When Is a Struggle Not?

Hope you are not hungry. I’m not. Just had lunch. No, it was not nutritious. Yes, I’ll get better food for supper.

Then, there is this:

A new study shows that nearly 20 percent of South Dakota children are struggling with hunger.

Just how bad are things? Will we soon see pictures of emaciated children with bloated bellies sitting in the midst of the prairie?

[M]ore than 38,000 children under the age of 18 in the state do not have adequate access to nutritious food

Oh. I see. You mean that some parents don’t feed their children in accordance with the latest food pyramid instructions.

There are, no doubt, children in this state who are truly hungry. But one out of five? No.

When I was a child, hungry meant, well, hungry. Now it would seem to mean something else entirely.

2 thoughts on “When Is a Struggle Not?

  1. If “hungry” meant actual hunger, we wouldn’t need all these gov’t welfare programs and subsidies. Just like “poor” doesn’t mean actual poverty in this country.

    But then, they’re not really interested in feeding the hungry or caring for the poor. They’re interested in feeding their own appetite for power and caring for their careers as poverty-pimps.

    1. We are indeed a country whose “hungry” and “poor” would have trouble proving their status in a court of law, were we to look at facts and not cobbled together statistics.

Comments are closed.