First,
it's not even original --
N. Leroy proposed it at least a year and a half ago (and he probably didn't think of it himself). Second, using children as props for some crackpot theory of morality/work ethics, particularly from a member of the Least Productive Congress Ever, is just plain sick. Finally...poor children need NO lessons in the harshness of life. Taunting from their less-poor classmates might well be the least stressful part of their day. Consider that, in addition to hunger (and not terribly appetizing "free" lunch, as anyone who remembers their childhood school cafeterias well knows)...poor children are often stuck in circumstances that, at best, are stiflingly boring. Few if any books or toys, no such thing as an actual vacation, houses where heat, electricity, or even water might be periodically cut...parents who are likely stressed out themselves and possibly prone to lashing out at their kids. Crappy, crime ridden neighborhoods. A future that...certainly doesn't entail working barely four months a year while making almost $175 thousand dollars. You know, I think poor kids know all too well that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
And Jack Kingston can go fuck himself.
Via.
