Distrusting the State

The plight of Jessie Sansone -- the Kitchener, ON, father who was stripped searched and detained and charged with possession of a firearm by local police, and whose house was searched without a warrant on there mere suspicion that a firearm might be present in the home, because his 4-year-old daughter drew a picture of a man fighting "monsters" and "bad guys" with a gun -- sends chills up and down my spine.

Like Charles Adler and hosts of other conservatives, I am generally pro-police. I have friends who are RCMP officers. I believe every province should have a police force that enforces and upholds the law. They are a critical component of the justice system. Like most other law-abiding parents, I presume, I teach my kids that the police are good guys; in the battle between good and evil they are for us; they are here to serve the public and, as much as possible, protect the citizenry from the bad guys.

But....

When I hear stories like that of Jessie Sansone, my trust in the police is eroded. When I hear of the nonsensical, reflexive, blinkered reaction of police to the mere mention of a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, I question whether or not the police and the state are really on my side, that of a law-abiding citizen who may or may not own a firearm. When I hear about the plight of the late Shafia girls, for whom police did little to nothing out of cultural sensitivity, and juxtapose that against the plight of Mr. Sansone, a white male who -GASP!- might own a firearm, I find myself doubting the objectivity and judgment of police and the wider state apparatuses. When I reflect on other gross injustices, such as the two-tier injustice we know as Caledonia, I wonder if I am teaching my kids the honest truth about the relationship between police, the wider state, and the law-abiding non-minority Canadian citizens.

Each time a law-abiding citizen is presumed by the state to be guilty and compelled to prove their innocence I lose a little more trust in the relationship between the law-abiding the the state. In the case of Mr. Sansone, the education system, the family and community services system and the police -- all arms of the state -- let him down. With a few simple questions via phone or in person at any juncture along the way this entire episode could have been avoided. But, no. Instead the state when into reflex mode, shut off all brain activity, stopped thinking, stopped asking questions, stopped presuming innocence, and just ran roughshod over the rights of a law-abiding citizen.  

Because it could.

It's the last part that I see as the big problem exposed by Mr. Sansone's story. The state did not have to get a warrant, did not have to demonstrate just cause, did not have to presume anyone's innocence, did not have to question, did not have to call, did not have to discuss. They had full authority to enter the man's home, search his belongings, remove his children, put them in custody of the state, compel his wife to answer questions, detain and strip search him. All based on presumptions stemming from an asinine, politically-correct, myopic interpretation of a childhood drawing.

That, my friends, is wrong. From start to finish, it is wrong.

Yet nobody from the state is apologizing. Because they don't think any wrong has been done.

Therein lies the disconnect between Canadian common sense and the politically-correct over-empowered State apparatchiks, whose distrust of the law-abiding is palpable and complete.

And to think that I am moving to Ontario and will probably put my kids in public school. Ye gods.

Supersize Me

It's hard to know what's worse: a woman who thinks morbid obesity is generally attractive to men, or a single mother whose myopic and ironically dwarfed goal will soon render her unable to move and thus participate fully in the lives of her teenage sons, or an unemployed person living on disability income and/or public dole (I presume) who can purposely buy and eat so much food as to reach 1500lbs and beyond. Where else but in the West?

What I do know is the combination of all three is appalling.

Obese model Susanne Eman is saying 'Supersize Me' for real - in her bid to become the fattest woman ever.

The 52-stone bombshell aims to reach a whopping 115 stone, or 1,600lb, by guzzling at least 20,000 calories a day.

Susanne, 32, from Arizona, USA, hopes to pass the half-way milestone of 57 stones by the end of the year.

The libertarian in me wants to say "go ahead, lady, eat what you want, check out of your sons' lives, and die before your time. It's your call. Just do it on your own dime, not mine." (Yes, I know she lives in Arizona, so it's not really my dime. But it is somebody's.)

But then the Dad in me screams in disgust at the selfishness of this single mother, blithely squandering the opportunity to push her sons higher, farther, upward. The picture of the boys on the couch next to their engorged mother is shocking. She's smiling. They aren't. Gee, I wonder why?

Could it be THEY aren't as excited about their mother purposely getting incredibly fat? Could it be that they know perfectly well what their mother's dream means for them through their teen years -- tending on her hand and foot as she becomes immobile, arranging for her cleanings, looking out to themselves for meals, laundry, house cleaning, etc. not to mention watching their mother slowly eat herself to death? Could it be they aren't entirely thrilled with their mother literally eating their college education funds? Could it be they are exhausted from the mercilessly precise taunts of other youths who know their mom is enormous and trying to become gargantuan? Could it be they don't subscribe to the abnormal perspectives of her 'Super Size Big Beautiful Women' fan base and support group?

I suspect it is all these and more. It could very well be they are just numb to the inanity of it all.

What an absolute human tragedy on every angle, or, should I say, curve.

No place for religion in Quebec schools

Excepting the Cult of Gaia, of course.

Is the cult of environmentalism now so zealous and pernicious that it has come to this – a six-year-old Quebec kindergartener is punished for bringing a sandwich to school in a plastic bag? What’s next, suspending him for using a nightlight that has an incandescent bulb rather than a compact fluorescent one? [...]

Recently, Felix began crying when his mom went to pack his lunch in a resealable plastic bag. When asked what the trouble was, Felix told his parents that his kindergarten class had had a draw for a stuffed toy, but that he had been excluded from the contest because his teacher had found a plastic sandwich bag in his lunch kit. So he pleaded with his mom not to make him an enviro-criminal again.

For the record....

Educational curriculum always promulgates a set of beliefs and ideals, subtly, in most cases, and incessantly, year over year over year. There is always an indisputable dogma being promoted and reinforced. Educators themselves are hardly objective. Except for the scattered "rogue" teacher, they promote and enforce the cultural, religious and sociological ideals of the system in lockstep. Breaking the mold makes you a troublemaker and is a surefire way to crimp your status with the school administration and hinder your advancement through the union ranks. If you're not a believer, if you're not "with the program," then you're in for a rough ride.

And so it is that in Quebec public schools, while organized religious activities of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc., are considered verboten outside of some sort of innocuous World Religion and Ethics course, a totalitarian environmentalist program can be implemented at a school-wide level with compliance rewarded and non-compliance punished down to the youngest child.

Similarly, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is poised to "take over" all education curriculum, including that of private and home schools, according to the Family Coalition Party of Ontario.

The question is not whether or not any credo will be taught to the next generation as much as it is which one(s) will be taught.

"Why the left hates Sarah Palin"

Until now, I have contended that Sarah Palin would be positively portrayed from coast to coast to coast in the media if she simply became a member of the DNC.

I have learned that I am wrong. Not only is it logically impossible for Palin to belong to the party of the neo-liberals, she would continue to be hated even if she was a Democrat because of who she is.

Via SDA, Evan Sayet offers a very interesting perspective on the reasons behind the left's blind hatred of Sarah Palin. The main thesis:

... what is it about Ms. Palin’s life story that generates this blind loathing?  The answer is that, at every turn, Ms. Palin’s story debunks the myths of victimization and self-centeredness that is at the heart of the modern liberal ideology.

Update 1: I almost forgot. The whole "blood libel" brouhaha. The Jews do not own that term. They have been victims of the promulgation of multiple blood libels, true, but blood libel as a term or concept is not verboten because Jews have been victimized by it. The term blood libel can be reasonably and logically applied whenever a person or a people group are falsely accused of a ritualistic murder of children.

Sarah Palin has been falsely accused of being an accessory to the murder of innocent people in Arizona, one of whom was a precious 9-year-old innocent girl, Christina Green. The only point on which one could therefore possibly dispute Palin's usage of the term blood libel is in regards to ritual. In all other respects, her usage of the term is accurate both historically and by definition.

Update 2: Another insightful view by "recovering liberal" Robin of Berkeley, who adds real life application and experience to the reasons expounded by Sayet. Hat tip again to SDA.

I've always wondered why Barbara was chosen to be tortured, and not a nerdy girl instead.  But after beholding the horrible treatment of Sarah Palin, I finally understand: Barb was a sweet and happy and innocent child.  The leaders of [our summer camp] pack wanted to knock her down from her high horse. [...]

... there's a darker reason for the abject hatred of Palin, and the clues can be found in that Catskill Mountains bunk.  Because evil can manifest when people project their own badness and shame onto another.

People on the left hate Palin for one simple reason: because she is everything they are not.  She is their polar opposite because her life journey has diverged from the prescribed liberal path. 

Update 3: James Taranto, WSJ. Neo-liberal women hate Sarah Palin because

a) she is beautiful,
b) "she has risen above her station" without following the feminist liberal line or attending an Ivy League school or compromising her values, and
c) she does not support abortion.

If only Palin was rank, held an MBA from Harvard, slept with a couple profs or execs to punch through the glass ceiling, forced her unwed daughter to have an abortion and just flushed her defective Trig, they would love her. Which is precisely what Robin of Berkeley is saying.

I am a violent parent

... so saith leftist nutbar Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette. Ezra Levant, ripping her a new one:

Celine Hervieux-Payette has introduced bill S-204 that, if passed into law, would expose parents to assault charges for spanking a child, QMI Agency's Brian Lilley reports.

She would repeal Criminal Code section 43, which protects parents and teachers "using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child," as long as that force is "reasonable under the circumstances." [...]

The Supreme Court of Canada is liberal, especially on social issues. You've got to go to the hard left the anti-parent left, the government-is-your-nanny left to be further left than they are.

Which Hervieux-Payette certainly is.

She's the same senator who wants a law forcing Canadian companies to have 50% of their directors be women.

It's not surprising that someone who thinks the government is a better parent than actual parents are, also thinks the government is better at running businesses than actual businesses are.

So what would Hervieux-Payette's enlightened Canada look like? Her speech promoting her bill is revealing.

Canadian parents who spank, even in accordance with the Supreme Court's rule about gentleness, are "violent," she says.

I have but one statement and one question.

The statement is for Mme. Hervieux-Payette: PISS OFF!

The question is for everyone: When are we going to call on government to allow the election and turfing of Senators?