Starving For The Truth

I came across this item yesterday and detected some stuff that I thought was worthy of note (you know me…).

The Yahoo News story has to do with the war on poverty (interesting to recall that ‘60s phrase, which I believe is heroic). It starts out with interviewing a survivor of Hurricane Katrina, and then follows up with a quote from John Edwards prior to this bit of editorializing:

Edwards ran for president in 2004 arguing there were two Americas, one for the well-off and another for those who struggle. When that effort failed, he ran for vice president on John Kerry's ticket. He said he has not decided whether to run again in 2008.

How exactly did Edwards’ effort fail? Does the writer mean his effort to win the primary or his effort to highlight and fight against the problem of hunger in America?

Edwards did finish second in the primary as I recall, and he pushed Kerry hard before the primary ended. But I guess the writer doesn’t believe that that context is necessary.

Also, though I’ve been “hot and cold” on Jesse Jackson in the past, I believe that when he’s right about an issue, he’s shown himself as a true visionary, as he does here with these words:

"There is a need to have politicians whose positions represent change for the better and not an accommodation with the worst of our status quo."

And the article next asks the question, “Does Poverty Exist?,” which is astonishing given what we witnessed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina last year (which the article cited previously). It does present the following statistic, though, to answer a question which shouldn’t need to be asked.

The U.S. Census Bureau said in August one in eight Americans and one in four black people lived in poverty last year.

I believe “African American” is the commonly accepted parlance here, but I guess I’m just splitting hairs again.

My real objection, though, comes here…

Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation think-tank argued there is little actual poverty in the United States and most poor people had a house, car, television, air conditioning, food and medical care.

Democrats only employed the word to stir emotions and "low income status" would be a better description in most cases, Rector said in an interview.

Why don’t we call those who are poor and hungry “economically deprived” or “missing out on prosperity” or something if Rector doesn’t like those terms?

God, I detest these people.

That case gains traction in the United States, a society with a fiercely competitive ethic and a belief that hard work and self-reliance are a sure route to success, making it risky to promote a national goal of helping the poor.

The above paragraph is editorializing, by the way, and has no place in something that purports to be a news story.

Also, the article quotes Jim Wallis, affiliated with a Christian ministry group called Sojourners which “promotes spiritual renewal and social justice,” which I applaud. Wallis said that “the religious right has hijacked the agenda for Christian voters promoting opposition to abortion and gay marriage but pushing poverty off the agenda.”

I would tend to agree, and I would also tend to wonder why this isn’t the lede paragraph of the story and is instead buried near the end (further evidence of the hypocrisy of the so-called “moral values” crowd).

I’ll tell you what: for anyone who has any doubt whatsoever as to whether or not hunger exists in America, go to the Second Harvest site here and try linking to some of the statistics presented by these good people for a dose of reality.

And if Robert Rector reads this information and STILL doesn’t believe that poverty exists, then I’ll encourage him to travel to New Orleans’ Ninth Ward and see for himself.