A Rose By Any Other Name

In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (Act II, Scene 2), Juliet laments at the fact she has fallen in love with a man who happens to belong to a family with whom her family is feuding. During the discussion she asks:

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.”

She was expressing that she wished her lover, Romeo, had a different last name and declares that he would be the same guy she loves with any other name. The government has given the rose another name this week by declaring that in America we will no longer have hungry people. People who go without food will now be referred to as people with “very low food security.”

Regardless of what we call them, people who do not get enough food are still hungry. I am sure that all of the sudden they do not feel better, they have not lost the feeling of hunger, and their health has not suddenly improved. This is the kind of political correctness that puts new names on problems to avoid some social stigma while completely ignoring the issue at hand.

America is the wealthiest nation on this planet and we throw enough food away each day to feed the hungry. Government intervention has been terrible at solving the problem because every time the government gets involved it spends more money and gets bigger problems. Government is even responsible for some charitable contributions being halted. I have friends who have worked in the food business and the businesses use to donate leftover food to shelters and other places. There were threats of lawsuits because someone got a moldy bagel or a hamburger was not cooked just right. This kind of stupidity causes well intentioned people to stop helping. If the bagel has mold, throw it away and get another.

The federal government wastes billions of dollars a year in pork projects. They “bring home the bacon” so that they can get reelected. The amount of money we spend on things named after Robert Byrd or on bridges to nowhere could feed an awful lot of people. Communities can get involved and help out but in the big cities, the largest areas with people who are hungry, do not have a sense of community. How many small towns and rural areas actually have hordes of hungry people?

When I was in the Army we use to sell hot dogs every day to the troops on their break from class. Several times during the year we would take the money and buy cases of food when stores had case lot sales. We then donated the food to the local food bank. During my nearly three year tenure we bought over $5000 worth of food and nearly $2000 worth of presents for needy children during the Christmas toy drive. These are the kinds of efforts that help out and are much more effective than renaming the problem.

The Hollywood stars and politicians who spend millions of dollars on political campaigns and 2 million dollar weddings could certainly help alleviate this problem. The liberals are always talking about rich Republicans who do nothing to help and how tax cuts only help the wealthy (an incorrect statement) so why is it these same wealthy liberals (and face it, most of Hollywood is liberal) do not give millions to help feed the hungry? There is no reason people should go hungry in America. God knows there are enough programs and resources to help out. The problem is, they are not properly managed. There is also that double edged government sword. The government can help people get food but if there is no plan to solve the reason they do not have food then more people become dependent on government.

This is complex but should have been solved years ago. One thing is certain, renaming the problem will not make it go away (though I suppose now the Democrats can claim they ended hunger in America). Shakespeare’s Juliet pointed out that the rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Unfortunately, hunger by any other name still stinks.


Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

3 Responses to “A Rose By Any Other Name”

  1. Webloggin says:

    A Rose By Any Other Name…

    The government is great when it comes to reclassifying problems under new politically correct names. It is an entirely other story when it comes time to fix the problems.


  2. Rosemary says:

    Conservative=personal responsibility, charitable, caring.
    Liberal=let the government do it.

    These are the results of another so-called test. This is what they found! Now, that is only to say each group is more prone to those ideals.

    I agree with your overall point; however, I must disagree about changing the name. I do believe the reason they changed the name (other than they had nothing one day) is because they used to include people who had to wait for dinner! If a student didn’t show up at the cafeteria, they were considered ‘hungry’ even if they went across the street to eat!

    It is riduculous, and it all needs to stop. I’ll bet you almost anything if Congress ended every program today, the Liberals would step up to the plate. It’s just that they are too dependent on government to solve everything, even those things it was never intended to solve.

    Great article! ;)

  3. Ron Goodwyne says:

    Like Reagan said, the nine scariest words are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”