State's welfare clothing stipend dries up
MLive stalwart SageofthePage's other bete noire is Demon Weed. He speaks of it in florid terms straight out of Reefer Madness. I would prefer he stick to ranting about how marijuana causes spontaneous psychotic breaks, rather than attempting to muster truth-y sounding "facts" and "statistics."
First: semantically, it's not clear whether Sage is referring to pregnant black women or their presumed-but-not-necessarily-black female fetuses. His capitalization of the word "Abortion" makes me wonder if he isn't referring to a fearsome Abortion Monster that haunts predominantly black communities, looking for tasty victims. For actual abortion statistics that were not pulled out of someone's ass, try the Guttmacher Institute.
Second: since when is diabetes treatment a bad thing? Naturally it would be better to prevent the onset of Type 2 diabetes, or address it with lifestyle change instead of drugs or insulin, but Type 1 diabetes is not preventable. If liberals hate black people, why do liberal municipal governments fund life-saving medical care? And how can Sage be sure that every single diabetic in New York City who receives subsidized medical care is black?
Third: in the United States, the first minimum wage law was the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. I need not remind Sage that prior to the 1930s social conditions vis-a-vis the black community were rather different than they are today. It's as if he's pining for the early 20th-century heyday of sharecropping, which amounted to debt peonage enforced by occasional terrorist attacks.
This proves that...okay, I have no idea. You win, Sage. I can't tell who is supposed to be hating whom anymore. Also note the substance of the actual article, which describes how state welfare benefits will no longer include a clothing allowance of a princely $79 per child, per year. Ultimately Sage is ranting about the possibility of poor kids wearing new socks and sweaters, instead of other kids' castoffs or items from a clothing drive. How can you be against new socks?
No comments:
Post a Comment