"Food Insecurity" and Hunger

The United States Department of Agriculture's report regarding food and hunger in the U.S. presented a dismal picture for one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Over 49 million people reported "food insecurity" in 2008, which the USDA defines as "not having enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle". This number increased from 36.2 million in 2007 and represents the highest number of people reporting problems procuring enough food for their families since the government started tracking this issue back in 1995. Does this mean that more people are starving in this great country of ours? Perhaps not, but there is definitely more hunger.

It seems unbelievable that anyone, particularly children, should go hungry in America. The Great Recession, however, is taking its toll on almost everyone. People living on the edge are easily pushed into poverty by job loss, illness or any economic hardship, no matter how temporary. Indeed, in an AP article by Henry C. Jackson, the government cited a "lack of money and other resources" as the reason for the increase in hunger.

Some, like a recent editorial in the Washington Post, pooh-pooh the idea that any people in this country are really hungry. They note that the report is based on a survey of 44,000 U.S. households and that both the questions and answers could be misleading. For instance, they posit that being "worried" about having enough food is not the same as not actually having enough. They cite the obesity epidemic as proof that food is easily available. The article noted that "only .1% of children in 2008 went without food for an entire day, down from .2% in 2007". An entire day without food? Well, that's progress.

The very idea that so many people were worried about having enough food to eat is untenable. Tom Vilsak, secretary of the USDA, told reporters that it is "time for America to get...serious about food security and hunger", and congress laudably increased funding for food stamp programs as part of the stimulus bill. However, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization summit in Rome broke up with 192 nations refusing to pledge $44 billion in agricultural development aid per year to address global hunger. The director of this agency dourly noted that much more than that amount was eagerly handed over to financial entities during the global fiscal crisis.

It is interesting that he mentioned that issue. Printed right next to an article on the hunger report was another that described how the Federal Reserve Bank of New York mismanaged the AIG rescue by paying more than necessary for the insurance giant's outstanding contracts. Even when banks were willing to pay less, Geithner wouldn't hear of it. It is estimated that billions were needlessly paid out during this debacle. Is there anyone who wouldn't rather have seen those funds go to the hungry? I think not.

Here Comes Black Friday, Again

Earlier today, my husband and I were discussing the origin and meaning of the term, "Black Friday". He said he has heard this term since his childhood, while I thought it was a far more recent phenomenon. Personally, I associate the term more with stock market crashes than store and market rushes. I also thought that the Friday after Thanksgiving might be labeled so since retailers tend to use it as a yardstick of how successful the Christmas shopping season will be. According to Wikipedia, we were both right on each count.

According to that online encyclopedia, the use of the term Black Friday dates back to around 1966, just as my husband thought. It has been used much more frequently over the last decade, however. Also, the term was used to describe a stock market crash, back in 1869. It is referenced as the heaviest shopping day of the year, although Wikipedia states that this is not necessarily so, at least according to SEC data. Many retailers still declare it the day they begin making their profits for the year, however.

When it comes to capitalists, money and the consumer, there is never enough propaganda to go around, it seems. In their yearly quest to post the biggest profits ever, hawkers of all manner of widgets and gizmos do their darndest to make us believe that without these things they sell, our lives are nothing more than empty shells. They use sales, price reductions, psychology and, when all else fails, guilt toward this end. Watch the news reports on Saturday and just see if they don't whine interminably about how their sales did not meet their projections. And why didn't they? Because you, the selfish consumer, refused to buy their useless thingamajigs so they could have themselves a merry little Christmas. For shame!

Am I being too hard on them? I don't think so. Think about the stupidity of a system that relies so heavily on the last five or six weeks of the year to make the bulk of one's profits. What do these merchandisers do for the previous ten-and-a-half months of the year? Well, they do make money, of course. But they still feel the need to make the working Joes and Janes feel small when they don't mortgage the house in order to splurge on Christmas gifts. Anyway, who ever decided that basing 70% of any economy on consumer spending is a rational idea?

If you're like most people, the recession has tapped out your resources and you're not planning to go on any Christmas spending sprees. Stand your ground, and don't let the profit makers make you feel guilty. Remember the basic tenet of capitalism: If they are unable to make a profit in a competitive environment, the government will bail them out. There, now don't you feel better?

Mammograms: An Unnecessary Evil?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government study panel, has just recently turned the yearly-mammogram-after-40 conventional wisdom on its head. Its panel of doctors, whose opinions influence both private insurance and medicare coverage, has stated that screening women in their 40s is not good medicine. As Dr. Diana Petitti, Vice Chair of the panel said, "The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s".

Personally, I have never understood the efficacy of traumatizing breast tissue and then irradiating it--and on a yearly basis, at that. Both radiation and breast trauma have been indicated in breast tumors, so when my doctor told me I would start having yearly mammograms eleven years ago, I said, "No, I won't." We discussed it, but I stood my ground. Turns out, I had a good point after all.

Not surprisingly, many medical doctors and the American Cancer Society have come out against this new advice. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer of this organization fears that women might become so confused that they opt out of screening altogether. Not only is that insulting to the intelligence of women, but one can't ignore the financial interests of this entity. I've often wondered where the money from all those pink brooms and scrubbie pads goes to, haven't you? In my opinion, the ACS has helped turn breast cancer into a circus sideshow, rather than a disease that merits serious research.

Our local paper had a large article in which they interviewed doctors from a nearby hospital. They were all outraged that the panel suggested these new guidelines. They spoke of very early stage cancers being found and "saving women's lives" and their belief that cumulative radiation risk is nothing compared to the benefits of mammography. Right next to this article is a very big advertisement from this very hospital. As a matter of fact, the only doctors ever interviewed by this paper for any health issue seem to work for this hospital. Hmmmm.

In January of 2009, the AARP Bulletin reported a study of 200,000 Norwegian women divided into two groups matched for age and reproductive history. One group had one mammogram in six years' time, the other had three. The tumor rate was 22% lower in the group that had only one screening. Could early stage cancers have resolved themselves? Of course, and that was the conclusion of the study. But those who make their living off the the Great American Cancer Scare don't want to hear that. Women need to be given all the facts before they submit to dubious medical testing. It's literally a matter of life and death.

Time to Reform the U.S. Health Care Delivery System

Much of the health care reform debate has centered around insurance carriers, prescription drug benefits and even tort reform. One important aspect of the health care system in this country, though, has been left out of the discussion: Health care delivery. This issue is at least important as all of the aforementioned topics and is arguably part of them, as well. It seems obvious that even the most advanced health care in the world is virtually worthless if there is no workable system with which to deliver it to those who need it. I believe that our current system is broken, and badly in need of reform.

A current family crisis is illustrative of this problem. My husband's 92-year-old father, G., was recently admitted to a South Florida hospital near where he lives. A helpful neighbor saw him trying to drive himself to the emergency room and sent him back to his house where she called an ambulance for him. If not for this good Samaritan and a phone call my father-in-law placed to my husband's sister that morning before setting off in his car, his three children would not have even known that he had been hospitalized. He had not been feeling well for two or more weeks, but did not check in with his doctor. Perhaps he believes, like many Americans, that the emergency room is the best method to get care in a timely manner.

The neighbor, despite being the person who called the ambulance and followed it to the hospital, was not allowed to see G. until evening. She called my husband with the phone number of the hospital, and its name; no one from that facility contacted any of G.'s children, however. When they called the hospital, they were handed off to several people, none of whom would give them any information on G. Finally, my husband was able to speak with his father, who had minimal knowledge of what was going on. He was being told nothing, as well.

My husband remembered the name of one of G.'s doctors and we found his office number on the hospital's website. He did return the call, but was very reluctant to give any real information other that they needed to run "tests" to find out what the problem was. Today, I spoke with my sister-in-law who was understandably livid to hear that they were planning to give G. a colonoscopy! How can a 92-year-old with no information on his condition and separated from his family give informed consent?

In a state that should cater to the health needs of seniors more than any other, this is obviously the norm. Did anyone think to ask this man if there were family members that should be contacted? Apparently not. Are they aware that he had a life-threatening reaction to anesthesia two years ago? If they are, they are ignoring this fact. It appears that hospitals have become Medicare-bilking machines, running test after useless test on isolated seniors without involving their family members in any treatment decisions.

When I spoke to my sister-in-law earlier today, she said she saw a news program just last night on this subject. Elderly are being tested for every problem known to man, when mostly what they need is communication between themselves and their health care practitioners. This poor man has been in this hospital for nearly a week now, with no answers or results. Could this really be what all those "town meeting" anti-reformers are trying to preserve?

No More Recession, Just a "Slow Recovery"

I saw a news blurb a couple of weeks ago in which "analysts" stated that the recession is over. Well, that's comforting, isn't it? It's also really nice to know that economic analysts, at least, don't have to worry about losing their jobs, since they seem to be in higher demand during down times than when the economy is humming along at full steam.

For the rest of us who live in the real world, though, the recession is still here. The only thing that seems to have changed is that economists are now calling it a "slow recovery" rather than what it really is. A report released last week by the New England Economic Partnership tries to be upbeat, but paints a picture of lingering economic doldrums, particularly for the New England states. Maine and New Hampshire seem to be faring the best, but will still experience sluggishness for at least another year. Vermont and Massachusetts' economies will supposedly "bottom out" this quarter, with slow improvement over the next year. Connecticut is facing problems until 2013, and Rhode Islands' economy is so bad that the report did not even offer a projection for recovery.

An Associated Press article by Judy Lin delivers even more good news. She cites a study by the Pew Center that declares 10 states on the verge of economic disaster. Not surprisingly, Rhode Island is one of them. The others are California, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Wisconsin. These 10 states represent more than one-third of the nation's economic output. Goodness! Imagine if the recession wasn't over, the mess we'd be in!

So, the next time you are feeling down because of the Great Recession, just remember that those who really know what's going on have declared it "over". And if you live in New England and have lost one of the nearly 400,000 jobs that have disappeared in our region since early 2008, take heart. You can always retrain to become an economist.

The Catholic Church Interferes With Health Reform

The Catholic church has now jumped on the bandwagon of those entities who, for some reason or another, feel entitled to dictate the terms of the health care reform legislation. Not only are these "special interests" being given a hands-on role in shaping laws that will affect every single one of us, they are supplanting the voices of regular Joes and Janes.

Unlike the insurance industry, big pharma, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. who put their money where their mouths are, the Catholic church is wielding clout without spending a penny. According to an AP article by Julie Hirschfield Davis, bishops managed to get language restricting abortion coverage into the legislation merely by threatening to influence the voting behavior of Catholics.

I have never liked the way the Catholic religion treats women. I am sure that there are many of the opinion, like myself, that the true position of this church and many "pro-lifers" is less a genuine concern for the zygote/embryo/fetus in question and more a desire to control the woman harboring it. Even though these bishops are all old men who will never have to face such an issue, they certainly seem to consider themselves experts on the subject. There are other niggling concerns about their involvement: Since they don't pay taxes, what gives them the right to try to influence legislation? Also-and this is a biggie-have they never heard of the "separation of church and state"?

This concern for "innocent life" comes from an organization that knowingly allowed and enabled pedophiles to masquerade as clergy in order to satisfy their perverted cravings, ruining countless young lives in the bargain. For decades after, as well, the Catholic church used parishioners' donations to pay out as hush money to keep this whole sordid affair secret. Only when victims reached adulthood and decided to seek redress through the courts did the whole business get a good airing. So much for saving innocent lives.

Of course, none of these interests could have such influence if they were not allowed to by our own government. Obama promised change, but so far Big Industry and Big Government are still indistinguishable. Now we can add Big Religion. I don't know about you, but this isn't exactly the type of change I'd envisioned.

It Takes a SWAT Team to Raid a Massage Parlor

A week or so ago, our local paper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette, reported that two small massage therapy businesses in Hadley, MA had been raided because of reports of "sex for pay". The articles, written by Ben Storrow and Owen Boss, described a multi-agency effort to put a stop to this illicit behavior. Not only were Hadley police involved, but also MA State Police, U.S. Immigration and Customs, the U.S. Department of Diplomatic Security as well as at least one Agawam police Detective. A neighbor and eyewitness described the raid as consisting of "20 cruisers, guys with shields...and guns drawn". All this manpower to arrest two middle-aged Chinese women. Is it just me, or does this seem like overkill?

Often, police do not know what they are getting into, so it is best to be prepared. In this case, however, they knew exactly what they were up against. The raids were the culmination of a sting operation in which two officers, one the Agawam Detective and the other a state trooper, posed as customers at two separate locations in Hadley. Both officers reported getting a massage, then being asked about "being happy" or "getting more massage". Each of these questions was enhanced, according to these officers, by "suggestive gestures" (perhaps of the nudge-nudge, wink-wink variety) on the part of the two Chinese women. Some talk of compensation for these additional services was discussed, but since the officers refused, the services were not rendered.

The paper showed a photo of these women leaving the courthouse after their arraignments. They looked to be about 98 pounds apiece, at the most. So, what were the guns and shields for? Were the police afraid the women might lunge at them, fingers poised to massage their nether regions against their will? Certainly, they knew they were up against masseuses, not drug dealers. It doesn't appear that they wore armor when they visited the sites prior to the raid.

How did this investigation start? Presumably, someone must have complained, though the articles made no mention of this. Anyway, I can't imagine why a customer on the receiving end of these "massages" would report them. It wasn't the neighbors interviewed, either, as none of them had any idea that anything of that sort was going on. Hopefully, our tax dollars aren't being spent sending officers to massage parlors on the off chance that they might be offered a "happy ending"!

I realize that selling sex is illegal, even though this was not sex, per se (at least not according to Bill Clinton's definition). Some would consider this a "victimless" crime. I believe that in the absence of oversight and regulation that legal standing would provide, however, all prostitutes are victims. Who would make a career choice like that, if there were other options? I do hope that the myriad of law-enforcement agencies use their vast resources to find out who is using these women for their own gain. I wonder how many cops it will take to arrest them?