A survey co-sponsored by the Gallup Organization found that nearly one in five Americans said that, at some point in the last year, they lacked the money to buy the food they needed (what the report calls "food hardship"). In the fourth quarter of of 2009, 18.5% of Americans said they had problems affording food, which is down from 19.5% at the end of 2008. Although there is a continuing rise in unemployment, analysts say the drop is a result of falling food prices, an increasing use of food stamps, and an increase in the amount of the food stamps benefit. The survey also found that families with children suffered a significantly higher rate of being unable to afford food (24.1% nationally in the most recent quarter).
The survey covered more than a half-million people. It's the first survey big enough to provide data on each of the nation's 435 Congressional districts and Washington, D.C. The survey found that food hardship is a broad problem -- in 45 states and 311 Congressional districts, 15% or more said they had recently lacked money to buy enough food. Only 23 Congressional districts had a food hardship rate of less than 10%; while 139 districts had rates of more than 20%. Of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, 82 had food hardship rates of 15% ore more. The president of Food Research and Action Center said, "While there is certainly more hardship in some areas than in others, the data also show that this is a nearly universal problem."
The survey found that Mississippi was the state that had the highest percentage of people experiencing food hardship (26.2%), while North Dakota was the lowest (10.6%). They also found that the biggest problems were in the South Bronx (New York's 16th district), where nearly 37% of the residents have lacked the money to buy needed food. (Full Story)
Interesting article on Justice John Paul Stevens being at odds (read: unhappy) with the majority of the Court (the conservative majority). This sentiment has especially increased since the recent campaign finance decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). Stevens is the longest-serving current justice. He was nominated by President Ford. He's been on the court ten years more than the second-most senior justice (Scalia). Stevens will turn 90 in April. Many expect that this will be his last term.
Some highlights from the article:
A theme ran through these recent opinions: that the Supreme Court had lost touch with fundamental notions of fair play. In two of these cases, Justice Stevens lashed out at the court's failure to condemn what he called shoddy work by defense lawyers in death penalty cases. On Wednesday, in Wood v. Allen, Justice Stevens dissented from a majority decision that said a lawyer fresh out of law school had made a reasonable strategic choice in not pursuing evidence that his client was mentally retarded. "A decision cannot be fairly characterized as 'strategic' unless it is a conscious choice between two legitimate and rational alternatives," Justice Stevens wrote. "It must be borne of deliberation and not happenstance, inattention or neglect."
(On the recent campaign finance decision)
*His dissent on Thursday was shot through with disappointment, frustration, and uncharacteristic sarcasm. He seemed weary...
*"The rule announced today -- that Congress must treat corporations exactly like human speakers in the political realm -- represents a radical change in the law," he said from the bench. "The court's decision is at war with the views of of generations of Americans."
*In his dissent, Justice Stevens said no principle required overruling two major campaign finance precedents. "The only relevant thing that has changed since" those decisions, he wrote, "is the composition of this court."
*"The majority blazes through our precedents," he wrote, "overruling or disavowing a body of case law" that included seven decisions.
*"While American democracy is imperfect," he wrote, "few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." (Full Story)
A French parliamentary committee has recommended that Islamic face veils should be banned in hospitals, schools, government offices, and public transportation. They also recommended that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" (they better conceptualize what they mean by that...) should be refused citizenship and residence cards. The committee said that requiring women to cover their faces with a veil goes against French principles of equality and secularism. The report stated, "The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess." The committee is now calling on parliament to adopt a formal resolution.
"The BBC's Hugh Schofield, in Paris, says the reasoning behind the report is to make it as impractical as possible for women in face veils to go about their daily business. There is also a fear that an outright ban would not only be difficult to implement but would be distasteful and could make France a target for terrorism, our correspondent says."
France has an estimated five million Muslims. The interior ministry estimates that just 1,900 women in France wear full veils. (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment