NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, Americans don't go to bed hungry anymore, they go to bed with very low food security now. At least according to the newest Food Security report by the Department of Agriculture, conveniently held back until after the election.

There's some good news: Food insecurty has gone down by about 11%. And nobody goes to bed hungry anymore, unlike in 2004!
But there's bad news: This means that there are still 35 million people with "low food security." And the only reason no one is hungry is because the PC-gremlins struck again, and replaced "food insecurity with hunger" with "very low food security." (For which all I have to offer as evidence are German sources and the report itself; no english speaking news source seems to comment on the replacement of the word "hunger" with "very low food security")

I suppose political correctness is a bipartisan quip now...

Amerika schafft den Hunger ab (http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID6104578_TYP6_THE_NAV_REF1_BAB,00.html) (America abolishes Hunger) - ARD
Food Insecurity in the United States (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/) - USDA

Very low food security?

Either you eat or you don't.

wow this is so ridiculous.

conveniently held back until after the election.

Another crazy liberal conspiracy?! It's tin foil hat time!

http://dailyramblings.com/images/tinfoilhat.jpg

Very low food security?

Either you eat or you don't.The terms been used a lot before and it does make sense: How likely are you to have a full/nutritious meal (at all) each day?

The difference now is that there's three million people less on that list and the changed the words to make them look less ugly.

Another crazy liberal conspiracy?! It's tin foil hat time!
o_O

Another crazy liberal conspiracy?! It's tin foil hat time!Why? Surely you can't believe that 35 million Americans going hungry is good publicity for the ruling party. And it wouldn't be as though politicians don't avoid leaking such information if they can. I'm sure the Dems would have done the same if the tables were turned.

o_O

Well, it's not a conservative conspiracy since it indicated some negative statistic which represents a bad occurrence while the Republicans were in power.

Apparently, Americans don't go to bed hungry anymore, they go to bed with very low food security now. At least according to the newest Food Security report by the Department of Agriculture, conveniently held back until after the election.

Oh noes. A different name. :rolleyes:

Well, it's not a conservative conspiracy since it indicated some negative statistic which represents a bad occurrence while the Republicans were in power.
So how exactly is it not a "conservative conspiracy" then?

Eight Million Americans Rescued From Poverty With Redefinition Of Term
November 10, 1999 | Issue 35•41

WASHINGTON, DC–Approximately eight million Americans living below the poverty line were rescued from economic hardship Monday, when the U.S. Census Bureau redefined the term. "We are winning the war on poverty," said bureau head James Irving, who lowered the poverty line for a four-person family to $14,945. "Today, millions of people whose inflation-adjusted total household income is less than $16,780 are living better lives." Said formerly poor Jackson, MS, motel housekeeper Althea Williams: "I never dreamed I'd ever become middle-class. America truly is the land of opportunity."

The Onion is prescient (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32125).

Well, it's not a conservative conspiracy since it indicated some negative statistic which represents a bad occurrence while the Republicans were in power.

Of course. :rolleyes: How convenient for 35 million people to go on a hunger strike. The Conspiracy scores another victory Comrades! Now we just have to convince everyone that there are actually homeless people... Long live the Glorious Proletarian Revolution!

BTW, MTAE, I seem to have misplaced my tinfoil hat. Can I borrow yours when you're done using it?

Oh noes. A different name. :rolleyes:Now if I hadn't just treated an excerpt of a 150 page court decision on less words, I might conceed the point. ;)

That is the stupidest story I ever heard, and I read the entire Sweet Valley High series!

A mint girlscout cookie for whoever get the reference

Like it isnt obvious that they're trying to cover something.

Now if I hadn't just treated an excerpt of a 150 page court decision on less words, I might conceed the point. ;)

...I'm not entirely sure of what the heck this means. :confused:

That is the stupidest story I ever heard, and I read the entire sweet valley high series!Care to disprove it? You won't find the mention of "hunger" in the new report, while it is still found in previous ones.

So how exactly is it not a "conservative conspiracy" then?

There is no conspiracy. However, the liberals are putting forth a theory of one.

Care to disprove it? You won't find the mention of "hunger" in the new report, while it is still found in previous ones.

-1 for getting obscure cultural reference.

There is no conspiracy. However, the liberals are putting forth a theory of one.
Well, no surprise here.

So, this...
Another crazy liberal conspiracy?! It's tin foil hat time!

http://dailyramblings.com/images/tinfoilhat.jpg
...doesn't make any sense and should have read "conservative" instead of "liberal".
Or, in case of badly executed irony, should at least have read "Another crazy liberal conspiracy theory".

...I'm not entirely sure of what the heck this means. :confused:I treated the court decision on leaded gasoline (Ethyl v. EPA) in one of my classes today. The entire case hinged on the interpretation of the words "will endanger". Sometimes, small words carry a lot of weight, especially in politics.

There is no conspiracy. However, the liberals are putting forth a theory of one.I'm not a liberal. Besides, there's been worse cooked up in Washington. Why wouldn't the USDA do something like this to make themselves look better?

Now if I hadn't just treated an excerpt of a 150 page court decision on less words, I might conceed the point. ;)

...I'm not entirely sure of what the heck this means. :confused:

I'm not a liberal. Besides, there's been worse cooked up in Washington. Why wouldn't the USDA do something like this to make themselves look better?

Um, I don't see how this is even an open question. It's right there in the report, apparently, so we're not talking some shady theories here.

It's not like this is the first time some government agency somewhere in the world has done some euphemistic window dressing, and it's certainly not going to be the last.

All you can do is making people aware of the fact, which is what this thread is doing.

Or, in case of badly executed irony, should at least have read "Another crazy liberal conspiracy theory".

Conspiracy, conspiracy theory, what's the difference? You and your semantics.

Very low food security instead of hunger. That's not that bad.
Global warming=Climate Adjustment
Increased Air Pollution=Clean Air Initiative

The Onion is prescient (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32125).

LOL! I remember that one. Classic. :D

Conspiracy, conspiracy theory, what's the difference? You and your semantics.
You're kidding, right?

D00d, I'm hungry like all the freaking time.

Conspiracy, conspiracy theory, what's the difference? You and your semantics.

A conspiracy is an actual plot or manipulation, a conspiracy.
A conspiracy theory is just the notion that one may exist and if it would exist, what it would be like.

I fail at definitions.

A conspiracy is an actual plot or manipulation, a conspiracy.
A conspiracy theory is just the notion that one may exist and if it would exist, what it would be like.

I fail at definitions.
No, you totally don't. :p And thanks for going through the trouble of actually spelling it out. I was still too incredulous.

Very low food security instead of hunger. That's not that bad.
Global warming=Climate Adjustment
Increased Air Pollution=Clean Air InitiativeLike I said, there's much worse that's been cooked up in Washington.