Anger and compassion were very much in evidence these past two weeks, as responses to our seven-part series on hunger in Maine, "For I was hungry," flooded into the newspaper. Both online and via regular mail, we heard from hundreds of readers. We're still hearing from them.

A selection of those letters and online responses were published in our newspapers. Those responses largely fall into two camps: Those who feel this country and state have given far too much already through social programs and, conversely, those who feel that we must do more in the face of the growing hunger we documented in our series.

There was particularly pungent and strong reader response to two specific things. The first was the fact that two of the hungry elderly women we profiled in our series smoked. One of them, Sandy Kalloch, a double amputee in a wheelchair, also gets cable television in her Farmingdale home. Readers questioned why the government should be using our tax dollars to pay for food stamps for Kalloch, when she could have used her own money to pay for food -- but instead used her money for cigarettes and entertainment. Why on earth were we holding up these women as an example of those whom we should be helping?

"If they're so poor and cannot afford food why the heck are they buying cigarettes? If I were 'going hungry' I sure wouldn't be buying smokes, I think that I would use that money to buy that fresh asparagus that I had been craving for so long!" wrote one reader, in one of the milder versions of this response.

Our recommendation that the state should serve free and reduced-price breakfasts to all children who qualify for the meal was the second thing that provoked an outcry among some readers, who said we were advocating a ludicrous and unwarranted extension of the welfare state that would increase state spending and thus force a hike in taxes. "It is not the duty of taxpayers to take care of other peoples' children," wrote M. Smith of Richmond in an online comment. "I am sick and tired of paying for everyone else's bad decisions, poor work ethics, and irresponsibility."

Herewith, our responses to the questions raised by our readers.

n Smoking vs. Food: We called Kalloch, and this is the conversation we had with her. We believe it suffices as an answer to our readers' concerns:

KJ: "Sandy, we've had a lot of readers question why you spend your money on cigarettes and cable instead of on food. They want to know why they should be paying for food stamps for you when you could spend your money more wisely, as they put it. How would you answer them?"

Kalloch: "I sit in a wheelchair all day. I watch TV. What would they like me to do with my time? Join an exercise club?"

KJ: "When did you start smoking?"

Kalloch: "When I was 17."

KJ: "Have you ever tried to quit?"

Kalloch: "Oh, god ... I've tried to quit. I just can't."

KJ: "Why do you think people have gotten so angry over your smoking?"

Kalloch: "Everybody thinks they live in a perfect world. They haven't got a clue and they don't want to find out."

We would remind those readers who angrily pointed out that Kalloch was using their money to pay for her bad habits: This is a woman who worked all her adult life, until she could work no longer. She paid her fair share of taxes as well, straight into the system that is now paying back to help her.

n School breakfast and tax hikes: Will feeding more children a subsidized school breakfast mean higher Maine taxes? Those who read the full series would have learned that the subsidized school breakfast and lunch programs are fully reimbursed by the federal government. Furthermore, we documented that children who go to school hungry don't learn as well and ultimately cost the taxpayers of the state more money, because they're statistically more likely to have special educational and behavioral needs.

But just in case we need to make the point in a more direct way, we asked David Connerty-Marin, spokesman for the state Department of Education, whether feeding more children school breakfast would hurt Maine taxpayers' pocketbooks.

"For schools already offering a school lunch program, this should cost little to nothing extra," said Connerty-Marin. "And they're getting reimbursed fully."

Six out of seven of the state's schools already offer a free and reduced price breakfast, but only serve 42 percent of the children who are already getting school lunch at a discount or for nothing. Connerty-Marin echoes precisely what we said in our editorial: "Money is not the obstacle here, there are other issues that are obstacles." He says that breakfast preparation can be piggy-backed onto lunch preparation the day before and that if there is any cost to expanding the school breakfast operation, it will be minimal labor costs as the food itself is paid for by the federal government.

The obstacles aren't financial, they are logistical: How do you serve breakfast and get kids to class on time? Do bus schedules need to be changed? Who serves the meal? Those are not minor issues for school administrators and teachers who are working harder than ever before with limited resources and growing demands. But again, money is not the issue: Serving more Maine children a free and reduced breakfast will have little or no impact on Maine taxpayers.

n n n

Do we believe that the clarifications we've offered here today will mollify those critics who reacted so strongly to our series and its modest proposals to help the state's hungry?

Not likely.

We had both positive and negative response to this series. One of the things we learned from the angry feedback is how powerfully some Mainers feel that help for those at society's margins means taking something out of their own hide. And if they saw those less fortunate as cheats, as undeserving and irresponsible, then few facts (including that more and more of the state's hungry are the working poor) will sway them.

But those responses do not make hunger go away. That people who are hungry spend their money on cigarettes, that there are parents who aren't responsible enough to take care of their children and feed them breakfast are facts. Yet the exceptions do not define the majority; those facts do not diminish the fundamental truth that Maine has far too many people, including children, who do not know where their next meal is going to come from. It is far easier to dismiss the problem of hunger and those who suffer from it than it is to accept it and do something about it.

To see the entire hunger series, go to www.centralmaine.mainetoday.com/hunger. html