blank
New York Bans Food Donations
Tue, 2012-03-20 16:42
#1
New York Bans Food Donations
Tue, 2012-03-20 16:43
#2
In the latest iteration of "Nannystateism," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the bureaucrats who work for him have now determined that no one be allowed to donate food to the city's homeless shelters on the grounds that it may be unhealthy.
It defies common sense, the idea that an empty belly is somehow healthier than one that contains trans fats, salt, or other food additives the Bloombergers have determined are not fit for human consumption.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/03/20/michael-bloomb...
Tue, 2012-03-20 16:56
#3
Right-wing bullshit. We have to put up with this everywhere - why here?
i guess I should be thankful though. I never thought I'd find a reason to applaud Mayor Bloomberg.
Tue, 2012-03-20 17:04
#4
How is it "right wing bullshit"? It's people wanting to help the less fortunate with what I'm sure are much appreciated food donations being told tht they can't. And why should someone in a shelter not get to enjoy the occasion unhealthy snack, just like the rest of us do? Why not take it further? Why not ban giving spare change to the homeless on the grounds that they may spend it on salty snacks?
Tue, 2012-03-20 17:20
#5
How is it "right wing bullshit"?
Gee, I thought this was a not-too-subtle giveaway:
Turning away donated food intended for the homeless is the height of left-wing, bureaucratic arrogance.
Then we get the real story:
"For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife Lenore have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side orthodox congregation. They've brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood," Stier wrote. "The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city."
That "surplus" portion (read "leftovers") of that high-fat high-salt crap, unfit for human consumption in the first place, is delivered to homeless people so that the donors can collect mitzvahs - and the city says, uh uh, bad food.
I'm with the city on this one.
ETA: Oh, then there's the author. He works for "Let Freedom Ring". Here's a recent masterpiece from [url=http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/news/read/2145]their web site[/url]:
In a letter sent Friday to House Republicans, Let Freedom Ring and several prominent conservative organizations, including FreedomWorks, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Patriots, 60 Plus Association, and ForAmerica, called for a conservative budget, one that balances in ten years or less and does not raise taxes on the American people.
Tue, 2012-03-20 17:29
#6
That "surplus" portion (read "leftovers") of that high-fat high-salt crap, unfit for human consumption in the first place, is delivered to homeless people so that the donors can collect mitzvahs - and the city says, uh uh, bad food.
It's food leftover from bar mitzvahs and weddings. I assume it's pretty good. And just cause someone is going through hard times at the moment, they shouldn't be able to occasionally enjoy a decent meal (even if there's some salt in it) just like the rest of us can?
Tue, 2012-03-20 17:47
#7
Heh, I only put that part in as a joke. How did I guess you'd ignore the substantive parts of my post?
Anyway, you asked why I called it right-wing bullshit - I trust you have your answer now.
Tue, 2012-03-20 17:51
#8
The tone and tenor of the article might be "right wing bullshit" but I'd argue that the policy in question is "left wing bullshit." There's that hispter ironic site "Stuff White People Like". One of the best entries is "knowing what's best for poor people". http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poo...
Tue, 2012-03-20 19:13
#9
Pogo
I know that a number of community dinners will not accept donations of prepared food unless it has been prescreened. If you are looking to provide a nutritous meal you shouldn't base it on table scraps.
Wed, 2012-03-21 11:33
#10
Isn't the problem that NY doesn't have proper social services providing the poor with resources to get their own food? I don't see giving leftovers to the homeless as any kind of a 'solution'.
Wed, 2012-03-21 11:50
#11
Isn't the problem that NY doesn't have proper social services providing the poor with resources to get their own food? I don't see giving leftovers to the homeless as any kind of a 'solution'.
Word.
Wed, 2012-03-21 13:57
#12
Isn't the problem that NY doesn't have proper social services providing the poor with resources to get their own food?
It's more than just the state of NY. The cuts to federal food assistance programs are Warshington's business, and Warshington is where the real solutions should be.
And the problem with neoliberalism is that it does not work. Dividing and conquering U.S. states and provinces and forcing them to deal with federal cuts to social programs and infrastructure spending is no way to run a country.
With neoliberal policies people are encouraged to want more domestic security and more security from poverty and so on. But their response is not to act federally. Their response is to dregulate and privatize, and administer more spending cuts in paving the way for more of their free market ideology. Pinochet's Chile is their model, and that is what they are striving for over time and in small doses. They know that people would rebel in the streets if they try on the full Pinochet Monty, and so their undemocratic ideology has to be introduced slowly and in doses that don't cause mass die-offs as per 1990s Russia. The new liberal parasitic fascism shall be administered in small doses so as to keep their hosts barely alive and replenishing blood supplies.
Wed, 2012-03-21 15:19
#13
Boom Boom
In the early 1990s I lived in northern Ontario and volunteered at the food bank and soup kitchen (run by United, Anglican and Roman Catholic churches). The soup kitchen used leftovers from restaurants - we really had to check through that it wasn't spoiled or otherwise unhealthy, and every night we'd have to throw some of the 'donations' out because we felt it unsuitable to use. The Health Department checked us out every week and we got their stamp of approval - always. We tested the food on ourselves before serving any of it. I have no idea if these food banks/soup kitchens are continuing today.
Wed, 2012-03-21 15:43
#14
I'm sure hungry homeless people and their children won't mind waiting until a viable alternative presents itself. The human body can survive for quite some time without food.
Wed, 2012-03-21 17:21
#15
Isn't the problem that NY doesn't have proper social services providing the poor with resources to get their own food?
Sure, that [i]used[/i] to be a problem, but given how they can now afford to turn away donated food, one can only assume that Bloomberg has completely eradicated hunger in the homeless population.
Wed, 2012-03-21 17:52
#16
What a great debate. We have to pick sides between the likes of Bloomberg (who apparently now cares about the health of the poor but can't cure their poverty), and the bleeding-heart donors who are indignant that the leftover stuff which was destined for the trash can't be given to the homeless instead...
Such a dichotomy could only exist in the West.
Perhaps there's a Third Way... (whooops).
Wed, 2012-03-21 18:54
#17
They have to eliminate food reserves and cutback on food stamps for Americans so that every food-insecure American, and there are tens of millions of them black and white, is more reliant on market forces for their dinner. It's about the ideology, and it must be enforced. They have to cutback on freelunches for ordinary slobs but not the massive deficit spending on socialism to benefit superrich Americans. Much will have more at the expense of the many as always.
Wed, 2012-03-21 21:33
#18
Food stamps remove choice from people, the donations are basically the privatization of social services, but there is very little in place legislated to ensure that hunger isn't an issue.
You are forced to "donate" a portion of your income to ensure that your country is the best it can be. Then the government turns around and uses your tax dollars to blow up women and children in countries they need to strategically control.
Clearly the US gov't's priorities aren't -- and never have been -- the well-being of its most vulnerable citizens.
Wed, 2012-03-21 22:48
#19
I don't like the idea for food stamps either. Food stamps are a degrading form of assistance for the poor in America, it's true. But there are approximately six million Americans whose only incomes are $100 to $200 dollars a month in food stamps. And these right wing Liberal Democrats have made cuts to just about every area of social funding in the U.S. including food stamps. Food stamps are a miserable form of relief, but hunger and malnutrition are even worse violations of their basic rights.
I feel very badly for our American comrades in need. They need to rebel in the streets.
Sat, 2012-03-24 15:08
#20
This policy is stupid. Of course, there are, and ought to be, better ways to address hunger. That is not the issue. The question should be does THIS POLICY make life better, or worse, for the people it is intended to "help." How can any person of conscience support this??
Sun, 2012-03-25 06:15
#21
Right-wing bullshit. We have to put up with this everywhere - why here?
i guess I should be thankful though. I never thought I'd find a reason to applaud Mayor Bloomberg.
Sometimes bullshit is just bullshit. In this case, despite the tone of the article, it's not left- or right-wing bullshit. It's just bullshit.
Tue, 2012-03-27 03:50
#22
If you want to solve a problem of overcrowded homeless shelters, you can go about it a few different ways. You could open more shelter space, you could house some of the homeless, or cheapest of all, you could make homeless shelters less attractive places to be than they already were. Ta-da!
Sat, 2012-03-31 05:05
#23
US House of Representatives approves plan to destroy Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps
The resolution proposes to turn back the clock on federal programs by more than half a century, capping federal spending at 19 percent of gross domestic product, about the level that prevailed in the 1950s, before the establishment of Medicare and other social welfare programs adopted under the Johnson administration.
No-soul capitalism coming to America.