« So that's his excuse | Main | 2003 »

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is

The New York Times thinks that New York City needs to provide more food stamps. That's par for the course; it's hard to imagine the Times having any other opinion. But in the midst of making its argument, the Times supplies this stunner:

In Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's zeal for welfare reform, food stamps equaled dependency and big government entitlement that should be eliminated. In fact, food stamps are not welfare, not even charity, but a nutrition program that helps the poor buy food.
On some issues, one can understand where the other side is coming from, even if one disagrees. But I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that suggests that food stamps aren't welfare. The Times seems to be suggesting that if the program is founded on good intentions, it isn't welfare. I guess. Any other ideas as to what they could mean?


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (2)

Kosher boy:

If its not welfare, than everybody should qualify. Right?

No. Rich people are evil. They don't deserve any of the things they have, let alone more.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 30, 2002 11:29 PM.

The previous post in this blog was So that's his excuse.

The next post in this blog is 2003.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.31