The Stupid is so Strong It Burns

 I do know a little bit about saying something so stupid those around you immediately lower their respect for your ... well, not intelligence so much as that which comes out of your mouth without losing respect for you, individually.  In my case, it was a particular situation where my children were playing catch, indoors, with a dog toy.  One of their errant throws bounced this toy, which was not a light, fluffy thing, but neither was it so heavy that it caused severe damage, off my forehead.  This upset me.

So, in my best fatherly tone, I announced in that "angry father" voice "THERE WILL BE NO MORE THROWING OF DOG TOYS IN THIS HOUSE.  IS THAT CLEAR?"  This is what the brain sent to the mouth.  Mouth, unfortunately, chose to miss the key point on that last word, and instead, replaced "clear" with "queer".  Please note that this was not an attempt to slight any individual or group or philosophy or way of life, it was my mouth following it's rather historic precedence of attempting to undermine me when speaking publicly.  The chastened reaction I expected from the other two present in the room was not forthcoming, it was, instead, a huge hoot of laughter.  Their mother came out of a nearby room and also joined in their mockery.

I've been reminded on a regular basis whenever I attempt to exert parental guidance.  Thus, this next bit could be passed off by the individual as a "my mouth got away" but it sure appears that this ... individual was attempting to share his absolute cluelessness when it comes to food, economic realities, and his not only insulation but lack of complete understanding of the world as it is right now.

So to get a bit closer to the point, there's this article on KARE-11, the TV news I watch most often, with a terrible web site.  Sure, it looks nice, but in that terribly needy way that most toddlers have when the adult needs to leave the room and they do not wish for them to go, it drags at you and begs you to stay.  But back to the point before we discuss the pathetic nature of their web designers.

State Senator Steve Drazkowski, a Republican, represents a district which I've been through, thought not recently.  Last time I was there was a little over a year ago, when I dipped my toes into Red Wing, where my wife chose to spend a weekend to celebrate her post-pandemic birthday.  Red Wing is a little town on the edge of the state right along the Mississippi River, which is, through Red Wing, navigable for most moderately-large river traffic.

In the past, when we visited my mother-in-law in Iowa before the completion of some major road projects in that state, we would take a route that took US highway 61 south through Red Wing, around Wabasha, and south to La Crescent/Lacrosse, where we hopped the border into Wisconsin.  So I haven't lived in the area, I don't know many people who live there, but I can rely on the statistics from the state, which show that this State Senator is really a privileged douchebag who avoids meeting with the larger population of his district, as he would otherwise have known that over 8% of the children in his district live in poverty, and that nearly a quarter of the school kids in that district qualified under the previous guidelines for free school lunch.

So what does that say when a fool rises and says "I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that's hungry?"  Well, to the finest point, yeah, most people who are living at or below poverty levels are unlikely to make time to attend political events, as they're likely shepherding their meager resources to get back and forth to the jobs they may have, but more exactly, they may just not have the energy or the willingness to put themselves forward to show someone who hasn't the slightest interest in their situation that things have to get better.

I know, I know, there are undoubtedly people who will point and say "they want to live like that."  I don't waste too much time on that, because those are the type of folks who don't even recognize that the color of their skin or the jobs they have provide such insulation they don't have to deal with the world.  Look, I'm not broke.  I've got a good job, I work hard, I bring in enough money for my family to be able to avoid a lot of that sort of unpleasantness.  But for a period of time, that was not the case.  For a rather long period we survived on one income, which is a hell of a lot harder to do than you might think, these days.  

Enough about me.  I'm lucky, I work hard to make some of that luck, but the bottom line is that if a person hadn't seen past the exterior and the change-in-career desperation, I'd still be schlepping boxes of stuff from place to place to insure my employer made a few bucks.  And back to our point here - It's often said that Republicans are fat-cat rich folks who don't see the poverty and need in their communities.  Sad to say that Mr. Drazkowski is one of them.  His sheer gall in saying that he's never encountered a hungry person bounced through the national news and I'm sure embarrassed many of the folks in his district.  I do expect that a fair number of them hire folks who are less economically affluent to work in and around their homes and don't even see the hunger or privilege - but there are folks who do, they're aware, and they know.  

Makes me wonder if Drazkowski's upcoming opponents in the primary and general election will succeed him, and if the area will find itself better represented in the future.  We can all hope.  To have a representative so ignorant of what's going on in their district isn't bad staff work, it's not a lack of information - it's an utter and chilling lack of compassion.  It shows how far the modern Republican Party has fallen in representing the common man.  Sure, most folks on the lower end of the economic ladder what to keep more of their own, and I do think that the current State Law that Mr. Drazkowski was opposing was a heck of an overreach which will get cut in a few years as the state's economy swings back to "oh, hey, we need jobs and need to trim that budget."  I can't say that my family and children might not have benefited from such a program at times.  I can say that there are some who need those meals - and we'd have been better off by expanding the program, rather than making all lunches free, and perhaps raising the limit for those who qualify. 

For a period where we lived on a single income, our total household income was just enough to disqualify my children for assistance with their school meals.  We were paying literally every penny my wife was making each pay period to cover our housing, her trips to and from work, our food, our utilities, and other expenses.  Yes, we had cell phones, because we had children who were active with their friends and in school.  And our children needed to be picked up after school - a slight diversion from the path I would take to pick my wife up after she finished her work day.  She took the bus, daily, to and from St. Paul, using a program which was a benefit from her employer, resulting in a lower cost for her to get to work than it would have been had we used our vehicle to drive her to and from downtown St. Paul every day.  But we did not qualify.  And I know that both of my children were pulling back, a little, on their lunches, because I saw it.  When I had been on unemployment and brought in an additional $500 a week, my daughter's lunch money went down more quickly. My son's lunch costs were the same every day, until he switched schools, and his meals, too, seemed to cost less than I had expected or budgeted - but eventually, it became the normal amount I'd budget when my unemployment ended.

So yes, I'm in favor of an expansion of the free and lower cost lunch programs, not free for all, but it is what it is.  I can come up with a half-hundred ways to improve the overall school lunch program - first off, rather than have a cashier at the end of the line, just have a kid grab a tray and punch in their "lunch number" at the start of the line.  Each item which they put on their tray is added to their overall total, and at the end of the line, it's totaled up.  Then, in the computer, the system accounts for the child's lunch.  If it's full price, reduced price, or free, the computer handles it.  If the child doesn't have enough money in their account, the child still gets their lunch - but a message is sent to the parent noting that deficit, and a request that they fix it before the following day's lunch.

And to my mind, this is less about shaming poor children, and more about not shaming affluent kids whose parents can't be bothered to manage their responsibilities and make sure little Richie Rich has enough lunch money.  Kids are kids.  They see what's going on in their families, their homes, and with their parents.  They're aware, they know.  I just feel pretty sad about those kids whose parents substitute money for time.  But that's my bias.  I was lucky - my kids might not have had the newest tech, the coolest clothes, or the biggest TV, but they knew they were loved, they had our attention, our devotion, and our love.  And they turned out accordingly.  Great people who see the world as it is and know they're fortunate, and there are many who are not.  

So I did that part of my job.  Even with the head injuries and foot-in-mouth history.  So I got that going for me, which should help.  As for Drazkowski, I'm guessing his future is less bright than mine.  But at least he's not my representative.  Thank God.