A U.S. Department of Agriculture report found that nearly 50 million people struggled last year to get enough to eat. That includes almost one in four children. This is the highest number of Americans who lack enough food since the government first started to keep track of these numbers. The study documented people who lack a dependable supply of adequate food (those that live with some level of "food insecurity") and those with food shortages so severe that they are hungry.
In 2008, nearly 17 million children (22.5%) lived in households in which food was scarce at times. That is 4 million more children than in 2007. The number of children who were outright hungry rose from about 700,000 to almost 1.1 million. Among Americans of all ages, 49 million sometimes ran short of nutritious food (16%) compared to 2007 in which the percentage was 12%. Last year, 4.8 million households used private food pantries, compared to 3.9 million in 2007. 625,000 households used soup kitchens, which is nearly 90,000 more than in 2007.
The lead author of the report said that other recent research by the USDA found that most families in which food is scarce have at least one adult with a full-time job -- which indicates that the problem lies at least in part to wages and not a lack of employment.
Those that were most vulnerable to food shortages were single mothers. More than one in three single mothers reported that they struggled for food. More than one in seven said that someone in their home had been hungry. The report also found that black of Hispanic people were more than twice as likely as whites to report that they faced food scarcity.
The report also found that federal food assistance programs aren't completely fulfilling their purpose. A little more than half of the people surveyed that faced food shortages said that they had participated, in the previous month, in programs like food stamps, subsidized school lunches, or the nutrition program for women with babies or young children (WIC). (Full Story)
Recently in Ohio there was a failed attempt at executing a prisoner. He was to be put to death by lethal injection, but the executioners could not find a usable vein after trying for two hours. He was jabbed in his arms, hands, ankle, and leg. They even hit a bone. The inmate was in pain and was crying. Before he was in too much pain, he even tried to help them find a usable vein. Finally, after the two hours, they called off the execution and delayed it. Critics argued this was cruel and unusual to poke someone with needles for two hours.
Other scheduled executions were delayed while Ohio tried to figure out what they were going to do. They have now come up with a new execution method. Instead of using a three-drug cocktail for lethal injections, they will simply use a single drug. Prison officials will inject a large dose of an anesthetic to kill the inmate. If that fails to kill the inmate or if the inmate's veins aren't suitable for the intravenous approach, they will inject two lethal chemicals directly into the inmate's muscles.
Some experts wonder why Ohio didn't just abandon the intravenous approach altogether and instead use the intramuscular method. Some analysts argue that if Ohio would have completely abandoned injecting drugs into a vein, they would have given the impression that the former approach was cruel or unusual punishment. The laywer of the inmate that was jabbed for two hours looking for a suitable vein said, "What they wanted to emphasize was that they don't believe that the former policy was inhumane or inherently unconstitutional, and they didn't want to convey any misimpression on that by making some drastic shift."
To explain their decision to continue the intravenous method, the chief legal counsel for the governor said, "Why not opt for something that is quicker, familiar, and less open to legal challenge?" It's kind of scary when we live in a society where "familiar" is a word used to describe an execution method. 'Let's stick with that good-old-days, nostalgic, familiar method of intravenous lethal injection.' (Full Story)
A report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) found that women in developing countries will be the most vulnerable to climate change. These women face a disproportionate burden because they do most of the agricultural work and are therefore most affected by droughts and the sea level rising. This can result in unlivable lands and a loss of their livelihood. In addition, these women have less access to income-earning opportunities. If there farming opportunities cease, there are many women without other options. Furthermore, as women are often responsible for the care of their household and family, they are not able to move around as easily and this increases "their vulnerability to sudden weather-related natural disasters." For example, when drought strikes, it may not be as easy for women to relocate, instead they have to "work harder to secure food, water, and energy for their homes."
"The report suggested family planning, reproductive health care, and 'gender relations' could influence how the world adapts to rising seas, worsening storms, and severe droughts...Societies which will be more resilient to climate change are those with education, health care, and legal protection for all, and where people have more say in their lives." (Full Report)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment