Of course, she gently tiptoes around the actual slurs, leaving that to her commenters. But the meaning is quite clear. The women in the picture are morbidly obese, by medical definition. So that must mean they aren’t enduring food scarcity or the other difficulties of poverty.

According to the mother, who lacks a high school degree, a car accident at the age of 23 left her disabled, depressed and unable to work. She and her daughter subsist on $739 in combined government benefits, plus subsidized housing. The daughter has her diploma and has worked at restaurant and retail jobs but claims hiring is down, so she’s having trouble getting a job now. And their situation is complicated because Mom’s van broke down last fall, she can’t afford to fix it, and there’s no public transportation. She’s trying to obtain training to become a nurse’s assistant but the transportation cost is making that cost-prohibitive.

None of these details matter to compassionate conservatives. Clearly these women face no hardships because they are fat. Which is caused by their choice to eat too much.

They volunteered the information that they no longer buy extras like ice cream and have had to scale back meat consumption. And we all know that if you are fat, eating ice cream is a mortal sin. It is better that they load up on potatoes and noodles, as they indicate their budget now forces them to do.

Sure, it’s easy to make assumptions. It’s certainly possible that the family might benefit from dietary instructions from a nutritionist. But it’s just as easy to assume that:

a) there’s a hereditary metabolism problem at work here and/or a physiological problem that can’t be resolved by dietary methods,
b) depression provoked a weight gain that’s been difficult to reverse,
c) family dysfunction might play a role in their mental and physical states, or
d) other possibilities exist that have contributed to their size.

In the process, they neglect to consider the high percentages of Ohio families reporting similar financial difficulties, even those with family incomes between $40K and $79K. Paying for gas, getting a good job or getting a raise, paying for healthcare or insurance has grown difficult for between 1 and 4 and 1 in 2 Ohioans in that middle class income range.

They neglect to mention that the daughter seems motivated to work and to educate herself, while refusing to get pregnant to gain more assistance.

The two women pay $100 for rent, an electric bill that runs at least $100 a month and ranges higher, and spend their $102 of food stamps plus another $148 in cash on monthly groceries ($250 total) which leaves them a balance of $262-$289/month for other expenses. As they indicate their monthly transportation expenses have increased over last year’s $35/mo, it would be reasonable to assume their ‘disposable’ income is closer to $200/month.

So why did they have to cut back their grocery bill by $50.mo?

Okay, maybe they really don’t have a phone. Or cable TV. But they likely do require toilet/facial tissues, paper towels, hand soap, dish soap/ shampoo, conditioner, laundry soap, bleach, toilet cleanser, maybe some ammonia or floor cleaner, window cleaner, and do they use a coin laundry? What of sanitary napkins, toothpaste, dental floss, deodorant? Over-the-counter remedies like Advil or skin cream. It’s not a stretch to assume at least a smattering of cosmetics. And then there’s clothing. Even assuming you can find plus-sized outer garments at thrift stores, guess what it costs for bras and undies if you’re extra large. A haircut’s likely now and then, too.

That doesn’t include recreation money, no DVDs or CDs, no movies, no drugs and alcohol, no dating expenses, no dinners out, no subscriptions to periodicals… but then again, it might mean a few of these. It’s fairly safe to assume it includes an occasional greeting card, postage stamps, birthday and Christmas presents, maybe a co-pay for medical or dental care.

But chances are high, if they’re feeling compelled to cut back on food, then their other ‘luxuries’ are few.

So I ask: do you eat more than $125 worth of food each month? Even you skinny folks? $125/mo (or their old budget of $150 per) doesn’t exactly sound like a gluttony diet to me.

That doesn’t matter, they’re fat. Which negates everything, apparently, like the point of the story. And everyone knows all fat people willingly choose fatness and deserve poverty for making that choice. At least that’s what Malkin implies.

And so does Van Helsing.

And Brian Ledbetter.

And Macranger.

And Crush Liberalism.

Gateway Pundit and his commenters are especially kind.

And Pam at Right Voices.

And Ed Driscoll.

And Laura of Pursuing Holiness (there’s a religion I can mock, no matter which voodoo she practices).

That’s what passes for news and commentary, economic analysis and conservative value systems. Condemn a 19 year old who’s trying, a mother who’s disabled and make all kinds of assumptions about them while ignoring the statistics about millions of Ohioans, even those better off.

I’m not giving liberals a pass on hatred of the fat, but at least they’re not saying fat people have earned poverty. Or that fat people are all socialists. Or that they need to sell their non-existent big screen TVs to get by. They’re more likely to seek to convict them on their actual misdeeds, not indicate that their appetites made them guilty of a luxury life at taxpayers’ expense.

I do not consider $125/month food bills to be evidence of gluttony nor an argument against helping poor people fend off incapacities and starvation. I do believe that there are crimes of commission deserving punishment and that conservatives of all sizes will defend the criminals for no other reason than they agree with the politics of the perps. Because the law doesn’t matter. Fatness does. In fact, fat people should be exiled so as not to offend their eyes.