Wingnut longs for streets clogged with child beggars
Via Roy, I see the folks at National Review are openly longing to live in a society where the streets are clogged with beggars and families are forced to sell their children to traffickers to get enough money to eat. Julie Gunlock, writing for NRO, is ready to give hungry children something to cry about:
Sesame Street would be wiser to educate America’s children about the real poor and hungry — the 98 percent of the world population who live outside the United States.
I want to see that Sesame Street! "Hey kids, I know you mom put you to bed without dinner because she couldn't afford any food, but at least you aren't like this beggar, whose nose fell off from leprosy! Now pray to Ronald Reagan for forgiveness for thinking that you, a 4-year-old child, deserves to eat food. Get a job, you lazy welfare suck."
The truth is, 94.3 percent of American households are able to put enough food on the table every day to feed their families.
Meaning that one in 20 Americans goes entire days without eating. Julie is unsatisfied with this number! If you took a random sampling of kindergarteners and put them in an average sized classroom, only 1 would be too hungry to behave or learn, and that number should be much higher. At least 5-6 children should be crying with hunger. Maybe they can grow up to be fashion models, so they shouldn't be so whiny.
As I wrote on NRO back in January, the idiom “food insecure” — a term created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture — means one has either “reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet” or “disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.”
So, far from hungry or starving, Lily suffers from a much less dramatic condition — unpleasant to be sure, but at its core, just a somewhat boring, irregular, and occasionally reduced diet.
I mean, she's not saying that they should go weeks without eating! Just days. Toughens them up, I'm sure. I mean, sure, living on a diet of irregularly accessed Ramen noodles sounds unpleasant for Julie, but we're talking about poor people here. They're not real people in Julie's eyes, and so needs like "nutrition" just don't register. We just need to get enough calories in 'em so they can clean Julie's house and office and harvest and prepare her food. Those things a diverse diet provides—such as vitamins or minerals—who gives a shit? Small children of poor people don't need the brain development of a properly fed child. What are they going to do with all that literacy? Probably vote or something, and we can't have that. And sure, not being fed a decent diet can cause major damage to your bones and internal organs, but how strong do you really need to be to push a mop to clean up after Julie? Strawberries aren't that heavy; you don't need a well-formed body to pick them.
God, I can't even continue. What a monster. The lack of empathy on display is so outrageous that I have to wonder if Julie had a nutritional deficiency as a child that kept the empathy centers in her brain from forming. Of course, the fact that conservatives think this is acceptable and invigorating discourse tells me that this is more a cultural issue—they were born with empathy centers and fed properly, but they lost their sense of empathy from underuse.
I'm just surprised she didn't suggest that if women don't want to see their children suffering from malnutrition, they should have kept their legs shut. But hey, there's still time and apparently, she writes about this topic a lot.