Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology. Comment policy: say what you want, but back it up with an email address. I don't like anonymous trolls.
In the midst of all of the hoopla surrounding Republican VP nominee and full-blown bugshit insane lunatic, Sarah Palin, I think it's worth noting that Obama's candidacy is also historic for another reason:
He is the first recipient of food stamps to run for president:
McCain, who has portrayed Obama as an elitist, is the son and grandson of admirals. The Associated Press estimates his wife, a beer heiress, is worth $100 million. Obama was raised by a single mother who relied at times on food stamps, and went to top schools on scholarships and loans.
Quite conceivably, we could have a president who, as a child, received food assistance (but, somehow, he is still an 'elitist'). He seemed to have turned out alright (no father around either). Maybe some of the conservative claims about government assistance aren't quite what conservatives have made them out to be?
Politics
Comments
The conservative wing of the republican party has mastered the art of being the pot calling the kettle black and getting away with it. Fundamental to this tactic is accusing the conservative-leaning media of having a liberal bias. If the media tries to expose their hypocrisy, then it is just the "liberally biased media bashing us conservatives because they hate us."
Honestly, I don't care if someone is an "elitist" - it's something that can be good or bad, depending on the context. I also don't care if someone has a pregnant teenage daughter. All this stuff is a circus to detract from the real issues. The selection of Palin proves to me that McCain is bending over to the Republican party theological orthodoxy and has forfeited any claim of being a maverick. There is no way I'm going to vote for someone who is beholden to those who want to turn this country into a theocracy.
Posted by: Edward | September 3, 2008 11:56 AM
Food stamps are one government program that I am proud to pay taxes for. It seems like a simple, human thing to do; make sure vulnerable people don't go hungry in the midst of plenty. I don't care if a few people abuse the system, that's a cost of doing business.
I wouldn't mind paying taxes to support universal health care either, if it can be made a reality. There are plenty of things that cause me pain to know are supported by my taxes.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | September 3, 2008 12:27 PM
Edward,
"Pot calling the kettle black" is the wrong metaphor for what the Republican party does. It's more like the pot calling the toaster black. Occasionally they're right, but even when it's a shiny metal toaster, they still say the same thing.
Posted by: Roi des Foux | September 3, 2008 2:46 PM
leaving aside any humanitarian considerations, people are potentially productive assets that things like some sort of safety net, student loan programs etc can unlock or at least maintain the value. Amartya Sen famously said that poverty is not simply a lack of money, but a denial of capability. In countries without a safety net (like China) savings rates tend to be overly high and small scale entrepeneural risk taking suffers, as the consequences of failure can only be born by the already wealthy.
Posted by: bwv | September 3, 2008 3:47 PM
In this context, word "elitist" is meant to mean "uppity".
Posted by: Paul Murray | September 3, 2008 11:28 PM
Decrepitoldfool, I'm with you, man. Fear of rampant fraud is in itself a fraud. The hurdles to get any kind of assistance is too high to worry about the minuscule amount of "freeloaders".
If more formerly middle-class families have to rely on some sort of safety net, because of the tanking economy, they'll most likely be more open to why caring about others is so important.
Posted by: trog69 | September 5, 2008 4:11 PM