I must admit I did a double take when I read your comment, "Sesame Street can totally bite me." For a second I thought I had navigated to the wrong blog by mistake. However, after reading the linked story, I must say I share your sentiments. I, too, found the story offensive on several levels: (1) Sesame Street is pitched at little tots, who are much to young to be burdened with the ersatz guilt trip the new Lily character is laying on them. (2) The guilt trip would be inexcusable for this age group even if it were based on reality, but, as I stated in the previous sentence, it is ersatz. As I have told Conservative on numerous occasions before, I work as a physical therapist in a Northeast Florida public school system; many of my charges come from poor families, including multigenerational welfare cases; the main nutritional problem with most of these children is that too many of them are _obese_, as are their mothers, grandmothers, etc. (Dad is almost always absent.) Additionally, even in schools that serve affluent populations, the majority of the kids get breakfast and lunch for free; in the schools that serve the "disadvantaged," they all do. These are full, nutritious meals. (3) With the exception of the demented homeless, who should be institutionalized in the first place, Americans have access to a cornucopia of cheap food--even after the disastrous agricultural policies, most notoriously the ethanol subsidies, of the Obama Administration. The poorest Americans can get a nutritious, satisfying diet, even if they must rely on food "stamps" (now actually a debit card), assuming they don't blow their allotment on junky prepared foods. No child in the U. S. need go hungry unless the parent(s) is/are too callous or heedless to feed him! (In that case, the solution is for child protective services to intervene on his behalf.)
As to the USDA "statistic" that one in four American children may be going hungry, if you believe that, I want to show you my listing of prime properties for sale in the Okefenokee Swamp. This week only, a 25% price cut for Canadian buyers is in effect! The datum of an "estimated" 17 million hungry children is arrived at through surveys with such nebulous questions (e.g, "Do you sometimes go to bed at night feeling hungry?") that the children of the wealthiest families in the country might well fall into the category of the "hungry." Additionally, the surveying is often subcontracted to "activist" organizations--like the notorious Southern Poverty Law Center--that will find hungry children in a luxury retirement home for wealthy octogenarians.
The whole Lily thing smacks of indoctrination: get 'em early and teach them that they live in a heartless society that needs rafts more of federal government programs to attain "social justice."
Personal note: My parents and I arrived in this country from Cuba in 1962; we were penniless in the most literal sense of the term--not one penny among us, as being caught with any amount of money, even one cent, on your person as you were leaving Cuba could get you a very long prison sentence, never mind losing your opportunity to get out of the Communist hellhole. But my parents were willing to work hard at any jobs offered, no matter how menial, as they re-credentialed themselves and improved their English; additionally, they did not drink, gamble, whore, or waste money on unaffordable luxuries. I never went hungry, even if life was often Spartan, and by 1965 we had gotten a solid foothold in the middle class.
1 comment:
I must admit I did a double take when I read your comment, "Sesame Street can totally bite me." For a second I thought I had navigated to the wrong blog by mistake. However, after reading the linked story, I must say I share your sentiments. I, too, found the story offensive on several levels: (1) Sesame Street is pitched at little tots, who are much to young to be burdened with the ersatz guilt trip the new Lily character is laying on them. (2) The guilt trip would be inexcusable for this age group even if it were based on reality, but, as I stated in the previous sentence, it is ersatz. As I have told Conservative on numerous occasions before, I work as a physical therapist in a Northeast Florida public school system; many of my charges come from poor families, including multigenerational welfare cases; the main nutritional problem with most of these children is that too many of them are _obese_, as are their mothers, grandmothers, etc. (Dad is almost always absent.) Additionally, even in schools that serve affluent populations, the majority of the kids get breakfast and lunch for free; in the schools that serve the "disadvantaged," they all do. These are full, nutritious meals. (3) With the exception of the demented homeless, who should be institutionalized in the first place, Americans have access to a cornucopia of cheap food--even after the disastrous agricultural policies, most notoriously the ethanol subsidies, of the Obama Administration. The poorest Americans can get a nutritious, satisfying diet, even if they must rely on food "stamps" (now actually a debit card), assuming they don't blow their allotment on junky prepared foods. No child in the U. S. need go hungry unless the parent(s) is/are too callous or heedless to feed him! (In that case, the solution is for child protective services to intervene on his behalf.)
As to the USDA "statistic" that one in four American children may be going hungry, if you believe that, I want to show you my listing of prime properties for sale in the Okefenokee Swamp. This week only, a 25% price cut for Canadian buyers is in effect! The datum of an "estimated" 17 million hungry children is arrived at through surveys with such nebulous questions (e.g, "Do you sometimes go to bed at night feeling hungry?") that the children of the wealthiest families in the country might well fall into the category of the "hungry." Additionally, the surveying is often subcontracted to "activist" organizations--like the notorious Southern Poverty Law Center--that will find hungry children in a luxury retirement home for wealthy octogenarians.
The whole Lily thing smacks of indoctrination: get 'em early and teach them that they live in a heartless society that needs rafts more of federal government programs to attain "social justice."
Personal note: My parents and I arrived in this country from Cuba in 1962; we were penniless in the most literal sense of the term--not one penny among us, as being caught with any amount of money, even one cent, on your person as you were leaving Cuba could get you a very long prison sentence, never mind losing your opportunity to get out of the Communist hellhole. But my parents were willing to work hard at any jobs offered, no matter how menial, as they re-credentialed themselves and improved their English; additionally, they did not drink, gamble, whore, or waste money on unaffordable luxuries. I never went hungry, even if life was often Spartan, and by 1965 we had gotten a solid foothold in the middle class.
Lily , eh? . . . give me a break!
Post a Comment