buy food. If there's any child that doesn't "have access to food every day", it's because of that child's parents' actions and not because of any lack of empathy in society. You can't fix stupid.
In fact, genuine hunger is so rare now that activists had to create a new term, "food insecurity", in order to have something to rail against. Isn't it funny how we can simultaneously have an obesity epidemic as well as one in five Californians' not having access to food every day?
I just don't believe the statistic. I want some evidence.
But, because I'm open-minded and all, let's say the statistic is true. Let's grant that one in five people in California do not have access to food every day. Isn't that the most stinging indictment there is against the one-party-rule state that California has become? What does it say about the socialist "6th largest economy in the world" if 20% of its people are going hungry? What does it say about a state in which there is at most a single Republican serving in statewide office, and everyone else is a Democrat, socialist, or communist?
And why, if one in five people in California do not have access to food every day, does this state want to throw open the door to even more illegal aliens--who, I hope we can all agree, are probably the least likely people as a group to be able to support themselves? Wouldn't welcoming more illegal immigrants just make the hunger problem in California worse?
This is the problem with today's Democrats. Their views aren't even consistent. They throw a bunch of crap on the wall, see what sticks, and hope we don't notice it's crap. They're buffoons, and they're running this state into the ground--patting themselves on the back for their "progressive" views while doing so.
And they're brainwashing the kids to think that the pain caused by the broken arm they get from patting themselves on the back is a wonderful thing.
Update: Here's a link I used previously, showing that health and human services gets more money in California than K-12 education does.
6 comments:
I completely agree with your comment about the "food insecurity" statistic. It's hyperbolic and makes it sound like a fifth of the population is literally starving. And frankly it was probably created to pass some welfare bills more easily(for better or for worse, not an honorable way to use statistics). I've heard that stat before, and it is one in 5 is food insecure, not lacking access to food every day. But I wouldn't go so far as to call California 'socialist'. And obviously I disagree that the dems are buffoons who are running the state into the ground, but that's a given :P
I've heard the stat many times before. The question asked is something like: in the past year, did you ever not know when you were going to eat next?
It's not that every single day 20% are going hungry, but could be simply missing a single meal in the course of an entire year because you ran out of food before your EBT card got reloaded for the month.
Warren:
Can you name a single govt program that, across the board, is regarded as a "good" or "well run" govt program? One that isn't going into debt, or so corrupted by waste or fraud as to be ridiculous? I'll be honest, I can't come up with *one*. Social security? Nope. Veterans' health care? Nope. EBT cards? Nope. This is a serious question.
Heck, in California we don't even maintain our infrastructure--our roads are universally recognized as some of the worst in the nation, and let's not forget that Marysville and Yuba City were evacuated a few weeks ago because of concerns over the reliability of Oroville Dam.
What is our tax money buying, exactly? For as much as we pay (among the highest overall tax burdens in the country), why isn't this state better off? Could bad one-party rule have *something* to do with that?
I think rather than accomplishing the worthy goal of contributing to a food bank, this is a prime example of virtue signaling. I just learned this term today. It means using publicly acclaimed good works to clothe oneself in a mantle of worthiness. We have a very active student council, run by very liberal sponsors. Every month there is some cause or another we're supposed to care deeply about and respond by donating food, school supplies, money...etc. There are causes I support because I've volunteered there and find them to be doing good things. One is Metrocrest Services, a regional food bank, and the other is Operation Kindness, a no kill animal shelter. I talk to my classes about how these organizations work and how they could even *gasp* go an volunteer time to help. But very few kids can be bothered to donate a can of beans or a roll of paper towels UNLESS they can find a way to use it on their college application. Isn't the purpose of donations to help others? And yet how many times does it seem that these causes are aimed more at good publicity than noble actions. Coming up next week we have a day where two nearby high schools are supposed to donate time to improve the community. While there are houses to paint, parks to clean up and trails to repair, I don't know how much really gets done in four hours, especially with a group of people who will spend most of the time looking at their cell phones calculating how much longer they have to stay to fulfill volunteer hours for student council or honor society.
Virtue signalling is real--and insidious.
You mention volunteering. I wrote a lengthy blog post once about "community service as a graduation requirement", a requirement which totally gets the cause and effect reversed regarding volunteering.
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2011/03/community-service-as-graduation.html
Just catching up with your posts. I have heard that statistics, and I always tell people, tell me how many cases of malnutrition and/or starvation were reported in ER's?
Absent systemic abuse, 0.
Or as the Somali people used to tell me, when I was deployed: I want to go to a country where the poor people are fat.
Virtue signalling, indeed.
Post a Comment