Internet. For those who didn't notice, here is a brief summary.
A mother sent lunch to school with her four year old
daughter. The lunch inspectors discovered the ticking time
bomb. The lunch consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich,
banana, potato chips, and apple juice. An inspector pounced on
the lunch that didn't meet U.S. Department of Agriculture
guidelines, as interpreted by the inspector.
Perhaps the nutritionally challenged will fail to instantly
grasp what was wrong with the lunch. Didn't you notice that the
lunch was minus a vegetable? Every meal should include a
vegetable. Did you have your vegetable for breakfast today?
The "lunch police" swung into action. They weren't
authorized to seize the dangerous lunch. They did the next best
thing by providing a second lunch to supplement the defective
one. How do two lunches square with the government's
campaign against obesity? And, to think that some people claim
MacDonalds is tricking people into eating too much food. When
was the last time MacDonalds forced a lunch onto a four year
old?
Did the girl eat her second lunch? Well, sort of. She ate
the chicken nuggets. I assume everyone knows that chicken is
one of our most nutritious and important vegetables.
Still, the neglectful mother must be punished. The school
billed her $1.25 for the lunch. The ingrate, and others,
complained so loudly that the school canceled the charge. Does
this prove that there really is a free lunch, provided you don't
want it? It doesn't if you are a taxpayer.
This incident annoyed me. It didn't surprise me. It is
consistent with the way government control of our lives has been
growing for ages. Why would government that controls what
goes into children's minds shrink from controlling what goes into
their stomachs?
School personnel in that great bastion of liberty to our
north (I don't mean Russia) also lie awake nights scheming how
to protect children from their neglectful and incompetent parents.
The protectors at Forest Hill public school near
Kitchnener go to the head of the class. When Jessie Sansone
arrived at the school to pick up his children he was called to the
principal's office. Three police officers informed him he was
being charged with possession of a firearm. Then he was
escorted out of the school, hand cuffed and locked in the back of
a police car. Later the father was strip searched.
The article doesn't explain why this depraved and
dangerous man was allowed inside the school. Why didn't they
call a swat team to hurl him to the side walk and subdue him
when he stepped from his vehicle? Why did the police wait
until they reach the police station to search for weapons?
How did the police know the father possessed a firearm?
School employees tipped off the police. How did the school
employees know? Well, they didn't. They only had compelling
evidence.
Exhibit A was a picture drawn by the father's four year
old daughter. Maybe school people have a thing about four year
olds. Should I attempt to describe the picture in a family
publication? I must. The four year old drew a picture of a, a. .
. Do I have to say it? Yes, I do. Sensitive individuals and
those with heart conditions may wish to stop at this point. She
drew a gun, a picture of a gun.
To the school Gestapo this meant that the father
possessed a gun at home. That gun was a threat to the safety of
his children. By the way, the government seized the children for
their safety and to interrogate them.
When the police searched the home what kinds of guns
did they find? Only invisible and imaginary ones. The abuse
and humiliation of the father and his children were all based on
the imagination of a four year old, and perpetrated by adults who
didn't have the common sense of a four year old.
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2012
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284
No comments:
Post a Comment