Marie Antoinette Madness Research Paper

Last night when I let the dogs back in from their evening outing in the back yard, Butters, my one and a half year old Pekingese darling, was a terrifying no show. After frantically calling and searching, we finally found her, lying near the house, unable to get up on her own. She was nearly unresponsive and covered in bloody diarrhea and drool, a limp, pitiful little “rag” in my arms. We called the emergency number for Dr. Childers, a simply wonderful man who has patiently dealt with more doggie emergencies of mine than I care to count. He met us there within half an hour. Diagnosis: hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, a terribly dangerous condition unless early and aggressive treatment is received. She got there just in time, he said, and
This is a widely shared argument that says those who receive government assistance (aka don’t have the funds to adequately provide for themselves or their children, if applicable) should not be allowed to eat cake (or other desserts) if they use government money to purchase the confections. I’ve argued the point that maybe it’s their child’s birthday, or that the desserts and sweets purchaser may have just finished school, or received a promotion from a minimum wage job to one that will provide more security. Maybe it’s quite the opposite and it’s depression and thoughts of suicide that have this individual daring to buy this cake (or ice cream) as a means to celebrate surviving just one more day. The truth is, many, many people buy sweets and other items that aren’t good for them, without even really thinking about it. Should poor people consult nearby shoppers (on the chance that they are more fortunate) to see if what they need or want is on the “approved” list? Who decides on the items and creates this list? Why does anyone
If our goal is to help those who need it with a leg up (is it?), then why are we making them lose work, money, and dignity, sending them even deeper into the system we claim to hate so? Why does it make us feel better to give money (a lot, I’m guessing) to those who test the individuals rather than to the actual person or family? Does it really make us feel better? Do we actually believe that shaming and tormenting a person will somehow give him the strength to overcome what is an almost insurmountable obstacle? Do we want the children to bear the shame from these needless means to justify the anger of some? Always, in my argument, I concede the almost inarguable fact that there are those who surely abuse the system. But what about those who don’t? What about those who need our help, especially the children? Are pets even on that secretive and unpublished list? There are the middle class and the wealthy, I try and point out, who also abuse our system. Why are we less likely to subject them to various degrading and costly methods of control? Should everyone forego cake on an assumption (cake has been a pivotal issue of late, it seems we especially want to deprive those we resent of cake) that no-one deserves it? Or should we just mind our own business and accept that there is always a rotten apple, and that