The Gaytheist Agenda

I’ve long believed that most “pro-life” people care only about the fetus. They’re passionate about “life” so long as that life is, or is potentially, in a woman’s uterus. But actual born life is nothing but a burden to them, and they’ll be darned if a single dollar of their tax money is going to one of those (enter disparaging term here). A stunning example of this is Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis. Davis’s June Newsletter essentially blames poor people for being poor, spews the standard RW line that the government (taxpayers) shouldn’t have to support them, and claims that going hungry is a good thing (it’s motivating!) and that children should get jobs if they want food.

…..
Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals?

Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break.

Never mind about the fact that it’s utterly impossible for every 16-17 year old to get a job. What does Davis suggest for the children who are under 16? Should they panhandle on the streets so she doesn’t have to give up a few pennies more in taxes? Or should they just go hungry all summer so they’ll be really, really motivated when school re-opens in September?

While nobody is disputing the benefits of nutritious food, why the presumption that parents are not providing nutritious food for their children? Even if they are not, who created a new rule that says government must make up for any lack at home? The problem of childhood obesity has been cited as one of the most rapidly growing health problems in America. People who are struggling with lack of food usually do not have an obesity problem.

Why is Davis linking hungry children and obese children? Oh, that’s right. She’s one of those RWers who assume if you’re poor it’s because you’re lazy, and you sit around the house stuffing your face with bon-bons all day.

They are using a “crisis” to create an expansion of a government program. Parents naturally love their children and enjoy caring for their children just as much as ever during an economic downturn. Most parents put their children first, even ahead of themselves no matter what. If parents are laid off, that doesn’t mean they stop feeding their children, at least not any of the parents I know. Laid off parents could adapt by preparing more home cooked meals rather than going out to eat.

Again Davis is blaming the victims and making baseless presumptions. Why does she assume parents of hungry children are eating out rather than preparing meals at home? And where does she think these laid off parents are going to get the money to prepare these meals at home? There’s a reason people are relying on food kitchens, government food programs and the like. Many laid off people are struggling to pay their rent/mortgage, utilities and other critical bills. Afterward they have little or nothing left over for food. They’re not eating at soup kitchens because they think it’s haute cuisine. They’re doing it because they’re desperate.

Who’s buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is warranted. That is what they did when Louisiana had a hurricane.

Under the “Faith Based Initiative” churches and other religious organizations get government funding (taxpayer money) for their programs. So there is a cost to the taxpayer for what they do.

When churches offer a meal, they can serve the individual with a sense of love and caring for those less fortunate. Government cannot match that. Bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another.

There are human beings working in the secular and government-run charities just like there are in the religious charities. They’re often as loving and caring for the people they provide services to. Sometimes they’re more caring and loving because they don’t provide proselytizing and moralizing the way some religious charities do–often as a condition for receiving services.

And who is Davis to speak of loving and caring for “the less fortunate” when she’s spent her entire newsletter tearing them down? Typical RRRW hypocrisy. I really have to ask….does the RRRW attract people who have congenital flaws in their hearts and minds, or does being a RRRWer cause the damage to hearts and minds?

 
That’s the end of my rant on Cynthia Davis, who has a heart-shaped hole in her heart. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t direct you to this one at Zaius Nation.

 

Yes, they stink for endless reasons, such as the way they’re anti-union, pay their employees sub-par wages , peddle cheesy Chinese goods,put whole towns out of business through sleazy business practices, etc. But that’s not the topic of this post; Debbie Shank is.

Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she’s told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son’s funeral, but she continues to ask how he’s doing. When her family reminds her that he’s dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles — both personal and legal — that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart’s health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart’s health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank’s long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank’s medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family’s trust.

The Shanks didn’t notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart’s health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family’s attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

“We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to,” Graham said.

…..

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

…..

The family’s situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He’s afraid he won’t be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie’s care.

“Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?” he asked.

…..

Of course after all of the negative media publicity Wal-Mart changed its mind and decided it wouldn’t be such a good idea to exploit Deborah Shank to recoup their health insurance payout. The power of the press was on the victim’s side this time and Deborah Shank will be able to keep her small settlement (which is, from what I’ve read, barely over $400,000 after legal expenses and other fees).