Monday, December 30, 2002
It depends on what the meaning of "is" isThe 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?
Comments: Post a Comment