A newspaper
in New Orleans recently published a story about a public housing project where the residents
had to be moved due to a possible looming health threat.
The comment section of the newspaper became full of outrage, not because
the state allowed some people to be in physical danger to save a few bucks...but
because the accompanying photograph with the story had a young boy playing with
an iPad while sitting out in front of the housing project.
Many of the commentators strenuously objected
to the idea that this young boy should have had such a piece of equipment, most
stating that they felt it was too expensive for him to have while living in a
housing project. Some such sample
quotes:
Say what you want, but i and many
other taxpayers drive our clunkers from our overpriced apartments past the
projects every day and see big fine automobiles parked all over the place and
we think "wtf?". If you think it is fair that our Robin Hood
government is paying broke people to have more kids, you are lost. That is the
entire reason that this and every other city is plagued with crime. I resent
that I bust my butt running my own business and see people who work at Burger
King living better than me.
I don't have an I Pad because I
can't afford it, because I'm too busy working to pay for my own house, my own
food, my own cell phone, and my own healthcare. Other tax payers give me
NOTHING and if they did I would say THANK YOU.
You're missing the point, as usual.
The controversy wasn't over what poor people should have, but over whether
people who can afford to buy an i-pad (which I cannot) need to have the rest of
us subsidizing their housing.
Should poor people have nice things? There is widespread condemnation about the
idea of poor people having a few “nice” things.
Since the Reagan era, Republicans have railed against the “welfare queen”,
the stereotypical (usually black) single mother who has a large number of
children, yet drives a Cadillac to the welfare office to pick up her welfare
check. Needless to say, this isn’t really the case. We feel an urge to police poor people, and infringe on their behavior in a way
that could never be tolerated for supposed “freedom-loving” Americans. We seem to want our poor to be live lives as
unjoyously as possible, and begrudge them even the least bit of happiness (check
out the story of the councilwoman berating a poor person for buying Rice Crispy
Treats.) The thought of even a child on welfare having something considered a
luxury item drives people wild, even if that item has educational
potential. As the author of the story
puts it “The sight of a kid in public housing with an iPad doesn't offend me.
Actually it gives me hope. So many poor people have no access to the digital
world. They fall behind in school because of it. They miss the opportunity to apply
for certain jobs. Yes an iPad is an expensive gadget, but we can't deny its
usefulness. As computers go, an iPad comes cheaper than most laptops and
desktops.”
And I have a posit here: many private schools now have requirements that their students have laptops or iPads. Suppose this poor child has an enterprising family, who has managed to get him/her a spot in a private school (school choice, right, Rs??), where there is an iPad requirement. What if the iPad were even paid for out of a scholarship fund? Romney is always saying he avails himself of everything government allows him. Why would he, or any "bootstraps" R have a problem with that?
ReplyDeleteAnd another side note: this is how the abortion/birth control debates go, too. There is widespread belief among the well-off that should they/theirs need an abortion or birth control, they would be able to get them. The debate is about whether poor and working class women (even soldiers, even rape and incest victims) should be able to have access to birth control and abortion.
At bottom, it's a kneejerk reaction to assume the worst about other people (and, of course, assume the best of oneself).
ReplyDeleteI agree. Human beings seem to have a strong urge to control other people, while hating to be controlled. At it's base, most political conflict seems to a clash of those two urges, in one form or the other.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete