In response to
In response to
Perhaps you've read Makdad's site about the guy he works with. Perhaps you've also clicked on the links he provided in the post, and perhaps you've also read the articles. Now if you read the link to Fox News on his site, you'll see an article entitled "Poor May Not Be So Poor, After All". The article is about a study by the Heritage Foundation (also linked in Makdad's post, I believe) that states what the title implies: poor people aren't that bad off.
If you haven't read the article, I'll summarize: we have 35 million poor people in this country, and that's not so bad. The article goes on to mention that 46% of the poor people in this country live in houses, own TV's, DVD players, etc. and, my favorite, have more living space that the average person in Paris, London, or Vienna. Surprising, because the average living areas in major cities are usually so spacious, perhaps?
Now, I did some quick research and calculations. Having 35 million poor people (even if they have a damn television) in the country means that 12% of the country is beneath the poverty level. We're the (self-titled) greatest country in the world and one out of ten of us is poor. But the Heritage Foundation doesn't really think it's that big of a problem because half of the poverty-stricken can pop in their copy of Pearl Harbor anytime they want. God bless America indeed.
And for the exclamation point of the article, the Fox News article, we have this:
Click here to watch a fair and balanced report by Fox News Channel's William LaJeunesse.
The underline is mine, and I think that's probably comment enough. Twelve percent of our people may be poor, but at least they can turn on their televisions to see Fox News flip them the middle finger.
Tune in next time for a post about the gallery opening that Naomi and I attended. Well, I attended the opening. Naomi got hammered on the free wine. Stay tuned for the exploits.