People keep saying the dead-tree format is over and done with but you can still learn so much from reading the newspaper. Take for example this (for once) sensible editorial I chanced upon yesterday in the radical left-leaning Philadelphia Inquirer. If you are "poor", ask yourself: WWJD? Be prepared to shape up in a hurry because He'd tell you something like this:Our Lord Jesus: Are you a tween working 60 hours a week sticking things on pots while rats gnaw at you, just so you can get your dad out of debtor's prison? No? What you are is lounging about in your air-conditioned paradise with your cable tv, maybe even going to the public library and using the computer to get on the Internet there, and you're whinging away because you're "hungry". If you're so hungry, why are you so fat? Riddle me that one, Batman! Your school (though I wouldn't let my kids go there) is free (for now, till we institute the voucher system) and your government pays for "much" of the tab of state and community colleges (if by "much" we include "ever decreasing amounts"). Why are you so dumb? You can be as "poor" as you want and we won't even put you in debtor's prison!
You see, being poor used to be about really suffering in a hideous manner unto death. If the impoverished people are fat, have cars, and aren't in jail, the system is working pretty good for them. But give the "poor" a little and they still aren't satisfied. It's not enough to be a wage slave in a rat-free environment.** They want equal opportunities, too! But the whole point of success is to give your children unusually good opportunities. But no, the "poor" want to make it about the size of the gap, claiming that if the rich get richer, the poor should too. That's just crazy talk!
Myself, I say it's time we solved this "poverty" problem, such as it is, once and for all. Modesty will not serve; let us be bold in our proposals. What few poor we do have should be fed an all organic, no hormones or antibiotics diet for three months to cleanse their systems, then humanely slaughtered on-site in old style, non-industrial abattoirs. We should not limit ourselves to just the more obvious, meatier cuts but strive for a whole human, nose to foot approach. Many parts of the poor will pair well with a good pinot noir, and there is nothing like poor heart - tender, amazing, not funky like liver, and poor trotters make great tacos. Even if it weren't respectful to the poor to practice nose-to-foot eating, the ecological benefits alone make it a wise choice for the environmentally conscious eater -- feeding multiple mouths with one whole animal and all its edible parts is much more efficient and less tolling on our environment than processing multiple animals to feed only a few mouths, which is what we do when limiting ourselves to eating only a single part. You know, like chicken nuggets. Which I hear, make the "poor" so fat, but also our wallets, so what are you going to do.
**Well, I did hear today about a transport authority worker stuck in a booth all day who has to dodge rats running around his feet so, technically, I guess we haven't quite achieved "wage slave in a rat-free environment" yet. So close!