Man, the Toyota dealership sends me e-mails every other month or so, practically offering me hookers and blow if I'm willing to sell back my Echo to them. Mind you, it's 11 years old and has over 130,000 miles on it. But they still want it (very likely because it still averages 32-33 mpg).

Also, because I think they would sell it for $10,000!

I actually just really wish Rochester would get a zipcar that I could get without taking a bus. I am only thinking of getting a car because about 2X per month, I need to drive. The only problem is that I think if I get a vehicle the rides I get would dry up. But, I want to be able to take my kitty to the vet... she is getting old.

I just begged out of the intramural volleyball tourney this week by saying I was childish and a bad competitor. If you laugh when you say it, they don't treat you like it's true.

ita !

Heh. ::raises brow in salute::

argh, I hate FB. I just talked myself out of replying to a conservative talking point posted by a former coworker.

Seriously: how can anyone say "Yay that welfare recipients in FL and KY have to get drug tests!" without realizing that by that logic, I should get a drug test before I get my mortgage interest tax deduction, or a library card?

I don't see how you get from point A to point B.

I don't see how you get from point A to point B.

The argument they're making is that if you get money from the government without working for it, you should have to take a drug test.

I get financial benefit from the government every time I take public transportation or borrow a book from the library or drink water from my public tap or use a park. Or, more directly, I get thousands of dollars off on my taxes because I pay a mortgage and I get a deduction for that.

But I don't have to take a drug test to justify receiving that tax deduction, or using my library card.

In essence, there's a presumption that people on unemployment or welfare are criminals or addicts, and Those People do not deserve government support. Apparently we should let them starve and sleep outdoors because they have drug habits (or have taken drugs recreationally).

That's what I thought you were saying, but I don't see how one couldn't support a drug test specifically for receiving welfare. But if they're using that blanket argument, then, no, it doesn't work.

In essence, there's a presumption that people on unemployment or welfare are criminals or addicts, and Those People do not deserve government support.

Right, that's clearly their position.

I don't see how one couldn't support a drug test specifically for receiving welfare

I don't support it because as soon as you start poking at the logic behind it, it falls down. No other recipients of government funds (like NHS grants or student loans or FHA mortgages or or or--) are required to take drug tests. Just welfare recipients.

So it must be because they're poor. Or possibly black. And therefore presumed to be criminal.

The thing is, there really is barely "welfare" any more. There's TANF, which is a benefit for children - you have to have children under 18 to qualify, and in my state you can receive it as 18 months in a row, 4 years maximum over a lifetime. I looked up the numbers once, and in my high-poverty city of 100,000 there are like 1200 people who get it, and the benefits are incredibly low.

I can't find just Athens right now, but of the 9,829,211 people who live in GA about 38,000 of them get TANF. 00.38%.

Which is even worse, really--penalizing the children because the parent might take drugs?