November 20, 2006

Weasel Words Hit New Low

First the bad news: people in struggling and developing countries still go hungry, despite the world producing far more food than is needed for every person on the planet.

Now the good news: no one in the United States of America goes hungry, not anymore. Instead, 35 million Americans last year suffered "from “low food security,” meaning they chronically lacked the resources to be able to eat enough food. Of these, 10.8 million lived with “very low food security,” meaning they were the hungriest among the hungry".

Currently running at more than double the target, the sterling goal is for no more than 6 percent of the population of America to suffer from "low food security" at any given time.

Show of hands for volunteers?

[Ideology may be dead, but isn’t it nice to know that the euphemism breeds and thrives – ed]

5 comments:

  1. Dearest Cazzy,

    What's with all these editorial interjections you're indulging in of late? Have you got a staff writer?

    Love J

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:49 AM

    Im sure the "low food security" situation could be fixed by refusing food to any of the lastest subjects of the show "shock docs". These people are so huge the food they eat in one day would most likely feed any normal person for a week or 2.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes Anon, the irony of this situation is not lost.

    Ever wondered why there aren't any "make over" reality shows for the under-indulged? Only the over-indulged seem to get a telly spot, oh, unless it's women deliberately starving themselves to death in rich nations - they get to be on telly too. All quite perverse.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dearest Jimmy [if we may call you that – ed]

    You sound like a lovely lad, and refreshingly polite, despite impertinent questioning of staffing arrangements on this blog.

    Good staff are hard to find; indeed, all too often, impossible to find.*

    Ordinarily, as per wanton examples provided by, for example, The Drunkablog, one should interject editorial asides within text being quoted from other sources.

    Editorializing on ones own text, in a random and meaningless manner, not only trivializes the editor’s seniority and role [too darned right it does – ed], it also degrades both the author and the editor.

    Given this is the case, in future, I will sit back and allow the voices to fight it out amongst themselves. I believe this to be a fair and non-judgmental path.

    Besides, it saves a fortune in staffing costs. [oh, for gawd’s sake, don’t tell them they’re not being paid – ed]

    We always enjoy intelligent correspondence from lads such as your good self. We thank you for your interest and readership.

    Kindest regards & a big hug & kiss from all of the staff.

    * Legal wishes to suggest that you soften or neutralize this statement, as it could lead to charges of defamation by some, if not all, of the staff.

    ReplyDelete