OK, now that it's abundantly clear that Nadya Suleman AKA the octuplet mom receives public assistance (commonly called welfare when used in reference to recipients that politicians and talk show hosts find distasteful), I just have one question:
Where are all the extreme political pundits who've buttered their
bread social commentary for years with harsh critiques of welfare moms, the guys who in the past were big proponents of the notion of forced sterilization of clueless, broke, repeat single moms?
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but "Booooooo! You suck!" to say to anyone who can help himself and won't, supplementing his income or lack of income with tax dollars. I'm not a fan of anyone who willingly digs himself into a deeper hole and then gets public money to help him live in that hole.
But given the collective boogieman single moms have evolved into over the past 25 years or so, I'm surprised that we haven't heard from the so-called serious big name pundits, the intellectuals, the society wonks.
Sure they've called Suleman out for being irresponsible and generally wacky. But I'm talking about hitting her with that label: "welfare mom," slapping her with a bag full of food stamps, tackling her with that boogieman imagery that was crafted during those 1980s presidential campaign trail warnings about welfare moms eventually dooming this country.
Seriously, the only national name I've seen or heard call her out repeatedly for abusing public assistance has been Perez Hilton. What gives?
What, does "welfare mom" seem like too big a slam at Suleman? Or do we not use that one anymore, now that its parameters increasingly include people who live in the 'burbs?