It's almost too predictable. Sean Hannity, being all righteous and slamming people who benefit from government programs as being like animals dependent on humans for food. The thing is, Hannity is very, very selective about who those people are.

Here's the punchline:

Apparently there is a sign. National Park Service, the US Department of the Interior, and it says "Please do not feed the animals. And the reason: The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not take care of themselves.

Well, I -- - "You don't want to help people who are poor. And starving. See?" No, it's -- the dependency issue is a lot different. You teach people how to fish, how to be independent, you create an environment where jobs are plentiful, versus people being dependent on government."

I doubt, for example, that he included Big Agrobusiness and Big Oil while he was busy slamming people. Their billions in annual subsidies are nothing if not a dependency. Look what just happened with the farm bill! Instead of accepting the cuts that Senator Debbie Stabenow had carefully made to the fat-cat subsidies, they put the pork-laden one in place instead.

This is where conservatives like Hannity really show their true colors. Ordinary people who receive benefits like Medicare and Social Security which they paid for all their lives or who are in need of temporary assistance while unemployed, are scorned and ridiculed as dependent bloodsuckers.

God forbid Exxon/Mobil, AT&T, Verizon, and those corporate farmers would suffer the same scorn. Oh, no. They're the job creators. Sure they are.

As for plentiful jobs, let's have a conversation about what those might be when they actually materialize. Are they jobs where we get to scrape along for eight bucks an hour? Are they jobs where we'd need at least two of them to survive? Would those jobs have benefits?

Yeah, I didn't think so.