There’s a difference between:
Failing to charge and exonerating
Hating Trump and hating America
Being opposed to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and being anti-Semitic

“Make America Great Again.” Trump’s slogan implies a criticism: America must not be great right now. It further implies that changes must be made. So, does that mean that Trump hates America? If so, shouldn’t he go back where his family came from?

Sent from my iPad


Several members of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party call themselves socialists, so it’s worth considering Karl Marx’s often quoted phrase that might be thought of as the socialist manifesto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Any serious student of human nature should recognize that such a policy would never last for long.

The phrase implies that work ethic and accomplishments on the one hand, and compensation on the other, are unrelated. A Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey might be more poorly compensated than someone who sits all day in front of his 72 inch TV screen (provided by the government).

The problem with socialism is that it takes away incentive to excel and, for most people, to do any work. People like Gates, Oprah, and Stephen Curry work hard because they enjoy what they do, but many people work only out of necessity. In a capitalist society, a housemaid or waitperson or coal miner or garbage collector who won the lottery would probably retire immediately. But in a socialist society, there’d be no need to retire—few people would ever sign up for such occupations. There would be shortages of even prestigious occupations such as physicians; after all, people whose needs are completely met by government policy might be reluctant to spend four years enduring the rigors of medical school. With no rewards for innovators and entrepreneurs, a socialist form of government would quickly devolve into mediocrity.

But, although we should oppose any attempt to create a full-blown socialistic government, some parts of socialism are a moral imperative for any advanced society. The United States is not yet sufficiently advanced. We support policies that allow an estimated 15 million households to be food insecure (one or more people in the house have gone hungry at times because they could not afford enough food). Yet about 150,000 tons of food are tossed out in the U.S. each day. (These numbers and the following ones come from various government agencies.) More disgraces: While some billionaires shuttle between as many as a dozen of their homes, an estimated 550,000 people spend frigid nights sleeping in alleyways and storefronts. And roughly 27 million people don’t have health care.

An advanced, humane society would demand socialist policies for housing, health care, and food distribution. Instead, the U.S. budget allocates at least as much money to corporate welfare (mostly in the form of tax breaks) as to programs that focus on the dire needs of poor people. Let’s encourage progressives to focus on the most important aspects of socialism.

Black lives matter

The Black Lives Matter movement was started to call attention to police killings of Black men and women. People on the political right argued that the primary killers of Black people are other Blacks. They are right—also true is that Caucasians are the primary killers of Caucasians. But both statistics are irrelevant.

Malaria is caused by the bite of a female anopheles mosquito and kills more than 450,000 people a year worldwide. Dengue fever, transmitted by the bite of an infected Aedes aegypti mosquito, causes about 25,000 deaths per year worldwide. It would be nonsensical to ignore actions against the Aedes aegypti mosquito just because the female anopheles does so much more damage. And it would be nonsensical, irresponsible, and immoral to ignore police killings of Black and Brown people just because other causes of their deaths are greater.

The Profound Limitations of Knowledge

Socrates is famous for having explained why he was such a wise man. “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” The belief that we know nothing is called radical skepticism. My goal for the book The Profound Limitations of Knowledge is to show that radical skepticism is correct—and to make each reader as wise as Socrates.

Knowledge seems to arise from five different sources that I call the five pillars. The first is awareness of certain bodily states, epitomized by Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am.” His ability to think proved to him that he was alive. Somewhat similarly, people know if they are experiencing pain. That is real knowledge—but such a tiny pillar that it can’t support a doll house. And the others are all hopelessly defective.

Immanuel Kant proposed a second pillar: innate knowledge. Kant argued that we are born knowing certain things. Religious faith is a third pillar. People of faith are told who created the world, when He did it (almost always a He, and in some religions, to the day), and what will happen when we die. Reason is a fourth pillar. Humans discern patterns and use logic to make deductions. The fifth pillar is sensory data. We experience the world through the five senses, then combine this with logic to advance from simple observations to complex inferences. The naïve view is that we observe, and then we know. Seeing is believing. Ha!

Innate Knowledge

Kant claimed that certain beliefs such as ‘Every event has a cause’ precede all experience. Even six-month old babies act as though they understand connections between causes and effects. But radical skeptics question the correctness of beliefs, not their origins. Newly hatched ducklings ‘know’ that the first moving object they see will be their mother, so they follow it. But when nasty biologists substitute objects like shiny balls or shoes, the ducklings follow those too. Their ‘knowledge’ is incorrect.

Religious Knowledge

Imagine a science fiction scenario in which extraterrestrial beings assemble the leaders of today’s more than 730 world religions. Eager to know which is correct, they allow each leader  to make his or her case. What evidence might the leaders give? “God told me this.” Or, “On Easter Sunday I bought a bushel of potatoes, and one of them was the spitting image of the Virgin Mary.” Would a Christian’s argument that the Son of God rose from the dead play better than the Hindu idea that each soul undergoes many reincarnations until united with the universal soul? Maybe the major religions would expect their large numbers of devotees to count in their favor; but large numbers do not constitute proof. Furthermore, no religion attracts a majority of the world’s people. ET would end up shaking her three heads in dismay.

If religious beliefs were based on meaningful evidence, religious preferences would be independent of time and place of upbringing. They are, of course, not. More Baptists live in Biloxi than Bombay, more Jews in Jerusalem than Jakarta, and more Muslims in Malaysia than Mississipi.


Many philosophers believe that the only path to certain knowledge is through reason. But reasoning abilities are greatly overrated (which presents me with a paradox, since my book attempts to persuade through reasoning). The skeptic philosopher Agrippa contended that all arguments claiming to establish anything with certainty inevitably commit at least one of three fallacies:

  1. Infinite regress. The claim that a statement is true needs evidence to support it. But the evidence must also be supported, and that evidence too, and on and on, ad infinitum.
  2. Uncertain assumptions. Foundationalists claim that some beliefs are self-evident, so can be used as starting points for complex arguments. For some foundationalists, mathematics and logic provide such basic beliefs: ‘2+2=4’; ‘If X is true, then X cannot be false’. Other foundationalists insist that basic beliefs come from direct sensory experience: ‘That cat is black’. But none of the candidates lead to the enormous number of complex, detailed beliefs that are part of everyone’s worldview.
  3. Circularity. Coherentists assert that statements can be considered provisionally true if they fit into a coherent system of beliefs. But coherentism is circular: A explains B, B explains C, and C explains A. Circular arguments are invalid. Furthermore, statements may cohere with many others, some of which are false. So it is possible to develop a belief system that is both coherent and entirely untrue.

If reason were so powerful, people would more often be persuaded to change their views. Yet throughout history, illustrious philosophers wrote lengthy reasoned arguments, and illustrious others rebutted them. Every year, brilliant lawyers present arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Every year the nine Justices, chosen in large part because of their exceptional powers of reasoning, listen attentively. But whenever the dust has settled on arguments concerning gun control, abortion, affirmative action and so forth, the votes of most judges have been highly predictable. Brilliant Antonin Scalia consistently drew one conclusion, brilliant Ruth Bader Ginsburg consistently the opposite. And brilliant Clarence Thomas was mute.

“So convenient a thing is it to be a rational creature, since it enables us to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to” – Ben Franklin.

Jean Piaget showed that young children invariably think illogically in some situations. How can we be so arrogant as to assume that Twenty-First Century adult Homo sapiens has reached the pinnacle of logical thinking!

A lot of everyday reasoning (and most science) is inductive. Our senses reveal the immediate present, and we use reason to generalize about the future. But the generalizations require the assumption that the future will resemble the past. Bertrand Russell invoked a chicken, fed by a man every day of its life and eventually learning to expect its daily feedings, but in the end having its neck wrung by the same man. Russell added that although we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, we are in no better position to judge than was the chicken. Russell and many other eminent philosophers concluded that there is no rational basis for induction.

Following are two examples of inductive reasoning in mathematics. The first leads to a true conclusion, the next to a false one.

  1. Consider the numbers 5, 15, 35, 45, 65, 95. Every number ends in 5 and is divisible by 5. An inductive inference is that every number that ends in 5 is divisible by 5. This inference is correct.
  2. Consider the numbers 7, 17, 37, 47, 67, 97. Every number ends in 7 and is a prime. An inductive inference is that every number that ends in 7 is a prime. The inference is false. For example, 27 is divisible by 3 and 9.

Here is a nonmathematical example in which an inductive inference may be incorrect: He is 50. He is articulate and healthy-looking. He drives a nice car. Therefore, at some point in his life he probably worked for a living. However, it’s possible that somewhere on earth lives a bright middle-aged Kuwaiti emir, or Rockefeller, or Bush, with hands never soiled by work, who drives a different luxury car every day.

David Hume destroyed the illusion that induction can be rationally justified, and Nelson Goodman put a stake through its dead heart. Goodman showed that a limitless diversity of inductive inferences can be drawn from any body of data. For example, since all emeralds ever observed have been green, the obvious inductive inference is that all emeralds are green. So Goodman coined a new word, ‘grue’, which refers to objects that are green before a certain future date and blue from that date on. Prior to that future date, all evidence supporting the induction ‘All emeralds are green’ equally supports ‘All emeralds are grue’.

So, inductive reasoning is imperfect. But deductive reasoning follows universal principles based on rules of logic, probability theory, and decision theory. Conclusions from such reasoning must be correct – with iron-clad certainty.

Or maybe not. William Alston observed that “anything that would count as showing that deduction is reliable would have to involve deductive inference and so would assume the reliability of deduction.” Complicating matters even further, logicians have proposed many principles of reasoning, several of which are incompatible with each other.

Moreover, even if two disputants each reason flawlessly, they might never come to agreement if they start from different premises. And premises come from observations which, as shown below, are unreliable. Consider a syllogism: All A is B. Some C is not B. Therefore, some C is not A. Whether or not you judge the reasoning valid, unless you know from observation what A, B, and C represent, you have not increased your knowledge of the world.

“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality.” Albert Einstein

Sensory Data

Empiricists believe that everything we know comes through observations and inferences induced from them. Maybe, but almost all important observations are second- or third- or tenth- hand. Few people have walked on the moon or seen the chromosomes of a fruit fly, and nobody I know attended the signing of the Magna Carta. Furthermore, observations don’t help distinguish truth from illusion. Mental institutions are crammed with people who hear voices or speak with long-dead relatives. Just because people outside institutions are in the majority does not necessarily make their visions more credible.

Empiricists acknowledge the occurrence of hallucinations and sensory illusions; but they say that hallucinations are rare and illusions play a trivial role in daily life. They conclude that sensory data are generally accurate. Empiricists Gilbert Ryle and John Austin argued that our ability to detect illusions is evidence for the general trustworthiness of our senses. That is, from the fact that imperfections are infrequently detected, they made the dubious inferences that imperfections are rare and perceptions are typically accurate. Yet reliable estimation of the frequency of illusions and hallucinations is impossible. You may be experiencing one this very moment and not know it. Furthermore, even if our sensory systems were perfect, we’d still face two insurmountable obstacles to certainty. First, the fidelity of human memory is, to put it charitably, considerably less than high. Second, an infinite number of interpretations are compatible with any given perception. Maybe it’s churlish to point out yet another problem but, strictly speaking, empiricism is self-refuting – the claim that all knowledge is gained through the senses is a claim not gained through the senses.

We can never be certain or even mildly confident of the feelings or intentions of others. Polygraph expert Leonard Saxe said, “We couldn’t get through the day without being deceptive.” Daniel Ariely analyzed data sets from insurance claims, employment histories, and treatment records of doctors and dentists. He concluded that almost everybody lies. Our world of used-car salesmen, pyramid schemes, and politicians gives good reason for generalized suspicion. We are constantly fed inaccurate and misleading information. My book gives dozens of examples from personal, historic, journalistic, governmental, corporate, and scientific sources. Any form of information about anything may be incorrect because of unintentional error, misguided theory, or deliberate deception.

Nor do observations tell us anything about underlying reality. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that we can get no closer to reality than our own sense experience and have no way of evaluating its correspondence with the real world. Kant distinguished between noumena and phenomena. He called external reality the noumena. But we perceive only phenomena – the appearances – since all our knowledge is filtered through our mental faculties.


Our ancestors lived in a world of unpredictable famines, floods, plagues, and saber-toothed tigers. To explain such events, the more imaginative among them constructed rich cosmologies of gods, demons, and other supernatural forces. A few primitive scientists noticed that some phenomena recur in predictable intervals. They measured, experimented, and theorized. Their intellectual descendants made science the preferred method for advancing knowledge. The scientific method is the most powerful ever developed for studying the properties of the world. Science is empiricism in its most sophisticated form. Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Freud, and others may have probed deeper into the human condition, but science has dramatically changed how people live. Yet there are reasons to be wary about scientific studies. Both inadvertent errors and outright fraud are common, perpetrated by both mediocre and eminent scientists.

Many philosophers claim that the scientific approach is irredeemably flawed. Consider two syllogisms:

  1. Theory T predicts that, under carefully specified conditions, outcome O will occur. I arrange for these conditions, and O occurs. Therefore, I have proven theory T.
  2. Theory T predicts that, under carefully specified conditions, outcome O will occur. I arrange for the conditions, but fail to obtain the predicted outcome. Therefore, I have disproved T.

The second syllogism is valid (at least, according to the party line—I question the validity in the chapter on reasoning). If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. The first syllogism is invalid. Counterexamples are easy to imagine. For example, a prediction from the hypothesis that unicorns run around at night in Golden Gate Park is that animal droppings will be found in the park. But finding animal droppings would not  prove the existence of unicorns. Yet this invalid syllogism form is the basis of much of both scientific and everyday reasoning.


If I’ve done my writing job well, readers will accept that nothing is certain, not even death or taxes, and nothing can be ruled out with certainty. Still, they are likely to resist any suggestion that the world is substantially different from what they think it is. They may grudgingly acknowledge the possibility that elves and mermaids exist and chickens understand quantum physics, but they will consider the possibilities miniscule.

However, without certainties to rest on, probabilities cannot be meaningfully assessed. We assess probability by using assumptions that themselves have only a probability of being true. For instance, in calculating the probability of getting two sixes on a roll of dice, we assume that (a) the dice are fair; (b) the roll is fair; (c) the numbers that come up on the two dice are independent of each other; (d) the probability of two independent events occurring simultaneously is the product of their independent probabilities. If any of the assumptions are wrong, so is the final probability.

What is the probability that your next door neighbor or close friend – who you’ve had over for dinner, who has baby-sat your children, who was maid of honor/best man at your wedding – is a serial killer? Al Qaeda terrorist? Participant in a witness protection program? Of the other gender from what you believe? CIA spy? Polygamist? Embezzler? You may say “Zero”, but people just like you have been stunned to find out otherwise. The best spies do not look like Sean Connery in his prime, bench press five hundred pounds, and drink double martinis, shaken, not stirred.


The skeptical argument can be put even more strongly: everything we think we know is probably false, since the assumptions upon which our beliefs are based are selected from an infinite pool of alternatives.

The nearest star to our sun is about twenty-four trillion miles away. Our Milky Way galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars, some of them thousands of times larger than the sun. A computer simulation estimated five hundred billion galaxies. The prestigious scientific journal Nature published a study suggesting that there are about three hundred sextillion (3 x 1023) stars in the universe. The speed of light is a little over 186,000 miles per second, so light can travel from the Earth to the Moon in about 1.3 seconds. Yet a beam of light would take about twenty-seven billion years to travel from one end to the other of the known universe. Some people may conceive of a universe infinite in size and duration or with equal ease imagine a universe with boundaries. Both strike me as wildly improbable, yet I can’t even conceive of a third alternative. With that in mind, the leap from our infinitesimally tiny part of the universe to claims about eternal and universal laws seems preposterous.

So, we are left with three possibilities, and the last two require a profound overhaul of worldview. Acceptance of either would leave no guidelines for behaving one way rather than another, as the world would then be completely unpredictable. I grant the implication.

Possibility 1. My reasoning is flawed. One or more errors invalidate the conclusions.

Philosopher G.E. Moore argued against radical skepticism. He wrote that, if a seemingly sound argument leads to an implausible conclusion, the argument may not be sound after all. There is probably an error in either the premises or the argument form. So, readers should evaluate every step leading to my outrageous conclusions. My PhD is not in philosophy, and my knowledge of the literature is limited, so there may be some important omissions. But I’m convinced that there are no serious errors of reasoning.

Possibility 2. Radical skepticism is correct. We cannot know anything, apart from the fact that radical skepticism is correct.

Possibility 3. We must give up on reasoning as a path to the truth.

White supremacy


White supremacists would like to live in a genetically pure country. They can’t tolerate non-aryan blood. But such a country probably wouldn’t serve them well. Animal breeders know that mixed race animals do better than pure-breds. Race horses may be beautiful, graceful, and fast, but they are more likely than other horses to break down. Mongrel dogs tend to be healthier and live longer than pure-breds. The same is true of cattle and chickens. The offspring of marriages between closely related humans are typically impaired compared to offspring of nonrelatives.

During the past 20 years, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, and Asians have won Nobel Prizes, Pulitzer Prizes, most valuable player awards, tennis championships, Olympic gold medals, literary prizes, Grammys, Emmys, and Oscars. Does anyone seriously think that anyone from the Charlottesville gang of Nazi saluting chanters and Confederate flag-wavers is supreme over any of those people? Or, for that matter, supreme over anything other than a pile of rocks?



To a trump supporter:

I voted for Hillary Clinton and before her for Barack Obama. So, you and I probably disagree on many crucial issues: gun control, abortion rights, immigration policies, Black Lives Matter, same sex marriage, etc. I doubt that either of us would have any success trying to change the other on any of those issues. But we might be able to agree on a few things.

1.    We would both like to keep our planet able to sustain life for our children, grandchildren, and beyond. Yet climatologists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is heating up, in large part because of human activities, and with potentially devastating consequences. We trust scientists who enable us to land men on the moon; eradicate deadly diseases; and develop powerful weapons systems. Yet many politicians arrogantly claim that they know more than our best scientists about the cause of climate change—and whether climate change is even occurring. Amateurs do not get to overrule NASA scientists about the proper coordinates for a rocket launch, and amateurs should not shape attitudes toward climate change.  Let’s you and I band together and warn politicians that we’ll vote them out of office unless they take measures to protect our planet.
2.    donald trump has said that, as long as we maintain a nuclear arsenal, we should be willing to use it. That attitude terrifies me and I hope it does you as well. The devastation inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be minor compared with what our vastly more powerful bombs would do. And, if the U.S. ever started bombing, we would become a pariah nation with  retaliation likely. The entire planet might soon be covered by a mushroom cloud.
3. I hope you share my belief that the U.S. President is a servant of the people. So, the President should not lie to the people. donald trump has been caught in almost a lie a day since he’s taken office.
4. I hope you also share my belief that we should not allow or encourage people in other countries to influence our elections. donald trump encouraged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and almost surely affect the election.
5. Finally, I hope you share my belief that democracies need a free press. But donald trump calls newspapers the enemy. That puts him in the company of every dictator who ever lived.

You probably like Mike Pence. I don’t, but trump is so erratic and dangerous that I’d welcome his impeachment even if it means that Pence ascends to the presidency. Please consider contacting your local officials, Democratic or Republican, and urging them to start proceedings.

Your adversary but a fellow American,

Fred Leavitt


Tim Wise has some excellent videos in which he goes over the same ground that I do. See, for example,

In one of his videos he asserts that it would be better if a person of color rather than a Caucasian discussed the issues. I agree, but I’m retired and have a lot of time on my hands. So, here goes.

David Duke and his pea-brained followers are irredeemable. I’m more interested in the actually human population whose views on racial issues are, in my opinion, seriously skewed in the wrong direction. These are people, and I think there are lots of them, who would be deeply offended and angered to be called racist. They voted for Obama. They have not just one but several African-American friends. They’re proud to wear their Steph Curry jersey, and they love Serena Williams and Beyoncé. They don’t like David Duke any more than I do, and they believe strongly in a color blind society. They want college admissions and job hirings to be based solely on objective criteria, not at all on skin color. They want fairness.

Unfortunately, it’s too late for that. Objectivity is good but does not ensure fairness. African-Americans have objectively darker skin than Caucasians (excepting Michael Jackson in the last few years of his life), yet for most of U.S. history, dark skin was a barrier that prevented otherwise deserving people from getting decent jobs. In fact, from the time the first settlers arrived in the new world, Americans have discriminated based on objective skin color. In the not very distant past, public figures like Bull Connors, George Wallace, and Strom Thurmond proudly embraced racism. It has been part of the fabric of our country.

To state the obvious: Because of long-standing racist policies, people of color, compared with whites, remain disadvantaged in many crucial areas. The policies made it harder for them to keep families intact and for parents to help children financially. So the children were less able to buy a home or start a small business. Today, people of color receive poorer health and dental care and live in more dangerous neighborhoods with fewer decent stores and higher insurance rates. They are more likely to be exposed to dangerous levels of lead and other toxins and more likely to go to bed hungry. They attend worse schools and receive insufficient help with schoolwork and job preparation. They have more trouble getting bank loans, are more likely to be harassed by police, and so forth. All those factors affect performance on many objective tests.

The people I’m concerned about– I think of them as nonracist racists– are vaguely aware of all this but seem oblivious to the depth of the problem.  See below.* One reason is that politicians often play to their worst instincts. Hello, Donald and Ted. For example, they introduced the term welfare queen during the 1970s to refer to people who collected excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation. Conservative politicians identified abusers, made sure that the cases they exposed were people of color, and vilified them in the media. Not surprisingly, their constituents were enraged. Then the politicians argued that this was cause to reduce or even eliminate welfare benefits. Their conclusion was unwarranted, based on the same faulty (but effective) reasoning used by pitchmen for the lottery. Imagine seeing a commercial with a lottery winner raving about how the win changed her life. Followed by another winner with the same message. Followed by another and another and another. Naive viewers might rush out, buy a stack of tickets, and start planning a round-the-world vacation. But of course, the lottery marketing people use only winners to present their pitch. They don’t show anyone who threw away money on losing tickets. Similarly, the politicians didn’t mention the many decent people who desperately needed and greatly benefited from welfare. With any large program involving thousands and even millions of people, both favorable and unfavorable outcomes are likely. Showing only the ones that seem to support a particular position is a dishonest staple of demagogue politicians. But it’s effective– nonracist racists are persuaded.

Another strategy of today’s demagogues is to scream reverse discrimination– that is, discrimination against white men. And they’re right: affirmative action programs have deprived some qualified white men of job opportunities. But consider the broader context. Every government program has costs. Childless couples pay tax dollars to support public schools and city dwellers pay for farm subsidies. Giving a job to a person of color means that a white person does not get that job. Still, most skilled whites can get jobs in their chosen fields; older people of color could not. And the fear that unqualified people will be allowed to work in vital professions is unfounded; those who get preferential status must still be qualified.

There are clear moral implications to all the above–reparations?–but I won’t pursue that line. Instead, I’ll say just a bit more about objective tests.

Given their many disadvantages, it would be surprising if people of color did as well as whites on objective tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test. But imagine a foot race in which half the entrants carry 50 pound weights and half run unencumbered. If people in the weighted down group are slowest to the finish line, they might nevertheless be better prospects for future races. Similarly, a person of color who scores less than a Caucasian on the SAT might be a better prospect for both college and future employment.

The Wonderlic is an objective intelligence test used to predict how college players will fare in the National Football League. But, though (African American) Donovan McNabb’s score was the lowest of the five quarterbacks taken in the first round of the 1999 NFL draft, he had the longest and most successful career of any of them. The correlation between a quarterback’s score on the Wonderlic and his performance in the NFL is essentially zero. In fact, Wonderlic scores fail to significantly predict future NFL performance for any position.

In conclusion, I’m mildly optimistic about the future of race relations in this country. I suspect that a large segment of the population fits into the category that I’ve called nonracist racists. They are essentially decent people, but they have fallen under the sway of, and tend to vote for, political candidates who deliberately misinform them and encourage racial animosities. Progressive activists should seek ways to educate the public about several of the topics mentioned above. Maybe then, general attitudes and voting patterns will change.
*To take one example, for the year 2014: According to the website Feeding America on food insecure households (households in which one or more people were hungry at times during the year because they could not afford enough food)

48.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 32.8 million adults and 15.3 million children.
14% of households were food insecure.
26% of Black and 22% of Hispanic households were food insecure.

Comments are welcome and will be published.