What do Prison Inmates and Children Have in Common?

[paft.livejournal.com]

As we know, Newt Gingrich, the current GOP frontrunner has doubled down on his idea of getting rid of all those dumb ol’ child labor laws and paying schoolkids to clean toilets and occasionally mop up vomit in the hallways.



He did amend it slightly from his earlier assertion that “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school” . Now Gingrich presumably thinks it should involve just laying off some of those unionized janitors. And he has allowed on Curt Sliwa’s radio show, that “kids shouldn’t work in coal mines” or heavy industry.

It’s unclear from the articles quoting from the Sliwa interview whether Gingrich was saying that children should be legally barred from working in coal mines and heavy industry or that we should hope coal mine and factory employers would be nice guys and not hire kids. Since he’s referred to the child labor laws that got children out of mines and mills, as “truly stupid,” I’m going to choose Door Number Two.

At roughly the same time, we’ve learned that the state of Alabama is coping with the labor vacuum left by their draconian anti-illiegal immigrant laws by considering using convict labor instead.

Children, convicts… Both cases involves an essentially helpless, easily exploited work force. Neither kids nor prison inmates are likely to object in any meaningful way when they are overworked or forced into dangerous situations. Not like all those free, voting grown-ups who do things like organizing, striking, or even just speaking up for themselves.

And of course, we can all trust employers not to notice this and take advantage… right?

Now, a lot of people will point out that prison inmates are so much more unattractive than cute, innocent little kids. Fortunately, we have Rush Limbaugh to remind us that we shouldn’t be fooled by children, with their appealing little faces and sad, hungry eyes. They’re really just a bunch of “wanton little waifs and serfs dependant on the state.”

Rush Limbaugh: If you feed them, if you feed the children three square meals a day during the school year, how can you expect them to feed themselves in the summer?... Okay, the school ends, and of course, how can we expect them to feed themselves in the summer, when they haven’t had to for nine months. So this is how it works, they demand to be fed during the summer – or their acolytes demand that they be fed during the summer. Because after all, we’ve conditioned them to not feeding themselves. Plus their parents don’t have to take responsibility of feeding them. And their parents don’t have to take responsibility of paying, not directly, for them to be fed. So, it’s just natural. “Mr. Limbaugh, these children are simply ill-equipped to feed themselves in the summertime, it’s the only compassionate thing we do!’ Yeah, who made that possible? You… by trying to make people helpless. Wanton little waifs and serfs dependant on the state. Pure and simple.

I mean really you give these things food during the school year, they’ll expect to be given food in the summertime too! Any good parent knows that you don’t feed the little beggars after the age of six, but send them out to forage for themselves. How else can they learn dumpster-diving?

In conclusion, for your viewing and listening pleasure – the Old Crow Medicine Show’s version of Woody Guthrie's, Union Maid.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's a bald statement, nuance-less, and one that permits not a degree of ambiguity.

Only because you aren't seeing it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You said you see no difference between what Newt Gingrich does and what Japan does. No difference is an absolute statement that does not permit any difference at all. This is the meaning of the word no to anyone with a basic comprehension of the English language and its syntax and morphology. I'm sorry that you can't provide any argument or anything remotely smacking of depth or substance, but that's a continual pattern with you. The smokescreen doesn't work with me.

You say there's nuance in that statement, your own words indicate there is no difference. I assume thus that you think Gingrich is a Japanese Buddhist wearing a white man suit ala that Wayman Brothers movie. Because for there to be no difference Gingrich must believe in principles of Buddhism reflecting the emphasis on karma and reincarnation, not Christianity, meaning his appeals to Christianity are actually rather blatant lies.

If this isn't what you mean, you show me what you did mean. Otherwise simply repeating your lies ten times will not make them true any of those ten times, nor will they be the eleventh.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Since you can't seem to do an actual quote accurately, it's no wonder you go off on whatever you imagine to be the problem.

Here, I'll save you some trouble. I said: I don't see a difference between what Newt said, and what Japan does. That is different than saying there is "no difference". My statement was certainly vague, and relying on context and what I understand paft's level of comprehension to be. Yes, anyone else reading that will interpret it differently, but since I wasn't writing to them (i.e. you) I don't care. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, again. You could have asked for clarification, but no, you'd rather just assume something and go with that as if it was truth.

If this isn't what you mean, you show me what you did mean.

What I mean is that there is not a significant difference in outcome. In both cases, you would have students working to clean up the school.

Otherwise simply repeating your lies ten times will not make them true any of those ten times, nor will they be the eleventh.

The irony of this statement from you is astounding.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I don't see a difference in my version of the English language is a negative statement. Not seeing it means it does not exist, therefore there is none. I'm only noting that you can't and don't pay attention to what you say and expect insults to the intelligence of others to hide the fact that your logic does not exist, simply vulgar insults at the intelligence of others. Which is fine, mind, I'm perfectly willing to do that much better than you ever will. But that's neither logic nor argument. Your ability to form an argument is non-existent, and all those accusations that others are illiterate and stupid simply serve as a pretending argument akin to wagging your pecker at a Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door.

Where I have I lied in this discussion? I'm not the one claiming that what I said is not what I meant, as though meaning carries in a text-only medium and relying on "if only you could read" as though that indicates anything other than a logical incompetence and inability to formulate complex statements. Hence all the "You're stupid/you suck" instead of indicating even a rudimentary familiarity with the methods of debate.

I will say thank you for writing at least one paragraph and two one-liners.

What you meant and what you said were very different things. I addressed what you said, and if you meant something different, you should have said something different.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

all those accusations that others are illiterate and stupid

I don't make any such accusations.

Where I have I lied in this discussion?

I wasn't implying it was from this discussion, although the beginning of the above comment could be considered such. To be clear, your lying is in the form of claiming that your interpretation of what someone else says is what they actually said, regardless of how far away from reality that interpretation is. I'm not the only one who has called you on this, and you have not changed it yet.

I addressed what you said, and if you meant something different, you should have said something different.

You addressed what you thought I meant by what I said. That's how it works, for everyone. The problem is that you think that your interpretation is always 100% correct and you refuse to change that interpretation even when you're corrected.