The connectition is obvious, but unsurprising that they would not have the gall to spell it out: 1. Fewer foster children means their business is in decline. 2. Therefore, more income is needed in the legalized kidnapping industry. 3. Therefore, more foster parents need to be recruited to the task, in preparation for the next surge: 4. sudden surges of abuse/neglect/"at risk" convictions invariably coincide for some odd reason with a drop in income caused by a foster child shortage, (caused of course by a recent local drop in legalized kidnapping.)
The logic is not twisted. They just don't have the GUTS to publicly proclaim the fact that they percieve successful reuniting of more local famlies as an ECONOMIC PROBLEM, rather than their GOAL.
The connectition is obvious, but unsurprising that they would not have the gall to spell it out:
ReplyDelete1.
Fewer foster children means their business is in decline.
2.
Therefore, more income is needed in the legalized kidnapping industry.
3.
Therefore, more foster parents need to be recruited to the task, in preparation for the next surge:
4.
sudden surges of abuse/neglect/"at risk" convictions invariably coincide for some odd reason with a drop in income caused by a foster child shortage, (caused of course by a recent local drop in legalized kidnapping.)
The logic is not twisted. They just don't have the GUTS to publicly proclaim the fact that they percieve successful reuniting of more local famlies as an ECONOMIC PROBLEM, rather than their GOAL.