Hot meal delivery
I was appalled reading in The Star on Wednesday about the substitution of frozen meals for hot lunches delivered every day to needy Kansas City recipients. (1A, “Hot meals, daily contact for shut-ins being replaced”)
My wife, grandchildren and I all volunteered to deliver hot lunches to homebound recipients for many years, and we have seen the need.
Volunteers and recipients alike gain from daily contact and interaction. That may be the only person a shut-in sees that day.
Never miss a local story.
Many recipients we have seen cannot safely operate a stove or microwave. Frozen meals are not the answer.
The bureaucrat who came up with this cost-cutting measure obviously has never delivered hot meals to any recipient, much less considered the humanitarian and social consequences — not to mention the insensitivity of dropping frozen five-packs of meals on the porches of those in need.
The frozen-meals idea must be revisited.
Wednesday’s article eloquently conveys the inhumanity of the planned changes to meal delivery for shut-ins.
I would like to address an additional concern: The training required of meal-delivery volunteers emphasizes safety. In addition to the physical safety of clients’ health and environment, volunteers must be attuned to food safety.
Deliveries are never left unattended, but are made directly to someone in the home. Spoiled food could be a danger to the client (not to mention a liability for the program).
How does the Mid-America Regional Council propose to oversee the day-to-day safety of its five frozen meals? Will contracted staff verify that clients can provide temperature-safe storage? And that clients have microwaves and can follow instructions for safe reheating?
I don’t see much reason to be optimistic.
After seeing multiple national anthem protests by NFL players over the past weekend, I am disappointed but not surprised. While I agree that these players have a right to stand up for what they believe in, I do not believe that politics belong in football.
If these players want to go on Twitter and speak up about injustice, that is perfectly acceptable. But I do not want to turn on my television on a Sunday afternoon and see professional football players disrespecting our national anthem.
Furthermore, I strongly disagree with a stance taken by Star writer Jeneé Osterheldt, in which she stated that those who do not support the protests do not believe in “the land of the free.” (Sept. 12, 2A, “Don’t believe in protests? You don’t believe in land of the free”) Actually, those who disagree with the stance taken by NFL players are exercising their freedom of speech to the same extent as those who protest.
This inflammatory headline only serves to draw readers in and provoke a reaction, allowing Osterheldt to write another piece about the hate she received after her first opinion piece. (Sept. 13, 2A, “‘Tar and feather them’: Marcus Peters’ anthem protests bring out the hate — and love”)
Football and politics do not mix well, and commentaries like this only fan the flames.
I’m so glad Jeneé Osterheldt is back. She knows how to speak truth to power. Let’s hope some of the powerful are listening.
By the way, I’m an 80-year-old white woman.
I am completely in favor of the Kansas City International Airport job going to Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate. It has a reputation for great designs, and Clarkson Construction is renowned for tackling complex projects on time and within budget. If you drive by the Burns & McDonnell headquarters on Wornall Road, which it designed and built, does the building say anything but boring?
However, if the city insists on putting this project to a vote without final designs, contractual details and a firm final price, we the voters will press the “no” lever. How can we vote for a project with 35 gates at a cost of $28 million a gate when we are currently using only some of the existing gates and idling a terminal with more?
Now there is a new wrinkle: Amazon is building a gigantic fulfillment center in Kansas City, Kan., and is looking for a place to build a second headquarters in the United States. Kansas City might be in the running for this project because of its location. One of the requirements is an international airport.
If we are interested, should we not wait to see what Amazon would require? I suggest patience.