fun gus wrote:BirdBrain wrote:[
So, just to make sure I'm understanding you. You really believe that there are NO starving children in America. Starving isn't just little black babies with protruding bellies. That is the classic petit bourgeois definition. Starving is not getting the adequate nutrients, and slowly dying as a result from the developing disease process.This goes on in many areas of the country.
Jane was right. She was right about the war as well...
Interesting that Ms Fonda has issued 2 'apologies', no? One, where she corrected herself saying there were 'starving' kids in North Georgia, and one where she apologised for going to Vietnam on 20/20..So that's 2 times she admitted she 'might be wrong'. Something I have yet to see you do.
As mentioned previously, I have worked with Hosea's charity, and even the great Hosea Williams wasn't deluded enough to believe there are 'starving' kids here. But, since you have been on those 'planes' in Europe with Mr Tebow, I guess I'll take your 'word' for it.
Your semantics about 'nutrients' in judging actual real 'starving' people is telling..Saying any child in the USA is truly 'starving' is, in fact, a great insult to real starving kids everywhere else. To me, that's like saying there's 'poverty' or 'poor' people here..Well, of course, by our standard, yes. But any grown person that isn't trolling because they had thier feelings hurt in a political debate can objectively look at the big picture: and our 'poor' folks would be considered quite 'well off' in comparison to many,many other truly destitute living humans all over the world.
I suggest you get back on some of those 'planes' you speak of and take another look.
Fonda is (was) trying to correct her legacy, and sell her books. She tends to go back and forth on what she meant going to Nam...depending on who she is speaking to at the time.
I can tell you don't understand what poverty really is...you are one of those guys who go work at the shelter, then ride home in your SUV , sitting your fat butt down to a real dinner with heat and a nice bed free of rats and roaches. You can't possibly rationalize that "excess is great", and sincerely care about the people living in squalor just miles from your house.
Why would my feelings be hurt??? I am looking at the big picture, which includes millions of hungry children in the USA....starving children. Just because they don't fit your sordid description of what hunger really is (is) disgusting. Because their level of starvation isn't in accordance with yours they are "better off" because they live in America?? Believe me, the level of poverty in America feels just as bad there as it does anywhere else, because hunger hurts. The kid in the projects in Oakland doesn't tell himself that he has to be strong because there are children with even worse hunger 15,000 miles away.Pain and despair doesn't work like that, not with an abundance of food right around the corner.
Basically you are saying America's hunger is good hunger, because it isn't as bad as it is elsewhere. That is just plain pathetic, and classic wacko thinking. You have a serious blind spot Gus. One that makes you miss the obvious going on all around you.