Video: Zo And Libertarian or Liberal-tarian?

Zo hits the nail on the head with his video about Capitol 'L' Libertarians.

I think many conservatives have a strong libertarian streak to them (small 'l'). Which is to say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom". But the Large 'L' folks seem more about the free sex and drugs-atarian rather than someone who wants a smaller government.



Thanks to Deborah.

Reading Between The Lines Of JD Samson's Posting At The Huffington Post

AKA, Navel Gazing From A Self-Described "99%er".

JD Samson, who is the East Coast's version of Sam Ronson, has an exercise in sophistry up at the Huffington Post where she wines about having fame and money from making music and losing it all because of poor decisions.

And if you don't know and don't care who Samson and Ronson are, don't worry about it. You'll be better off not knowing.

I am so lucky that I have been able to create art and music and fulfill my passions through my job for the past 11 years. But I'm stupid enough to have put all my eggs in one basket. It is now the only thing I can do to make money. I'm 33 years old and I can't make coffee. I don't know how to use Excel, or bartend, or wait tables, and I'm officially too old to join the police force. I've lost the confidence to go back to school and feel stressed out about impending debt when I think about further education for even one second.

There is really one person to blame for her situation: JD Samson.

By the way, restaurants are always hiring for positions where no experience is needed. Hosting, busing tables and washing dishes can be done with little to no training. And from there it's a short jump to to waiting tables for cash tips.

Seriously? She can't make coffee? I made my first cup over 12 years ago, first try. It was easy. This is more of a case of 'Not Bothering' rather than 'Tried Then Failed'.

I have several jobs within the music industry as of now: bands, DJing, remixing and even writing music for other artists. I'm a workaholic and have my hands in a bunch of different places. But, all these jobs have unstable incomes. I don't get a salary; I don't know how much money I will make next month, next year or five years from now. I don't have health insurance. And I live with the stress of not knowing, not planning and not understanding whether or not I will ever be able to reach my goals of having a family and feeling safe financially. When I say "safe," I mean safe. I mean basics. I mean health insurance that is good enough for me to take care of myself, not just if I need a $10,000-dollar, life-threatening procedure. I mean dental care. I mean saving money in a retirement fund so that I can take care of myself when I'm 80 years old. Clearly, there is a difference between survival and luxury.

If all of this is true, she's made some very bad business decisions about her musical career. If she's signed all of her rights away, she's has no one else to blame for that.

Also, she should have known that the music industry is very unstable. She's right in the fact she needs to be working all the time but she also answered her own question to this later on.

Like so many teenagers, I believed in the "American Dream," that I could move to New York from the Midwest and become an artist. I would achieve both fame and success, and I would never have to think about money. The first half was true. I made art and lived activism, and I achieved amazing amounts of success that I feel incredibly proud of. The second half, not so much. I have been able to live well, eat well, invest in my arts and make my own schedule, but I forgot to save money and think about my future.

Bingo. One would think that she would have ended it right here with an epiphany of being responsible for yourself and self determination. But then liberalism is a mental disorder so it would be dangerous to assume that her comprehension skills are normal.

Plus, she lives in New York City. More on that later.

This summer I tried to rent an apartment in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The process sent me into an emotional crisis and awakened me into a whole new realization of our economy, the music industry at large and, more specifically, what it means to be a queer artist in 2011.

I spent days trolling around Williamsburg, looking at shitty apartments with cockroaches lining the doorways, fighting neighbors, rats in the ceiling, bedbugs infesting the linoleum floors, fifth-floor walk-ups and cat-pee-soaked carpets. The rent was exorbitant, availability was scarce, and I was turned down by two different landlords for being "freelance." To be honest, I don't blame them. Not only am I freelance, but I'm lesbian freelance. Double whammy. What was the reason they turned me down? Because it was easier to rent to a rich, trust-fund, straight-guy banker who wants to live in the coolest borough in the world? Because when he met me he saw a tattooed gender outlaw who makes "queer electronic punk music" and isn't sure when the next check is going to come in? Yeah, I don't blame him. He doesn't give a shit about how kids email me all the time thanking me for keeping them from committing suicide. It's not part of his capitalist business practice.

So what is a 'Gender Outlaw' anyway? If she filled that out in the application process, no wonder she was turned down.

Here is the New York City angle again. She wanted to live in the 'Coolest borough in the world'. Those usually cost a bit more than the 'Plain Jane apartment in the average borough'.

I surround myself with amazing and talented people, people who have made it in every sense of those words. They buy apartments, invest in their futures successfully, have children, save money. How do they do it? How can I keep up with them?

Chances are, they aren't as well off as you think they are. But it's still more whining and that epiphany that should have kicked in yet, hasn't.

So I have to ask myself: where did I go wrong? And I can only guess that the answer lies in a combinations of three things: 1) my family is not rich, 2) I am a queer woman, and 3) I am trying so desperately to keep up with my peers that I am living beyond my means.

Really, the only answer that matters is the last one. And the chances of that epiphany happening just keep getting more and more slim.

And as I am a productive, workaholic, processing lesbian, I am the only one responsible for change and growth and my own future. So I consider:

1. My family will never be rich; in fact, as they get older, they will use up their supply, perhaps even leaving me with their debts. Now, don't get me wrong, I am so lucky to have the incredible health and support of every member of my family. I never forget how blessed I am to have such an incredible group of people in my life. In fact, our mutual understanding about how frustrating it can be to try to support yourself with your art is something we can all relate to as a family. And our own personal class struggles are not insular but truly a family affair. Now I understand why they supported my dreams but continually suggested having other interests or skills. My dad, a wood sculptor, turned sand and gravel miner. And my mother, a silversmith, turned elementary-school art teacher.

Shorter DJ: She should have listened better to her parents.

Also, how can one be left debts? Unless she has cosigned with her folks on something then-- generally speaking-- I don't see how it can be done.

2. I will always be a queer woman, a woman who makes 77 cents to the man's dollar, and a queer who makes 23 percent less than the heterosexual. Does that mean that I make 54 cents to the straight male dollar? Wow.

No, she chose to make her occupation in a very, very niche market. A lesbian techno band instead of a techno band that happens to be lesbian. There's a subtle difference but it's there.

3. OK, so here's the emotional part: I'm trying to keep up with artists who have had a similar amount of success as I have had, buying expensive meals, expensive jeans, expensive drinks, and trying my hardest to appear to be making the same amount of money as they are. I'm not them, for whatever above-mentioned reasons, but I just can't pretend anymore. This is my coming out. I'm done feeling bad about myself. I wish I could afford a personal meeting with Suze Orman. She's a lesbian. Maybe she could help me reestablish my financial security.

Know what Suze would say? Stop spending so much!

This is what frustrates me about this article. She's laid out all the reasons why she's broke and she hasn't figured out how to change that yet? Live in expensive areas of the city. Buy expensive clothes and food. But yet she claims she doesn't have a cent to her name? It's her own damn fault.

I'm so lucky to have gained so much from my life and my amazing career, but I'm ready to feel secure. I'm ready to build my future and save money so that I can have a family, so that I can enjoy making art and not trying to create a product out of it, so that I can spend more time being present and less time being a workaholic, frantically searching for the profitable answer. And if I need to, I'm ready to get a job, go to work in the morning, get a paycheck once a week, go to the dentist, get a check-up, bottom out to a boss and appreciate music without being worried that I can't keep up.

We live in a society where people equate success with money. They see me on the pages of Vogue. They see me playing to an adoring crowd. They see me flying to gigs all across the world. And I'm not sure what people imagine, but I'm struggling, too. Over the past couple of weeks, I have realized how many other artists and musicians are in my position, people who are proud of their success but feel unable to continue, based on financial strain. Artists such as Spank Rock, Das Racist and the Drums have featured lyrics on their new records about struggling financially. My band MEN put out a record in February with similar tones. I know the economy is failing, but I think it is important to remember that it is failing for everyone. Even the people you think might have money. So here we go. Another reason to come together. Another reason to occupy Wall Street. Another reason for change.

She claims all of these brushes with fame for her music and band. Well, if that's true, start touring. Make a few circuits in clubs. Hit some other cities like San Diego or LA or San Fransisco. Self promote via Twitter and Facebook where she will be playing at. Something that would bring in some money while she works on toning down her lifestyle.

But no. No epiphany of self-awareness. Just a sophistic ending to say, "because of all of my piss poor decisions I've made in my life, the system must be broken".

Thanks to Scott 'Big Daddy' Edwards for finding this.

Updated: A fiskful of thanks goes out to Bob at The Camp Of The Saints and Smitty at The Other McCain for linking this.

Bumper Sticker Of The Week

Prof. Jacobson has the photo.

I can't fathom the disconnect from reality that the driver has.

The 'Coexist' sticker flies in direct opposition to the other sticker (which has to be seen to be believed).

But it is telling who they sympathize with and who they consider their enemy.

Video: In Where A Liberal Shrieking Harpy's Video Makes The Exact Opposite Point She Intended

During the Netroots/Right Online dueling conventions last weekend, failed Air America radio host Nicole Sandler confronts James O'Keefe then posts this.

For whatever reason, I don't know why. It's not as if she pegged O'Keefe in a lie. She's fixated on the pimp costume that O'Keefe wore when he was promoting his ACORN sting videos.

Which really is a non-issue. The heart of the matter of the ACORN videos was that they were actively helping O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in setting up their 'brothel'. With underage illegal aliens. Which wasn't an issue with any of ACORN offices ("Let's see. . . Form 42B. That should cover 'House of ill-repute and Tax Shelter'. Thank you for stopping by ACORN").

The issue of the pimp costume is about as relevant to the perv knocking on Chris Hanson's door and saying that he's in the clear because there actually wasn't a 14 year old boy at the house.

But they fixating on the costume thinking that if they bust O'Keefe on the costume, it renders the rest of the videos moot. But it's not a chain of evidence where if one link breaks the chain is gone. It's a braided rope where if a strand breaks, the rest of the videos are still attached. It shouldn't matter what O'Keefe or Giles wore. The truth of the matter was the trained staff reacted the same way when asked for help in setting up a tax shelter for the brothel.

None of that matters to Ms. Sandler who insists herself upon O'Keefe. Her liberalism is a mental disorder and her ears can't hear or understand that.

Video: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) Wants To Control Your Smart Phone

Via Ed Driscoll who is sitting in for Insty.

Many top ranking democrats want to control what you can and can't put on your smart phone. Why not, they seem to want to control everything else under the sun.

Video: Why Is It Legal To Shoot Unarmed Bin Laden In The Face, Yet We Cannot Waterboard?

Fair Question.

Especially considering the fact that waterboarding the few terrorists did pave the way to finding Bin Laden's location.



Too bad White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon couldn't provide a fair answer to it.

To File Under, "If It Walks Like A Duck, , , "

This is something that always puzzled me. If I can see it. If countless others of other bloggers and members of the Tea Party can see it, why can't pundits like Charles Krauthammer and Rick Moran see what's should be as plain as day?

I guess it's an elitist thing:

Unless and until those who people the contemporary socialist movement revert to donning berets and going full-on khaki, or carrying little red books in their tiny utilitarian shirt pockets, or referring to themselves as numbers like a cadre of high-ranking SPECTRE villains, the nuanced pragmatic conservatives of the stripe who backed McCain and mocked the TEA Party at its birth wouldn’t recognize a Marxist if several of them clenched themselves into a giant worker’s fist and went totally Caligula on our dear intellectual betters.

Video: Stunning Undercover Footage Of National Public Radio Executive Talking About How NPR Is Liberal

Video via The Daley Gator.



Of course NPR is walking back from this, saying it's "edited" (Of course it's edited. The lunch was two hours long. Do you want to hear four people chew their food? Because if you do, the video in it's entirety is found at James O'Keefe site) and saying that they knew the fake organization was just that. A fake.

To which Larry O'Connor asks this:

As this story continues to unravel on NPR they are going to need to explain how the could definitively state to the public that they repeatedly refused the large, anonymous donation from MEAC yet at the same time, were “vetting” them. Why would you vet an organization from which you were repeatedly refusing a donation?

More accurately, NPR was trying to track down it's sizable donation and when they realized they had been 'Punked', went into spin mode to cover their collective buts.

Anyway, the best part of this is that Shiller-- reading between the lines with all of his talk about "Intellectuals" obviously considers himself to be one-- has been punked.

One Last Post About That Racist And Violent Common Cause Rally

Via Insty.

If you can handle one more posting about The Common Cause rally, this should be it. Unless something really good comes along.

James Taranto points out a few things he noticed in the Wall Street Journal:

The press release is framed as a condemnation of the Common Cause supporters--or, in the group's unwieldy description of them, "a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs." The statement goes on:

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of "fans" whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.
Everybody does it? Think it through and you will see that this is a stunning indictment of the American left.

[. . .]
In claiming that everybody does it, Common Cause is committing the fallacy known as hasty generalization: drawing an overbroad conclusion based on a statistically insufficient sample. A famous example from politics is the apocryphal quote attributed to the late Pauline Kael, film critic of The New Yorker: "I don't understand how Nixon won. Everybody I know voted for McGovern."
[. . .]
There is another rich irony to Common Cause's "condemnation" of its rally's participants. The purpose of the event was "to call public attention to the political power of . . . corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy." Common Cause is targeting Justices Scalia and Thomas because they voted with the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that--as Common Cause put it in a fund-raising appeal last year--"inexplicably gave corporations the same rights as individuals" to engage in political speech.
[. . .]
Common Cause's position is that only individuals, not corporations, have the right to free speech. So what is Common Cause? As we noted above, its website describes it as a "grassroots organization." But that term has no legal meaning. As Common Cause's "Frequently Asked Questions" explains, the group is a "a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, tax exempt organization." A corporation, just like Citizens United.
[. . .]
For the sake of truth in advertising, Common Cause should change its name to Hypocrisy Hub.

Please read the whole thing.

One Last Post About That Racist And Violent Common Cause Rally

Via Insty.

If you can handle one more posting about The Common Cause rally, this should be it. Unless something really good comes along.

James Taranto points out a few things he noticed in the Wall Street Journal:

The press release is framed as a condemnation of the Common Cause supporters--or, in the group's unwieldy description of them, "a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs." The statement goes on:

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of "fans" whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.
Everybody does it? Think it through and you will see that this is a stunning indictment of the American left.

[. . .]
In claiming that everybody does it, Common Cause is committing the fallacy known as hasty generalization: drawing an overbroad conclusion based on a statistically insufficient sample. A famous example from politics is the apocryphal quote attributed to the late Pauline Kael, film critic of The New Yorker: "I don't understand how Nixon won. Everybody I know voted for McGovern."
[. . .]
There is another rich irony to Common Cause's "condemnation" of its rally's participants. The purpose of the event was "to call public attention to the political power of . . . corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy." Common Cause is targeting Justices Scalia and Thomas because they voted with the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that--as Common Cause put it in a fund-raising appeal last year--"inexplicably gave corporations the same rights as individuals" to engage in political speech.
[. . .]
Common Cause's position is that only individuals, not corporations, have the right to free speech. So what is Common Cause? As we noted above, its website describes it as a "grassroots organization." But that term has no legal meaning. As Common Cause's "Frequently Asked Questions" explains, the group is a "a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, tax exempt organization." A corporation, just like Citizens United.
[. . .]
For the sake of truth in advertising, Common Cause should change its name to Hypocrisy Hub.

Please read the whole thing.

"Their Fingerprints Are On The Pillows That Are Suffocating All Of Us"

Yesterday, the 'Common Cause' rally was highlighted here to show some of the hatred and vitriol and, quite frankly, violence that dwell in the hearts of their followers. Common Cause can't control those who wanted to appear at their rallies anymore than the Tea Parties can.

But what do the the organizers say about those who were invited to speak at a special discussion panel that used extensive rhetoric? "Fight to stop this evil"? Is that a metaphor or was fight meant in the literal sense of the word?



The real cause of their hate and violent rhetoric? (At least I only hope it's rhetorical.)

Global Warming, is there anything it can't do?

Actually, Global Warming is a small apart of it. "Evil" corporations are polluting the planet, causing the earth to overheat. Anti-Global Warming is just a root in the tree of Progressivism. Social Justice is another root that has a vague enough sounding name that it sounds like a good idea until you start to examine it. Give money to the poor from everyone who makes more than I do is what Social Justice is when stripped down to the bare bones.

I think the people in the video feel entitled to say those things because they consider themselves to be on the 'side' of everything that mighty and just. Clean air and water! Free health care! What kind of monster would oppose that sort of thing? Surely some sort of greedy-eyed hunchback who uses the blood of the poor to mix the cement in the foundation in order to build mansion plantation (sorry, forgot who I was talking about) would do such a thing. At least that's how I would imagine a conservative to appear if I went by their description alone from the video above. So of course if you are on the side of good, everything else will be bad and worthy of scorn and hate and violence.

Because, in their minds, they are the good guys.

Obviously this doesn't apply to all liberals but the most liberal of liberals. The kind who sign up for a Common Cause rally. A very vocal and violent sounding-- again, one only hopes they are speaking rhetorically-- minority.

The rest of the liberals are clueless dolts who haven't thought out their positions very well. They say, "Free stuff? Sure, sign me up!" without realizing that if everyone was promised cookies and lemonade, by the time it was distributed it would only be a couple of crumbs and a teaspoon of juice-- to paraphrase what Jesse Hughes said.

I think I've beaten the 'New Tone' thing to death with a tire iron (whoops, did it again, violent imagery). But its obvious to me that there was no 'New Tone'. It was only another way to tell conservatives and Republicans to shut up.

Video: Andrew Klavan And The Road Of Good Intentions

Via Insty.

Bush Derangment Sydrome Still Going Strong? The Deuce You Say!

Two years after Pres. Bush left office, some people still have to let the hate burn. The video clip is at The Blog Prof.

Maybe the cold fire of disdain for their version of Emmanuel Goldstein keeps their mind off of their own self-loathing. That and how Bush sold as many copies of his memoir in two months as Clinton did of his in six years.

What I think really pains most liberals is that they never had a chance* to try and impeach Bush the way Clinton was impeached. An eye for an eye.

*Or the courage. It would have been over the Iraq War** involving who knew what intel and when. From what I've seen, Bush's staff kept everything on the up and up with the checks and balances in Congress. So it would be show trials more than anything. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi knew what the White House knew going into the war. No matter what they say today.

**Or more accurately, the Global War on Terror's Theater of Operations in Iraq. Nuance.

More Klavan, More Better

Via Dan over at the Gator spot.



Andrew dissects the argument that for some odd reason, conservatives are dumb and prone to violence while liberals are educated and enlightened. Or something.

Tea Partiers Hurl Racial Epithets At Bystanders

And by Tea Partiers I mean One Term Tom Perriello's supporters calling the actual Tea Party people "house n-ggers".



Yeah, it's from before the election but it's the first I saw of it. One more incident to filed under "If We Did This".

A Response To Katha Pollitt, Member Of The Famed Journolist

Been out of town for the last week and now I'm able to get back into the normal daily grind of blogging.

Catching up on some of the Daily Caller's releases of the Journlist email archives when I noticed this from Katha Pollitt:

Katha Pollitt

Aug 7, 2009, 12:20pm

Fascism was a historical phenomenon. That’s why I don’t like the way the word is used today. Fascists wanted a big all-powerful state that would both reach down into people’s lives at the most intimate level and support the( racially pure) masses economically through jobs, public works, and so on. That doesn’t have much relation to what american rightwingers want. They want a tiny defunded state that would use its diminished power and authority mostly for war, border patrol, prisons, repression of dirty effing hippies etc. but would leave ordinary citizens to sink or swim. Unlike the German or Italian fascists, today’s US rightwingers have nothing concrete to offer people. Just the pleasures of racism and selfishness and fear.

With the exception of the last line, she almost gets conservatism.

The war line is a bit much. A strong national defense is preferred in a world with other nations who at their morning prayers shout "Death to the US!" and trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The hippies argument I half to agree with. Not so much as what conservatism is but what any normal, rational person ought to do.

As for the "ordinary citizens to sink or swim." Well, not to put too fine a point on it but yeah. Duh. It's personal responsibility and liberty. It gives Americans the chance to succeed and, strangely enough, the chance to fail. Which is a form of success depending on how they pick themselves back up.

Anyway, is it just me or is the irony alarm going off when she's talking about a government who is all reaching into the lives of the population? If I may take a little bit of liberty with her quote "Fascists wanted a big all-powerful state that would both reach down into people’s lives at the most intimate level and support the( racially pure) masses economically through jobs, public works, and so on". It's a little bit closer to what this administration is looking to do. Case in point, making it a law for everyone to buy an FM radio.

I'm not even going to get into what Obamacare will entail.

But for an idealoge like Katha Pollitt, she can't quite square that circle.

Hot On The Heels Of The South Park Mohamed Episode. . .

. . . Comes this show about Jesus Christ:

"JC," is a half-hour about Christ wanting to escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York.

"In general, comedy in its purest form always makes some people uncomfortable," said Comedy Central head of original programming Kent Alterman, who returned to the network in January after a stint at New Line

Obviously "some people" aren't members of the religion of peace(tm).

It's rather duplicitous of Alterman to say this after censoring South Park's episode about free speech.

"Utopia's Always End In Death Camps"

A friend of mine is fond of saying that, and if you follow the reasoning out to the logical conclusion, he's right.

Sometimes I think the biggest cleave in politics is between the Abstract Party and the Concrete Party. The Abstraction Party is largely, but not entirely, the liberal Democrats, and the Concrete Party is largely, but not entirely, the conservative Republicans.

The Abstract Party thinks, of course, in abstractions, and elevates these abstractions -- often speculative or plain fantastical -- over real-life human lives, the concrete, the real, the demonstrable, the solid. And part of what sustains the Abstract Party is their faith, a religious faith, really, that what they "know" abstractly they know with 100% surety, so if they're told by their priests (their politicians and pundits) that it's better in a the long run that some dirty farmers are bankrupted and die penniless than we allow the delta smelt to die off, then they just believe that, on faith (as it's speculative, and who has anyway of knowing what's best in the long run; in the long run, as they say, we're all dead), and simply push forward with plans that result in catastrophic ruin for real-life people because they are so damn sure their belief in a speculative abstraction trumps any of that.

As a member of the Concrete Party, that gives me great pause. I don't really possess that level of intellectual arrogance. I can't believe in speculation and abstraction enough to think that, when the rubber meets the road, I can choose obliterative poverty for an entire region of the country with the confidence that I'm doing the right thing by basically ending human lives.

The Abstract Party has done an awful lot of evil in the world. I'm going full Godwin here to note that the Nazis were a party of abstraction, fueled by the unproven belief, which they nevertheless were willing to kill for, so sure of it were they, the Jews were somehow responsible for just about every ill in Germany and that some abstract and speculative Utopia would arise if only the lands could be purged of the Jews.

Elevating, again, a belief in some dreamy abstraction over the real and inarguable suffering created by it.

You've got to be borderline crazy to do this. Seriously. I'm sure Lee Harvey Oswald had some belief he was quite sure of -- Kill Kennedy and the World Becomes A Wonderful Place -- and you have to be pretty insane to be sure enough of that proposition to kill someone you've never met and have no actual quarrel with.

At some point you'd think that the testimony of their own eyes -- seeing people suffer and die in the real world -- would shake them out of their unshakable belief in the abstract "Good" they're pushing for, but you'd be wrong.

They have a religious conviction about it. They are religious zealots-- lunatics, cultists -- who believe in Paradise on Earth and if you have the chance at Paradise on Earth human lives are small potatoes in the scheme of things.

And they tend to call this lunatic religious passion "reason" and "science." And they're quite serious about that.

And Now A Word From Bill Ayers With Advice For Those New To The Singles Scene

Stacy McCain has the background info on this.

With apologies toward Jim Treacher but none toward Bill Ayers.

UPDATE: Linked by Dustbury.

Does This Mean That The War On Poverty Is Now Over?

. . . And did we win or lose?

This is the person who will cancel out your vote if you live in Florida. Think she'll vote for the candidate who said people need to be more responsible for their lives or for the Democrat candidate who will increase welfare payments with no worries about drug screenings?

Via Robert Stacy.

Twelve children ranging in age from 6 months to 11 years old spent the past week there, scrambling across the floor, bouncing on beds. Their eyes filled with resignation Wednesday morning; they were hungry and dirty - wearing the same clothes as the day before and the day before that.

Angel Adams, the mom, was asking for help as the children rambled about the room. She was homeless and hopeless, she said. A relative paid for the motel room for a week, and after that, who knows. Her fiance is in prison.

With measured indignation, Adams said somebody owes her.
[. . .]
The lifelong Tampa resident said she wants justice from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office child protection team that took her kids away from her two years ago and from Hillsborough Kids Inc., which got her kids back six months ago.

"What do I do?" she said earlier in the day. "I have no answers. My family has been railroaded. Someone needs to pay.

"Nobody's helping me."

She doesn't trust the system, she said. It was a system that despite all the good intentions landed her in the motel, in this fix, in the first place, she said.

Wednesday morning, in the dingy motel room, Adams handed out a list of her children's names and ages. Across the top: "Three fathers. One Mother. Fifteen Children."

One of them, a 1-year-old, is named John the Baptist Brown.

Ten of the children, she said, were fathered by Garry Brown, currently serving a five-year prison term for dealing cocaine. A sampling of his kids' names: Garry Nesha, Garry Brown Jr., Garry Lethia, Garryiell and Garry Rick.
[. . .]
The smell of dirty diapers filled the room. Jerome, 11, gave Andrew, 6 months, a bottle. "This is not comfortable," Jerome said.

The baby coughed and spit up on Jerome's hand. He didn't flinch and patted the baby on the back.

"The girls sleep on one bed," Adams said. "The boys sleep on the other. I just crash on the floor."

The 12 kids are the youngest of 15, she said. Three have "aged out," meaning they have turned 18 and are on their own, no longer a part of the child welfare system.

"I can have as many as I want to," she said. All her kids, she added, "are gifts from God."

The 37-year-old mother doesn't work. "This is my work," she said, gesturing toward the bunch. "I do this all by myself. I don't know what I'm going to do. This is a revolving door going nowhere."

She said her problems began two years ago when Brown was arrested and the money dried up. Right after that her children were taken away and put in foster care over allegations of neglect, she said.

Hillsborough Kids stepped in and took the case, eventually returning the children to her and Brown. Before Christmas, the couple took a two-bedroom apartment off North Boulevard near Columbus Drive.

Hillsborough Kids agreed to pay the $800 a month rent after caseworkers inspected the apartment and, although finding it a bit cramped, said it was OK.

The landlord, who evicted Adams in March, thought differently.

Sandy Chiellini said Adams showed up to sign the lease with Brown and one child. She didn't learn until later that there were 11 other children. There were problems with plumbing; downstairs tenants were flooded. There was noise. Occasional visits from police. Other tenants were complaining. Some left.

She said Adams' apartment was trashed. Clothes and food were scattered everywhere. Screens were broken out. Chiellini began eviction proceedings. Adams failed to show up for two eviction hearings.

Chiellini said Adams and her children left on April 15, taking only the clothes on their backs.
[. . .]
Lodging at A Kid's Place is temporary, and department caseworkers will have to figure out how to place the Adams family in a permanent home. That's down the road, he said. For now, at least they are out of the hotel room.

"My children fear DCF," Adams told Cox outside the motel room Wednesday afternoon. "I do, too."

"I want to make sure right now you and your kids are not living in a hotel room," he responded.

Still, Adams was hesitant. She wanted to know about the long term.

"I need money," she said. "I need transportation. My children need a place to live."

What the Great Society had wrought.