I was standing in line at the grocery store today and saw a woman pay for a snapple and two bags of candies with a food stamp card. Now, I basically accept the concept of state sponsored food based welfare for the very poor. It's one of the things that makes me a libertarian leaning republican hawk rather than a real libertarian - my principles aren't strong enough to rule out some state sponsored last ditch safety net against hunger. And I also don't want to unnecessarily embarass the poor - I don't support efforts to make the poor buy their state subsidized food with large mortifying coupons, for example. But it does seem to me that when the law allows you a certain amount of money to stave off hunger, that money should go to food that is at least vaguely conducive to supporting healthy mothers and children - the chief targets of state sponsored food aid. Clearly, neither snapple nor bags of candy qualify.

Of course, I understand the arguments against - the most persuasive to me are those that focus on personal autonomy. Even so, I still think it's fine for the government to set limits when they're providing the money - it's part of the bargain you make when you take government money, in my opinion. I also anticipate people making the argument that even the very poor deserve treats - I agree. But the government's interest here should be to direct itself towards health and energy. To the extent people want treats, they should be encouraged to indulge occasionally, with their own money.

The other chief argument that's made against people like me (aside from general admonitions as to my cold-heartedness, likeness to various totalitarians which I don't resemble at all, and so on) is that the plight of the poor makes it impossible to cook healthy meals, and so we shouldn't begrudge them prepared foods and candies on the public dole. Friends such as Eric Soskin of Per Curiam have made these arguments to me personally, with some force, and commentors to my blog have agreed. I've responded on my own blog, and I'll make the argument here again. The simple fact is that even with bad supermarkets, even with extremely limited money, even with time limited by long bus rides, and multiple jobs, and the stresses of a difficult life, a trained or interested person (and it's hard not to be interested when the health of your kids is at stake) should be able to produce at least basic healthful foods for their kids and family within whatever budget the state presents. What that suggests to me is that to the extent the government is already intruding into these people's lives by dicating what or how they're going to eat, some sort of food training should be an explicit obligation of accepting food stamps. I have no idea what that would look like - maybe the high schools need to turn again to food (and I'm currently thinking about my response the great chef Alice Waters's efforts in the Californian schools) - but if these programs are going to be anything more than a rank redistribution, I think we're failing our poor terribly by throwing money at a problem that has more to do with a few basic skills than cash. In any case, let the recriminations commence. I've donned my asbestos suit.

I was seated on the stage just a few feet away when Mr. Will Baude ambled up and collected his diploma and a handshake from the President of the University of Chicago. I clapped but I was a bit slow on the draw, because the names of graduates in the physical sciences appear in the program in a weird manner -- they are separated into BA and BS categories, though in receiving diplomas no such separation is made. So Will was upon us before I had noticed his name in the program -- indeed, I thought at first that he was left out of the program. (Perhaps the occasional Crescat reader will be surprised to learn that Will graduated in the physical sciences, not in social sciences or culinary arts. Well, he is (was?) a math major, you see.) I was delighted to hear other familiar names called, though in these instances, I do not actually know the graduates personally. (P.S. -- I eventually left the Social Science tent, Will, to try to track you down at the physical sciences tent, but it was to no avail. So let me pass along my congratulations publicly, on your own blog, no less. And if I may indulge myself for a few more seconds, let me mention to the Crescat readers that I met Will in a class a bit more than three years ago, when he was a first-year student, still not old enough to drink those wines and other alcoholic beverages that he now enjoys (in moderation, of course). Will was a shockingly good student, you will not be surprised to learn -- I have recovered from the shock, but it was touch and go for a moment. Anyway, Will, it has been wonderful to get to know you over the last three years, and to see that early promise more than fulfilled. Congratulations and all the best for a wonderful, rewarding future, to you as well as the other graduates.)

I'm too hag-ridden to post anything substantive for tonight or tomorrow, what with commencement coming, loads of boxes yet to be packed, half a kitchen to be cleaned and I-65 to be driven. Luckily, it seems the Crescat fiesta is raging admirably in my absence, and my thanks again to all of our gracious guests for coming.

One note: As Florentino Ariza and Fermina Daza could have told you, there are few epistolary joys more sweet than the unexpected telegram.