Thursday’s quiz

1. Who said: Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat.?

2. What are the last two lines of this verse: Some hae meat and cannae eat/Some would eat that want it

3. It’s faim in French, fame in Italian, hambre in Spanish and matekaitanga in Maori, what is it in English?

4. What is the matter with Mary Jane in A.A. Milne’s poem:

What is the matter with Mary Jane?
She’s crying with all her might and main,
And she won’t eat her dinner—. . . . . . . .—
What is the matter with Mary Jane?

5. What’s the best way to tackle the problem of hungry children?

8 Responses to Thursday’s quiz

  1. Andrei says:

    (1) Mother Teresa of Calcutta

    (2) Obviously Robbie Burns but as to the lines no can do

    (3) Hunger

    (4) Rice pudding again

    (5) Restore the nuclear family with Mum, Dad, three kids and a dog as the fundamental unit of our society and culture – never happen though


  2. tiffany267 says:

    3. Hunger

    5. Capitalism and secularism

    Incidentally, society is a construct, it has no fundamental unit, and only individuals can ensure individual wellbeing. Families come in infinite shapes, sizes, and varieties, and their success is invariably related to their shared values, not to their resemblance to a patriarchal model 🙂

    Also, the best way to prevent kids from going hungry is to choose not to have children, which I think most people ought to do. Almost no parent is financially or mentally prepared for children, and it shows in the childrens’ development. I’m quite tired of being given guilt treatment by charities who say I have to rescue the children of irresponsible (typically religious) parents when I have deliberately chosen to not bring more people into the world because of how unjust it is.

    So let’s reframe the question – rather than assume that hungry children are a problem for everyone, how about we assert that no one should procreate until and unless they are prepared to feed those children properly?


  3. pdm says:

    1. Pass
    2. But we ha’e meat and we can eat
    And sae the lord be thankit.

    That verse was sent to me by my uncle in the form of a plaque when I was about 8 and hung on my bedroom wall until I left home at age 21. In fact it was still there when my father died when I was 24. Unfortunately I am unsure of where it is now.

    3. Pass.
    4. Pass
    5. Two parent families (a man and a woman) and the reinforcement of personal responsibility especially in caring for ones children.


  4. Freddie says:

    #1…bit of a wild guess, but I’ll pickin John Banks..!!


  5. 1. Somebody who never really lacked for food.
    2. But we hae meat and we can eat/ And sae the Lord be thankit
    3. Famine, hunger.
    4. She didn’t like the food prepared. I think it was the pudding, but I can’t remember what it was.
    5. Reinforce the family.


  6. Armchair Critic says:

    I think you are all wrong on question 5. Abstract ideas like “a nuclear family” and “capitalism” don’t prevent hunger, real actions like providing food do it. The best way to tackle the problem of hungry children is to feed them. It’s what Jesus did (Matthew 14, Mark 6, Luke 9 and John 6).
    Is it just me that finds it appalling that, in this day and age, we even need to ask how to tackle the problem of hungry children? Surely we are better than that. The “slippery slope” argument that has been trotted out elsewhere is disgusting; another abstract answer to a concrete problem, put forward by people who have never known real hunger.


  7. tiffany267 says:

    Funny, I thought I smelled homophobia and worship of the supernatural in these answers…but that can’t be because it’s the 21st century and we’re smarter than that…hmmm must be imagining things.

    Seriously, what leap of faith do you have to take to get from two parents of the same gender to children starving? C’mon folks, put your thinking caps on.

    As far as Armchair Critic, I won’t even comment on the biblical quotation, but perhaps the reason that we “have never known real hunger” is that we live in countries that have experienced unprecedented capitalism. Compare our quality of life with that of a hunter-gatherer culture. Our quality of life has been improved by capitalism – by industry, by trade, by innovation. These are the things that improve our access not only to more and better food but also to the many other things that allow us to live less back-breaking subsistence level lifestyles.

    Capitalism is more than an abstract philosophical notion – it is literally the progress of humanity, and only capitalism (with a healthy dose of secularism, i.e. reason) will bring about greater access to nutrition for people of all ages.


  8. TraceyS says:

    We mustn’t confuse nutrition with having a full belly. These are not the same thing. A full belly will stop children complaining about being hungry though. They could still have weak bones or iron deficiency on a full belly.

    The government’s plan is quite good because it marries a filler food (Weetbix) with a high-nutrient-density food (milk). Not perfect, but a great start! I believe it will make a difference in both the short and long terms. Involvement of the private sector makes these programmes sustainable. Now the government has a duty to provide the right environment for the private sector to thrive. This sort of corporate involvement needs to stay around long enough to become an iconic and entrenched kiwi way of doing things, not just a corporate fad.

    I’ve known a number of children not fed properly by their parents/caregivers. It is just astonishing to see their attitude to food is quite different to my own kids. They eat everything put before them. I even had to tell one little girl to stop because she was obviously full and just kept on going. That’s because she’s not sure when the next meal will come due to an extremely disorganised home environment. They learn to waste nothing! A very positive value to have.

    The problem does not descend from family structure per se. In my experience it comes from the parent’s drug and alcohol dependency, mental health problems, and anything else which results in parents having a distorted sense of timing or reality or difficulty in carry out planning activities (such as meal prep) which require use of the brain’s executive functions .

    Another issue that has not been discussed much is the influence of medication on children’s hunger levels. Ritalin can interfere with children’s eating patterns and destroy their appetite. This is a known side-effect. I have even wondered at times if it is open to abuse because of that effect. It is far easier to deliver a pill than a meal.

    Ironically, executive brain functioning is the reason why many children are on stimulant medications. And the same processes in their parents affect their ability to plan a shopping trip, grow some veges, budget their money, or organise meals for the week to feed the kids. A friend took in a foster child and gradually reduced his four-times-daily Ritalin to nil just by feeding him properly. Not expensive food either. Meat and vegetables.

    As a child, my parents coped best with all aspects of parenting when they were an integral part of a small community which was largely focussed around school. When that ended, everything became more disjointed, including meals, their timing, and what they consisted of.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: