Tag Archives: poor

Mittens on the topic of money for nothing (he’s an expert)

Ann Romney, wife of U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, attends the equestrian dressage individual grand prix special at the London 2012 Olympic Games in Greenwich Park

Reuters photo

Corporate welfare queen Ann Romney enjoys watching her horse compete in the Olympics in London today (seriously), while in the United States today, her hubby Mittens extolled the value of “good, hard work” — for the rest of us.

Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabe Mittens Romney, whacking the perennial political piñata that is the “welfare queen” or “welfare cheat,” declared today that President Barack Obama has reversed the “great accomplishment” of former President Bill Clinton’s welfare “reform” and declared, “If I am president, I will put work back in welfare. We will end a culture of dependency and restore a culture of good, hard work.”


Let’s talk about “good, hard work” and a “culture of dependency” — a plutocratic elite who blatantly steal hundreds of billions of our tax dollars via such things as bogus warfare, which benefits the likes of Big Oil and the war profiteers, such as Dick Cheney’s Halliburton (which was granted no-bid federal contracts for the Vietraq War that Cheney pushed), and corporate welfare, such as the hundreds of billions of our tax dollars that were just handed over to the “too-big-to-fail” Wall Street weasels as their reward for having tanked our nation’s economy.

That kind of welfarecorporate welfare — is perfectly OK to the treasonous, pro-plutocratic, anti-working-class right wing.

We can give hundreds of billions of American taxpayers’ dollars to those who already are filthy rich (who, being the Benedict Arnolds that they are, pay as little in taxes themselves as they can get away with).

But we can’t give a fucking penny of our own tax dollars to those poor and working-class Americans who supposedly just don’t want to work.

Welfare can be for a person only if we define a person as a corporation.

Gee, just how hard, do you think, does the typical multi-millionaire like Mittens Romney actually work?

Do you think that Mittens ever scrubs a toilet or mops a floor? Or ever even makes his own meal? Does his own laundry? Does he even drive himself anywhere?

Yeah, Mittens has it hard. He’s a hard worker. He does good, hard work.

I tell you what: Mittens Romney has not done tens of millions of dollars’ worth of actual work.

No. He has been the beneficiary of a sick and fucking twisted socioeconomic system that allows a few — especially those who, like Mittens, were born into wealth and privilege — to steal the wealth of the many.

The only way to become a multi-millionaire is to fuck people over. You pay your employees much less than the value of their labor and you charge your customers much more than the actual value of your product or service. That’s how you get rich. Not through good, hard work.

It’s legalized thievery is what it is.

The last thing that our plutocratic overlords want is for us, the masses, to realize that it is they, the plutocrats, who are our real enemy, the real drain on our nation, so they tell us that it’s actually the weak and the powerless who are destroying this nation: immigrants who want a better life for themselves, same-sex couples who want the equality that is guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution, “welfare queens” or “welfare cheats,” Muslims or those who look like they might be Muslims (especially as evidenced by their use of a turban), et. al., et. al.

No, I tell you, it is the strong and the powerful who are destroying this nation. The weak and the powerless are just trying to survive. They are not the enemy.

However, in the supposedly bad-ass United States of America, it’s popular to pick on the powerless,* including and perhaps especially the poor, even though we supposedly are a “Christian” nation and Jesus Christ’s Number One teaching is to love one another as we love ourselves and to take care of the least among us, including, of course, the poor, and of the rich, Jesus remarked that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (Mark 10:25).

Multi-millionaire Mittens is a “Christian”?

Not if we define a “Christian” as someone who actually follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If Mittens were a Christian, someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, he would forego the houses and the cars and the car elevator and the thoroughbred horse in the Olympics, and he’d use his millions (well, our millions that he stole from us in the system that is rigged against us) to help out some people in need — instead of kicking the poor while they already are down for his own personal political gain.

That’s not Christian. That’s quite anti-Christian.

Not that Barack Obama is any fucking angel.

Team Obama will not be accused of going easy on the “welfare queens/cheats,” you see, and so also today, Obama’s mouthpiece Jay Carney declared that Team Mittens’ claim that Obama is trying to roll back Bill Clinton’s cold-blooded, right-wing welfare “reform” is “categorically false” and “blatantly dishonest.”

With “friends” like these so-called “Democrats” in our corner, who needs the fucking Repugnican Tea Party?

Seriously — the economy is our nation’s Number One problem (outside of global warming, of course, which makes pretty much every other problem that we might have pale by comparison), and we have both the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate and the Democratic Party presidential candidate fighting over which party will stick it to the poor the most, which party will kick those Americans who already are down and out the hardest.

We’re fucked.

Unless we revolt.

And soon.

When the system fails you this fucking miserably — when both parties of the partisan duopoly are against you and for the rich — it’s time to replace the system.

Not to “reform” the system — but to scrap it and start over.

This system is irfuckingredeemable.

*We never launch one of our imperialistic military invasions on a nation that actually can defend itself, do we?

No, we bomb a comparatively defenseless nation like Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan and then applaud ourselves, even though our “victory” is like that of an NFL team over a junior-high-school flag-football team.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I see homeless people

I just read about an apparent new trend — how widespread it is, I’m not sure — in which individuals are creating Facebook pages for their local homeless people. No, not charitably or humanitarianly (is that a word?), but as in turning the homeless into online local “celebrities,” as objects of satire and ridicule, without their knowledge, apparently.

Rude. And wrong.

However, I am guilty of having nicknamed most of my neighborhood homeless people, whom I affectionately think of “homies.” However, I’ve never shared my nicknames for them (or my term “homies”) with them, and I never would. And I certainly never would take their photos and post them to the Internet, and I most certainly wouldn’t start a Facebook page for any of them, because that shit is mean and isn’t funny. (It’s not as bad as “bum fights,” true, but it’s still bad.)

Over the years — I’ve lived in the same Sacramento apartment for nine years now, because I really, really hate to move — in my neighborhood there have been:

  • “Chimney,” the old guy who smoked like one. He was an old, tall, very thin white guy with a long white beard who used to hang out within a radius of only a few blocks of my apartment. He’d listen to the radio, mostly talk radio (not right-wing talk radio, that I could discern), and sometimes I’d see him reading, usually a newspaper, which he probably got from a trash can or a dumpster, I always surmised. If he drank, I never detected it. However, because of his lack of hygiene he smelled to high heaven, so much so that when passing him on the sidewalk I would hold my breath for several seconds, but for me it was a live-and-let-live situation. He never seriously bothered me, except sometimes to ask me questions about my comings and goings that made me at least mildly uncomfortable, but, except for how he smelled, especially on a hot day, he was rather harmless. He never asked me for anything at all, that I can recall, not a penny, not a bite of food. I think that he utilized at least some of the local services for the homeless at least sometimes, but I’m not sure. Unfortunately, after I had become used to having him around for years — he was a fixture of my immediate neighborhood — some months ago, Chimney simply disappeared. A neighbor of mine whom I don’t know used to let Chimney hang out in front of his apartment, sitting on a chair, where he had the shade of a small tree. (Where Chimney slept at night, I don’t know to this day.) I would ask my neighbor what happened to Chimney, whose real name, I believe, was John, but I’m afraid of what the answer probably would be. Chimney/John was around for so many years that his sudden disappearance seems like it could indicate only one thing.
  • “Frankenhobo,” who walks like Frankenstein’s monster, with his arms outstretched and his legs far apart. He is an old man who is so perpetually dirty that I think he’s white, but he actually could be of another race (that is, he might not be Anglo). He walks slooooowly and often stops dead in his tracks, for no apparent reason, sometimes for a long time, before ambling on slowly again. His arms he often waves about jerkingly and apparently uncontrollably. My best guess is that he fried his brain on drugs years ago. He’s harmless, but you don’t want to get within noseshot of him. He never speaks, but he once, recently, made a very strange, very loud noise outside of my apartment as I was leaving for work, if memory serves. At first I thought maybe he’d had a major medical episode, and right in front of my apartment, since he had sounded like a large, cud-chewing animal bellowing in distress, but I saw him then continue to amble on. Frankenhobo’s range is much larger than was Chimney’s; I see Frankenhobo all over the place, even outside of my neighborhood (and I’ve seen him within the past week), and he seems to walk all day long. Where he goes at night I have no idea.
  • “Crazy Hide-Her-Face Lady” was a white woman probably in her 40s. She would wear all black, including a black trenchcoat, I believe it was, and black gloves, too, if memory serves, no matter how warm the weather (Sacramento hits the 100s in the summertime). When you came anywhere near her she immediately would hide her face with her hand. I know that “Crazy Hide-Her-Face Lady” isn’t a very nice nickname for someone, but as she never spoke and as I never spoke to her — she would run away, actually, when you would approach her direction on the sidewalk, even if you were on the other side of the street — I never shared it with her. Like Quasimodo used to hang out at at Catholic church, Crazy Hide-Her-Face Lady used to hang out primarily in the vicinity of the large Catholic church in my neighborhood. Like Chimney, she disappeared, too, but that was a long time ago. Given her youthfulness compared to Chimney’s, I’d like to think that she disappeared for a better reason than Chimney apparently did. I always wondered why she felt the need to always hide her face from view. I never noticed any facial disfigurement or the like, so I always wondered if some severe childhood trauma was responsible for it.
  • “Crazy Bark-at-My-Dog Lady” is a white woman in her late 50s to 60s, I’m guessing, who seems to dress too well to be homeless, but she’s mentally ill, it’s pretty clear. I see her at neighborhood coffeehouses, wearing full-length dresses, usually, no matter what the weather, and too much makeup. She seems quite in her own little world, chatters to herself, and rarely, if ever, to anyone else, that I ever have observed. Whenever I walked my now-deceased long-haired Chihuahua past Crazy Bark-at-My-Dog Lady, she inevitably would make an “Arf! Arf!” sound at my dog. This annoyed me greatly, but as my dog completely ignored her and was not spooked by her whatsoever, I let it go. (I could not have a Dorothy-is-indignant-because-Toto-is-being-terrorized moment, very unfortunately…) I saw Crazy Bark-at-My-Dog Lady just a day or two ago. As I no longer have my dog (her name was Kit, by the way; I named her after the kit fox and she lived for a good 15 years or more), I might have to rename Crazy Bark-at-My-Dog Lady someday, except that as I no longer have my dog, these days she ignores me altogether, so a new nickname for her probably is not forthcoming.
  • “Cardboard” is a woman who, I am guessing, is at least in her 50s. Her ethnicity is difficult to discern, as she sits in a plastic chair and surrounds herself almost entirely with pieces of cardboard, and I believe that she keeps her head and face concealed with a scarf or scarves or some other material. She seems humped over and I’m not sure if that’s her spine or if she intentionally keeps herself hunched over, cowering from her environment. As she employs the pieces of cardboard regardless of the weather, I’m not sure how much of it is for protection against the elements and how much of it is from her belief that the cardboard protects her from the world. This woman usually sets up her cardboard camp right in the middle of the sidewalk and people just pretend that she isn’t there. “Cardboard,” I know, is not a very clever nickname. “Fort Lady” doesn’t really seem to fit, since she doesn’t build an actual fort like my brothers and I used to build out of cardboard boxes when we were kids. I’ll work on it…
  • Finally, there is this little white-bearded troll of a man whose name is John. I’ve yet to nickname him, but “Troll” seems appropriate. Like my boyfriend is, this man is one of those people I call “vaguely ethnic-looking”: you know that he isn’t Anglo, but you’re not sure exactly what he is: Italian? Jewish? Arab? Some mixture? What? He’s at least in his 50s and he’s the only one of these people I’ve described who I know is an alcoholic, and it’s OK with me if he wants to drink and pickle his liver — it’s his liver — but it wasn’t OK with me when he was sleeping on my front porch. Well, I would have been OK with him sleeping on my front porch, actually, except that he’d leave cigarette butts and other trash on it, and he wouldn’t leave at sunrise, but he would sleep inon my fucking front porch. Once I took Kit outside for her morning walk around 9 a.m. or 10 a.m. on a Saturday or Sunday. He was still on my porch. I gave him a dirty look, which I thought was a clear communication of, “Your ass had better not still be here when I return from this walk.” But when I returned with Kit, he still was there. Unfuckingacceptable. It was that time or shortly thereafter that I blew up at him. I normally don’t scream at people, but I yelled at him at the top of my lungs, and every other word was “fuck” or one of its derivatives. It was the only thing I knew to do after I’d already instructed him at least three or four times previously to stop sleeping on my porch, since he’d thought that he could stay there all day and litter liberally. My having gone ballistic on him worked. He no longer sleeps on my porch. I still see him lurking around my apartment sometimes, usually with a bicycle. When I see him from my porch I usually shoot him a stone-cold look. So that he remembers. So far, it has worked.

I probably sound callous, but the fact is that after at least nine years of living in my neighborhood, I’m quite used to seeing homeless people. I don’t like being a member of a society that doesn’t take care of its most needy, especially with all of these self-proclaimed “Christians” running around amongst us, but at the same time, I’m quite middle class and there isn’t much, if anything, that I can do for these people in terms of any long-term solution, and further, I am of the full belief that I play plenty in taxes already and that my tax dollars should go to things like helping the homeless — and preventing homelessness in the first fucking place — instead of to things like bogus wars for the oil-military-industrial complex and to corporate welfare.

As a member of the middle class, which is disappearing with the polar ice caps, I feel thoroughly fucked up the ass (in a bad way) as it is; using what money I have left over after taxes and other paycheck deductions, and after my monthly rent check to my slumlord, to help the homeless people in my neighborhood would make me feel like a colossal fucking chump.

If we of the middle class pay out of our own pockets for what our tax dollars already should be covering, when will the abuse of our tax dollars ever end?

I do care, but I don’t have any solutions, especially when it strikes me that I’d be the only one trying to solve the problem.

I like to think that I’m at least one notch above the vast majority of my cohorts who see the homeless people who populate my neighborhood and yet don’t see them, my cohorts who probably don’t even bother to take a moment to give the homies nicknames.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Social Darwinism does NOT apply to the poor CHILDREN among us

FILE - In a Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 file photo, S.C. Lt. Gov.Andre ...

Associated Press photo

Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer apparently is a believer in eugenics for the poor among us. You know, just like Jesus was. Jesus always said about the poor: “You gotta nip ’em in the bud!” (Look it up. I’m sure it’s in there somewhere...)

Memo to Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: Zac Efron wants his face back.

Second memo to Repugnican South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer: WTF?

No, really. Everyone is focusing on your recently having compared the poor to “stray animals” that, if we feed them, only “breed.” That kind of talk from a Repugnican doesn’t shock me. It’s from the Nazi playbook: First relegate a group of human beings to subhuman status, and then you can justify oppressing them.

And I myself believe that we have an overpopulation problem. However, I don’t single out any certain class of human beings for extinction by starvation, like you do. Not even the Repugnicans do I single out for such treatment, although I’m confident that the species and the planet — and hell, the universe — would be much better off without them.

What really gets me, Loooootenant, is your apparent “logic” that poor children have lower academic performance because they get free or reduced-cost meals at school.

You said this:

“I can show you a bar graph where the free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina. You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I’ll show you the worst test scores, folks. It’s there, period.”

Unless I cannot understand simple English, Zac, your “argument” seems to be that if we give schoolkids free or reduced lunches, their test scores will go down. Don’t feed ’em, and their test scores will go up! Duh! It’s a no-brainer! Gotta make those lazy kids work for it! Kids these days! They have no work ethic! They think there’s such a thing as a free lunch!

This is the comment of yours, Zac, that is getting people riled up:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem. If you give an animal or a person ample food supply, they will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that….”

But I find your comment apparently correlating the availability of free or reduced-cost school lunches to low school test scores to be even more ludicrous.

To be fair, and not to be a hypocrite, I don’t give the homeless adults in my neighborhood any money because I know — I know — that they’ll only use it for alcohol or cigarettes or drugs. I even have instructed people visiting me in my ’hood not to “feed the bears.”

Truth be told, I don’t want alcoholic or junkie homeless people in my ’hood. And by giving them even pocket change I don’t want to give them incentive to stay in my ’hood and continue to panhandle.

I do blame their lot largely for the fact that our tax dollars go to human greed — to such traitors as the war profiteers like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton — instead of to human needs. I’ve lived where I live since 2001, and every year that the unelected BushCheneyCorp was in office, the numbers of homeless people I’ve seen in my neighborhood climbed annually.

Still, these homeless people — like the one alcoholic guy who kept sleeping on my porch (thanks, BushCheneyCorp!) — can be problematic, and no, truthfully, I don’t want them in my neighborhood; what I want is for my tax dollars to go toward helping them instead of to bogus wars for the military-industrial complex. 

But these homeless people are adults.

You, Lt. Gov. Efron, are against aiding poor children. Children.

No matter how good a child’s parent or parents may or may not be, you don’t punish the child for the child’s parent(s).

Zac, I understand your Repugnicans’ love of social Darwinism. You don’t want the masses to correctly conclude that it is because of the greed of the rich and the super-rich and the exploitation of the working class and the poor by the rich and the super-rich that we have so many poor people in the United States of America.

The rich and the super-rich fear an uprising of the have-nots. (They look at places like Venezuela, which has had a real revolution, with sheer terror.) Therefore, the rich and the super-rich blame the poor for being poor.

And they pay their spokesnakes, such as Glenn Asscrack and Rush Blowhard and Sarah Palin-Quayle, to put the message out there that it’s the poor people’s own damned fault that they’re poor. Even the poor children, too, according to you, Zac.

Lt. Gov. Efron, to clarify: Children don’t do poorly in school because they get free or reduced-cost lunches, if that is the point that you were trying to make. They tend to do poorly in school if they come from poverty-striken households, however. Their parents may not have had the education to be able to help their children very much, and their parents may not be able to afford things like books or other educational materials for the home. Working single parents may have little time and energy with which to help their children with school. 

Our mission — as Americans and as Christians, if we call ourselves Christians — is to help poor children, not to deny them free or reduced-cost school lunches, a la Ebenezer Scrooge.  

To suggest otherwise is unAmerican and unChristian.

I wholeheartedly support birth control. Abstinence clearly isn’t doing the trick. We get all of these immaculate conceptions even with abstinence. As I said, we need to reduce our population (by attrition; down, boy!). I’ve even used the term “breeder” myself to describe someone who irresponsibly brings a child into this already-overpopulated world.

But I don’t discriminate based upon socioeconomic class. Everyone needs to think twice about reproducing these days. Everyone.

But those children who already are here: We need to take care of them. Regardless of how we might judge their parents.

Only a Repugnican would assert otherwise.

I hope that your political career is over, Zac. Really, you deserve it.

P.S. The Associated Press notes that Bauer, age 40, was “a child of divorce who benefited from free [school] lunches himself.” That’s precious.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized