(Also continued existence on earth of criminal drug addicts at non-addicts’ involuntary expense.)
One thing about the Left? Despite their rabid affection for Jon Stewart et al, they actually don’t “get” true irony when it appears suddenly, in the wild as it were, when they aren’t primed for it.
Take this paragraph, in which stereotypical people insist that all those stereotypes that other stereotypical people believe in are just… stupid stereotypes:
Oh, to be a wealthy politician in this day and age. Tanyaa Weathersbee of Black America Web is reporting that Florida Gov. Rick Scott wants poor people to pay $35 for a drug test before they can collect welfare.
Weatherbee highlights the fact that welfare recipients are not abusing drugs at a disproportionately higher rate than the general population.
In addition to rescinding a rule restoring voting rights of convicted felons who complete their sentences, the governor also wants state employees to submit to drug tests at least four times a year. Again, there is no evidence of rampant drug use among state employees.
Then you won’t mind us testing you for drugs, then, in exchange for getting your salaries in the form of our extorted tax dollars?
What about those who abuse prescription drugs, who are more likely to be white? Law-enforcement officials in Florida approved a database that would help stop doctors from overprescribing addictive drugs. Of course, Scott wants to get rid of that database because it is too much government intrusion into people’s lives.
I’d like to get rid of that database because it will probably cost 80 bajillion dollars and not save a single person’s life. If someone is overprescribed some drugs, and then dies, how does that impact me, exactly? If I O.D. on painkillers, so what? Is preventing that worth 80 bajillion dollars?
PS: is “overprescribing addictive drugs” quite the same thing as robbing old ladies at gunpoint, or spreading AIDS to stupid johns, to feed your crack habit?
Maybe Scott is on that stuff, because he is clearly biased about his definition of too much government. Should government be rescinding the right of convicted felons to vote after completing their sentences? That sounds like invasion of privacy and too much government to me. We won’t mention how the pharmaceutical companies will benefit from the removal of that database. What is the fee to test CEOs of corporations that collect corporate welfare?
We get it: Republicans and Tea Party members want less government when it comes to corporations, taxes and their ability to build and maintain wealth, but more government when it comes to controlling the lives of the poor and disenfranchised. Hypocrisy at its worst.
Er, no. “Hypocrisy” had to rear its head at some point in this “column,” because hypocrisy is the cardinal sin if you’re a leftist. That’s because it requires the person who commits it to ascribe to some kind of moral code in the first place, just like you can’t be a drunk driver unless you actually get in a car and start the engine. And leftists don’t believe in moral codes, so conveniently, they can never be “hypocrites”! It’s small time table magic.
Corporations actually contribute something to society. The so-called “poor and disenfranchised” don’t. That’s why the former deserve special treatment, not in the form of corporate welfare, which should be abolished, but in the form of government non-interference.
Liberals are all for interference in the lives of the poor as long as it means giving them enough free money to keep themselves in a fat lazy stupor, from which they will then rouse themselves to religiously vote Democrat.
PS: this piece was posted at The Root, which is the ghetto where Slate.com keeps its black folk. Ain’t that cute?