Whose side are we on anyway?

This is possibly one of the scariest things a woman could hear:
” We’re telling abusers that if you can get her pregnant you can keep her married to you.”

Read the appalling story here.
Battered Pregnant Woman Denied Divorce
Now I can understand how a woman in a non-abusive situation could just as easily twist this to her own advantage, which is why the law exists as it does, but jesus christ- some situations require a closer look. The situation for this woman is further complicated by her reliance on public funds to live. (Yeah I see in the article that this particular woman seems to need to pick her men a little better too, but that’s not entirely relevent.) As a person with a family member on assistance from the government and unable to provide for her four children without help from this system as well as family and friends, I can see with clear perspective how the US Government welfare scheme is flawed on tiers innumerable. When a perfectly able father cancels the health insurance on his children but then turns and buys a new truck for himself… and the government does nothing to prevent it… well- I’ve got no faith in the “family first” attitude and “no child left behind” smoke screens that the US political machine manufactures to distract from the mounting poverty disaster leeching across the nation.

Spouting about that draws my attention to the tightening of my jaw muscles in anger over my countries inability to provide for it’s own people. I understand we have a duty to the earth’s other peoples to assist where we can humanely and sensibly, but what about our own children? Our own welfare? Our own intra-border travesties?

Is anyone listening?

jEN

What I’m listening to right now:
(Can`t You) Trip Like I Do Filter & Crystal Method

4 thoughts on “Whose side are we on anyway?”

  1. Oh you blogged this one before I got the chance I read it this morning.

    It is disgusting that budgetary considerations of a governing body should interfere in anyway with what is a matter of personal safety.

    It also has to be recognised that a welfare system is not just there for the aid of the individual on benefit but there for the protection of the society as a whole.

    Kev

  2. Yeah… there’s so much that this simple and disgusting article stirs up. A people should be able to count on it’s own government for safety within it’s own borders and believe that the best interests of it’s people is at heart. It’s a tough call to decide which could be more dangerous in lawmaking: morality or business sense.

    I’m not saying we should all live in a hippie commune, but it sure would be lovely if people could count on each other as well as it’s leaders to keep a person safe, fed and educated.
    Do I ask for too much?

    smooches~
    jEN

  3. Hey Jen,

    well this is the way in the western world, stigmatise those on welfare, reduce public spending on education and health, then when the poverty-stricken unemployed eventually turn to crime in desperation they can go to jail and make stuff (like packaging software) cheaper than a “free” employee. With the “rising” crime rate (though statistically crime is constantly falling) the government has plenty of excuses to being in new “security” laws – control for control’s sake. Where I live there are drug sniffer dogs walking the suburban streets with undercover police. Funny that they’re not in the wealthy parts of the city.

    Everyone worries about social tension, hell nothing reduces tension like knowing that if you lose your job you’re not going to starve, if you get sick you’re not going to die on the footpath, and if you’re obsolete skillwise you can get into education.

    Here in .au it’s been revealed that the conservative government’s “work for the dole” scheme actually reduces an unemployed person’s chance of getting into work…

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/How-not-to-get-people-into-jobs/2005/01/10/1105206046029.html

    Whoops, I started ranting 🙂

    Cheers
    Matt

  4. Yowsa! Good points Matt!
    The drug dogs on suburban streets is a little scary. Seems a tad too Big Brother…

    I agree that when dependent on a welfare system, the recipient likely becomes less valuable to society. Oh sure, welfare helps keep them from being homeless, but I just saw a program where disadvantaged people on a poverty level commute by private system buses, sometimes an hour or more, to make minimum wage at a dead-end job, then bus back and work another job to get close to making ends meet. It’s sick the way the government herds these people around like cattle so that their city streets have fewer cardboard and blanket houses…

    Thanks for dropping by and weighing in!
    smooches~
    jEN

Comments are closed.