Ah, Mondays...the perfect day for fisking

A while ago, I wrote a review of the book Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich, PhD, both here and on Goodreads.com. The premise is that Dr. Ehrenreich (an upper middle class academic) tries to see how "the other half" lives: she works in low-wage, low-skilled jobs in places around the country, then reports on her experiences. Wow - I've received so many wonderful comments on my Goodreads review. The most "inspiring" are the ones that excoriate me for being such an awful person (meaning: I have all the wrong views). You'll see what I mean below. Since this guy voiced his opinion of my "work," I feel very comfortable in quoting him verbatim on my blog.

Reader "David" quotes my words about the appropriate time to have kids: "[when folks have] attained sufficient financial stability." My statement doesn't sound out of the question. I mean come on.

He goes on to opine:

"Major assumption - that they ever will. When being poor is a temporary state, as with grad school, this might be a reasonable thing to say. However, the point is that for many people, being poor is a lifetime prospect. And you've just said they don't deserve to breed."

So...
1. I'm being unreasonable for stating that people who are considering having kids should have enough money to not only to sustain themselves, but also sustain the proposed kids.

2. Is David saying that people having little money now have no possibility of earning more, no matter what, and

3. Furthermore, that even if they barely have enough income or don't have enough income to support themselves, it's fine that they go ahead and reproduce anyway,

4. Because they're only dumb animals anyway, so just humor them?

5. Is he saying that people who currently earn under a certain amount are too stupid to improve their earning potential and/or use contraception to delay having kids they can't currently afford?

6. Isn't he being a little paternalistic by suggesting that the poor dumbasses are so stupid and hopeless that we (Government, taxpayers, the smart ones) must simply allow them to reproduce sans responsibility and subsidize their lives indefinitely? Noblesse oblige much?

"And Ehernreich clearly states why she avoids major cities - the populations filling the low-wage jobs are almost entirely racial minorities, where she would be conspicuous."

Right. Uh-huh.

1. When I first came to DC, I did temp jobs before I got a permanent job. Starting at the bottom - clerical work, answering phones, etc - I made maybe $14k a year. Even when I got a permanent job, it didn't really pay that much.

2. And come on, Dr. Ehrenreich would (and probably did) stick out anyway. It's very difficult to remove all the education, socialization, attitudes of your upbringing and yes, economic class to be thoroughly convincing anywhere as someone you're not.

3. The author really didn't try THAT hard to do a balanced study or she would have lived/worked in some big cities. Also, as I mentioned in my review that she put a lot of other caveats in her study: that she wouldn't share quarters and pool resources, that she would only rent crummy cars (yeh, because as you know, dear readers, "The Poor" are also too stupid to buy modestly priced, fuel efficient, used cars), etc., etc.

4. And just for fun, David, why not spell the author's name correctly [meow]?

"I would _love_ for the poor everywhere (and everyone else) to have good public transportation to use, but that requires public funds that conservatives never want to give. Many poor today need a car."

Bonehead, I'm a conservative and take public transportation (subway & buses) every single blessed day. Neither my husband nor I own a car. Some employers even subsidize public transportation - for all employees no matter what their salary level. And furthermore, it's not all us conservatives' fault about poor public transportation access - there's plenty of blame to go around (I may post more on this particular issue later).

Whew! I could go on, but you get the picture.

The problem with liberals

I'll confine myself to just five today, boys and girls.

1. Entitlement without responsibility. Defined in terms of "rights." Otherwise known as "freedom to do anything I want and never having to deal with the consequences." And someone else will pay (taxpayers). This can be seen by non-glue-sniffers as "reinforcing undesirable behavior."

2. Racism and other dialog stoppers. Accuse someone of being racist, anti-immigrant, guilty of human rights violations, etc., in order to thwart any conversation about the actual issues.

3. Open borders lobby and "world citizens." Support unfettered, unrestricted migration into and out of the U.S., especially for the little beaners who do low-level work, and then demand and defend the invaders' "right" to all sorts of benefits, public assistance. Then offer them citizenship. Because after all, U.S. citizenship doesn't mean that much anyway. These are the sophisticates who consider themselves "world citizens" and not-so-much American citizens, because patriotism and allegiance is so passé. Until they need their country to do something for them.

4. "Reproductive Rights." This is both the "right" to have your unborn child vacuumed and/or yanked out of you for any reason, at any time, and to have as many children as you want without the means to actually pay for them. This also means excoriating someone (in an outraged manner) of suggesting that "poor people shouldn't have children." These attitudes relate to #1 above.

5. America is always wrong. Whether it be war, foreign policy, border control, you name it. All that freedom, rights, upward mobility, education, relative safety...if you can find a better place, go there.

5 things to say

I had an interesting interpersonal encounter today while walking back from Corner Bakery (lunch). And by interesting, I mean “revolting.” A young black woman (I suspect teenage or early twenties) stopped me and after buttering me up (yes, I know this is a good outfit –I picked it out, didn’t I?), asked me for money for food, because: I’m homeless AND pregnant.

Ok, I’m irritated that anyone would come up to me, a stranger, and demand money. Like, don’t I pay enough taxes to take care of the problem and preclude such encounters? Aren’t I gouged in taxes because I DON’T have children? They have it backwards: I should be paid for NOT having children. But I digress.

I’m not quick in these situations; I never have a snappy come-back until later. Then it’s not so snappy. After all, I may have only 4 brain cells playing bumpercar upstairs, but this was obviously 3 more than the lonely one floating in the dark that this chick was entertaining. Very lonely and understimulated.

Rambling aside, I belatedly thought of a few things to say. Here goes:

1. So where’s the sperm-donor? Why not hit him up for cash? Oh, I know, because he’s out impregnating other stupid girls. So he can brag about all his progeny without actually supporting them.

2. Give me one good reason why I should care what happens to you or your bastard child? And don’t say, “because we need a larger underclass.”

3. What kind of moron throws contraceptive caution to the wind when already homeless? Oh, wait a minute, I’ve answered my own question.

4. Sorry, those funds are earmarked for my new Jimmy Choo’s.

5. Alternately: Sorry, those funds are earmarked for my new boobs.

Ok, I think that’s enough for now. My poor little neurons are tuckered out. If I come up with other zingers, I’ll let you know. And remember boys and girls, responsibility you have to work at, but stupidity is easy and free.

Ah, the poor

This post concerns two-no-three recent WaPo articles, the first about how "high housing costs & an unpredictable job market" sends many into homelessness; the second how a young boy died of an infected tooth and the final one (today anyway) concerns childcare subsidies for poor "families." Secondly, this post is also about how liberal publications like to throw sob stories around as proof that we need to do more for the poor and our social services need to be "reformed" (read: more bloated with my tax dollars with still no end in sight).

In the first article about a couple who lost their jobs and because of aforementioned economic woes, is now "poor" and "homeless." It also mentions that the female is pregnant and that prior to their joblessness, they had been supporting children from "other relationships."

The second article is about a kid who had an infected tooth and by the time his "mother" found a Medicaid dentist, the infection had spread to the boy's brain - and he died. First, let me say, I feel bad for the kid - I cannot imagine the suffering he went through and I cannot imagine having such an irresponsible parent.

The third article, in today's WaPo is about all these "poor families" who desperately need childcare subsidies so they can stay off welfare. And they spotlight this single mother (is there any other kind?) who is staying home from her job to take care of her child because she's on a waiting list for childcare subsidies (VA state & federal funds - that means tax dollars to you and me).

Here are a few of my observations:

1. Liberal publications like WaPo like to find these sob stories (it's all about the CHILLLLDDDDRRRENNN!) and basically try to guilt the rest of us into supporting more government programs to help the PPPPOOOOORRRR! Then they manage, ironically, to find the least sympathetic people to highlight.

2. Case in point, if the folks cannot even afford to support themselves or won't take the steps to do that, why are they having children?

3. What? Ever hear of condoms, people? If the females in question can't manage their own contraception and are too irresponsible and weak to demand condom use from the dogs who are screwing them, perhaps they should just keep their legs closed.

4. A glaring omission in the last two stories: where are the sperm-donors and why aren't they contributing to the children's upkeep? I know, out impregnating other females! In the first story, it's stated that the dog is happily depositing his sperm everywhere with no care about consequences until bills come due.

5. Another glaring omission in the second story: why do/did these kids (both of them) have such rotten teeth? Answer: because their "mother" doesn't ensure that they're actually brushing their teeth - or for that matter, around to monitor their eating habits. Come on people - both items are part of parenthood! And I don't have to be a parent to know that - I had two who actually attended to those responsibilities! Go figure!

6. In the first article, these two are so irresponsible and plain stupid, it's hard (actually impossible) to feel any sympathy for their "plight." They abdicate thought mostly and pop out kids they have no way to support. Yet look suitably sad, desperate and pathetic for the Post's cameras. Yeh, it's all about the economy!

And if all of us (I mean folks who work, and live within our means, paying gobs of taxes for all these programs) just stopped working and keeping this industry (yes, poverty and its attendant helpful programs is an industry - and a self-perpetuating one at that!) humming along, what then? No matter what cosmetic actions politicians may enact to mollify us (conservative, responsibility-oriented "us"), there will be yet another pop-up program (see "childcare subsidies") to soak up more cash and accomplish - well, more programs! Welfare by any other name is still welfare. I suppose these liberal publications seek to elicit a response - and they do - in me it's anger.

Technorati topic: welfare

Down the toilet...

...our country goes. I really hate to say it, but I TOLD YOU SO. Heather Mac Donald at City Journal has a very disturbing (albeit not surprising) piece on the little Hispanic breeders and what this means for us. Do check out the whole thing while I go cry.

Hat tip to, well, Heather Mac Donald at the Immigration Blog.

Oh, for your reading despair, here are a couple of choice quotes from the article:

Hispanics now dominate the federal Women, Infants, and Children free food program; Hispanic enrollment grew over 25 percent from 1996 to 2002, while black enrollment dropped 12 percent and white enrollment dropped 6.5 percent. Illegal immigrants can get WIC and other welfare programs for their American-born children. If Congress follows President Bush’s urging and grants amnesty to most of the 11 million illegal aliens in the country today, expect the welfare rolls to skyrocket as the parents themselves become eligible.

and:

But it’s the fertility surge among unwed Hispanics that should worry policymakers. Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country—over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one and a half times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for every 1,000 unmarried white women, 22 for every 1,000 unmarried Asian women, and 66 for every 1,000 unmarried black women. Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent of white births and 15 percent of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births—68 percent—exceeds the Hispanic rate. But the black population is not going to triple over the next few decades.

and:

A case manager at a program for pregnant homeless women in the city of Orange observes the same acculturation to the social-services sector, with its grievance mongering and sense of victimhood. “I’ll have women in my office on their fifth child, when the others have already been placed in foster care,” says Anita Berry of Casa Teresa. “There’s nothing shameful about having multiple children that you can’t care for, and to be pregnant again, because then you can blame the system.”

Technorati topics: immigration

Woman Dumps Baby to Keep Boyfriend

A few days ago the Post (or as Michelle Malkin refers to it, "WaPo") ran this story, about a woman who has a baby in the bathroom, puts the girl in a bag and throws her in the garbage. So that her boyfriend won't dump her. Because the baby is a result of someone else's sperm donation.

To get an idea of callousness of this female read this:

At the autopsy the next day, a gruesome discovery was made, another detective testified. A mass of tissue paper, two inches long and an inch in diameter, was found deep in the baby's throat. (Washington Post, 5/24/06)

The new boyfriend unwittingly cleaned up the afterbirth, having no clue what it was. He had to have an interpreter translate his testimony in court. Both of these winners are probably illegals. Do we really need more of the same in this country? Callous baby-killers? Ignorant, irresponsible peasants? Legalize them? Be legally responsible (in the welfare state sense) for a huge, burgeoning and uncontrollable underclass?

Welfare on Wilson - Redux

As I'm having a lame blogging week, I'd like to share a rant from my now defunct blog Big Stick Commentary (I like E.Z. better), which reflects my general outlook/mood at the time (last year).  Now, I'm never going to believe in welfare, but my rants thereof may take a somewhat softer tone.  Enjoy!

----------------
Welfare on Wilson
Let's just say I'm not a big fan of the current (or any) welfare system. I do believe that I, as a person who pays lots of taxes because I DON'T have dependents (among other things), have no particular moral or ethical compulsion to support those who breed - just because they breed - and their unfortunate offspring. Unfortunately, the Feds & VA state gov't disagree. I go to jail if I don't pay my taxes. That said, you can just imagine how I feel about a pair of lard-ass individuals with the stroller attachments canvassing our very own Wilson Blvd for handouts. Both lovely fiance Jeff & I have been accosted before and know them by sight. In fact, the other day, Jeff stopped dead in his tracks and said - "quick, we must cross the street." He had spied one such, and wished to avoid the whole scene...only to discover that her partner-in-panhandling was covering the other side! Now they have strategy! We passed by quickly, not allowing her to engage us. Let me just say that my loathing for welfare queens has found particular subjects. To wit, if I'm forced to shell out all this tax money for these morons, why the hell would I voluntarily give them MORE money?!!! What value are they providing us in return? Not raising the property values, let me tell you (not that that would help us anyway because we rent). Not making Arlington a more pleasant area through which to stroll. Not raising good self-reliant citizens - keep in mind that the kids in tow are observing all this - by which they'll grow to understand what is "normal and acceptable behavior." But, as usual, I'm accomplishing only one thing here - raising my own blood pressure. Females like them don't (refuse to) understand that having children is a choice, a personal responsibility and not a shared one at that. THEY made that choice (directly or by omission) and THEY are responsible for the wellbeing of their offspring. NOT ME, NOT JEFF. I feel sorry for the children, who don't have a choice in the matter, but giving their "mothers" money isn't going help the children in the long run - they're still in the same dysfunctional environment. Thus, we don't feel guilty about not enabling them to perpetuate their dependent behavior. And frankly, the thought of their demise really doesn't concern us - there will ALWAYS be more of their type, guaranteed.