We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
None of that surprises me. Beyond the axiom that the more you do for somebody, the less they do for themselves, I've seen a little of what the author describes. My wife and I regularly donate our time to a ministry at our church that helps homeless families get back on their feet. They are usually nice, well-meaning folks who are trying to claw their way out of their plight but I am aghast at the number of them who have smart phones that I consider beyond my budget. I have talked with an ER nurse and it was appalling that many people bring the most simple and trivial ailments with no thought of treating it at home and seemingly no common sense with regards to their or their family's health.
I nodded at a lot of the points, but the dig at the end seemed a bit off to me. ("But it is clean-shaven.") Maybe I was reading it wrong?
I personally may not be a very good example of unshavenness engaging reality, though even I have done some reasonably demanding software development and there are also a few clever things in my Ph. D. thesis if I may say so myself. But my bearded father is currently finishing a long successful career having returned to his old workplace as a consultant after his retirement, and he knows a thing or two about the tricky reality of how finite element methods are used to analyze fuel elements corroding and otherwise transforming inside naval nuclear reactors, and knows a thing or two about adhering to fiercely high standards in life in general as well. And as an enthusiastic Go player I have naturally met a sampling of very sharp bearded specialists scattered through various demanding fields who whiled away some of their free time playing Go. It is not clear to me why non-clean-shaven belongs in the same collection of revealingly misplaced priorities as fixating oneself on an inappropriately expensive ipad or fixating an inappropriately expensive tattoo on oneself.
I think the clean-shaven reference was related to this portion: But, on the southern end of things, carefully groomed pubic hair is not at all out of the question. The teeth may fall out; the nether regions will be carefully tended.
In the U.S. poverty is a profession. Children and young adults aspire to a life of leisure/welfare/poverty as practiced in this country. The pay is good, the hours are short and the entire Democrat party functions as your union always improving your pay and benefits. The only requirement is that when the activists want you to vote or show up for a mob/riot that you do so. Is this a great country or what?
While I agree that welfare (corporate or otherwise) is just the buying and selling of votes, I think it's important to take a step back with the rhetoric.
I didn't post this as a "Poverty Sucks" kind of thing. It's important to realize the poor will always be with us (Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, Deuteronomy 15:11). Regardless of the system we put in place, poverty is the result of some combination of bad luck and bad decisions. I'm a believer that bad decisions lead to bad luck - but there is such a thing as 'blind luck', which is just the pure luck of the draw. I happened to be born healthy and into a middle-class Northeast US family, while someone else was born poor and ill in rural Mississippi at the same time.
It's hard to blame some people for their poor decisions, if that's all they've ever grown up with, or only have the capacity for due to some mental deficiency.
However, what is problematic, as this author points out, is the misplaced priorities. I need a tattoo before I buy medicine for my child. I need piercings in highly visible body parts, but can't find a decent job. That Brazilian wax job and my cigarettes are absolutely needed each month, but I can't afford health care.
You can't legislate priorities. Redistribution of income doesn't help these people, it enables them. While the concept of redistribution is well-meaning (in a rudimentary sense), it's poorly designed. A sledgehammer being used instead of small rock hammer. Redistribution of income through welfare or health care benefits everyone who takes it, even those who we might subjectively decide don't deserve it, but costs only those who work to produce goods and services - meaning they have to work harder.
Charity is meaningful because it's a better way to give back. Some who shouldn't will still benefit, but by and large it's more of a surgical approach to the issue. Yet with government intervention, many (usually the most Progressive among us) stop giving as much as they used to, or (as I'd say in my subjective view) should. The assumption being the government will take on the role of the charitable institution.
But the government does nothing well, except for the possible (and very occasional) exception of waging wars. Therefore it's no surprise that every government initiative is a "war on" something. The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, etc. It's designed to make people think the government can actually do something well.
As our politicians continue to muck up real wars, maybe this kind of thing will end. But I doubt it.