Tel-Chai Nation

Sometimes, it seems to me as though some leftists are astoundingly incapable of congratulating someone for having the bravery to stand up and do what they feel is the right thing. I'm going to give at least two examples here of some who're like that.

First, there's the Detroit News, once a respectable newspaper but now a low-grade propaganda machine, which wrote a sob story for Jay Bennish, yet at the same time turned its back on who should be the real hero, Sean Allen, the dude who taped him doing his no-goodnik classroom activities. As Debbie Schlussel said at the time, the newspaper "reported" that Bennish's parents supposedly got threat calls, but how they even knew just where they lived is the question that goes unanswered here. Oh, and where are the phone transcripts to back up the father's allegations?

The courageous student, Sean Allen, who taped that jerk in his bad behavior, gets but a very minor mention at the end of the article, about how people are threatening him. I should hope that the school did provide for his protection if needed. But there's one example of leftists who'd rather honor a Chomskyite for his actions rather than to congratulate the hero who blew the whistle on him.

The next example here is a ludicrous writer for Reason magazine named Julian Sanchez, who five years ago attacked a 17-year old for turning in the would-be father who was growing crack plants. Seeing that the article he commented on happens to be from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a paper serving a moonbat area, that's all the more reason why I have to question just how well this was done. But I think the following does give a clue just what kind of danger may have lurked around the corner because of the father's stupidity:

He thought marijuana growing was taking over his father's life. Instead of spending time doing things with the family, his father tended to his plants -- moving the pots around and watering. He said that on two occasions, people visited the house on account of the marijuana.

I wonder, were they potential buyers? Or even possible creeps 'n characters who wanted to celebrate a party with dope? That's what the newspaper doesn't really get into here. And I wouldn't be surprised if the following were just meant to discredit the poor guy's motivations for turning in the awful father:

There were other conflicts. He thought his father paid attention to his sister's accomplishments, while ignoring his own. And he thought his ROTC courses, which were based on Marine Corps leadership training, put him at odds with his ex-Army father "on different military perspectives."

So, is that it? They were trying to make it look as though his decision was less than altruistic? Or were they trying to attack his aspirations to enroll in the USAF? Please. Besides that, it looks pretty awkward when you consider what's told about the father spending more time with poisonous plants than with the family.

Then, what does young master Sanchez say about this?

...this is just atrocious. Some 17 year old pissant just set his own father up for 5 years in jail for the crime of growing dope.

My my, he sure does have a raw tongue there, doesn't he. Seems he wanted to believe what the article said, and to make matters worse, he implied that he favors poisonous drugs. At the very least, he could've acknowledged the fact that the father was doing it without a license. It could've been plants used for making legal drugs, and aside from the fact that even legal drugs can be dangerous without a prescription and moderation, it's against the law to manufacture even legal medicine drugs without a license. Something that many pro-cannabis buffoons don't even seem to discuss.

The worst part is that it comes out all too clearly in the article that the kid was just doing it for attention. He felt neglected by dad, who he said paid more attention to his sister's accomplishments. Worse, he blathers on about how he was inspired to do it by his ROTC classes and The Red Badge of Courage. Not because either had a particularly strong anti-drug message, but because they made a big deal of bravery, and golly did little Trever feel "heroic" (as he told the interviewer) when he turned in ol' dad.

Which begs the question: when were fathers of specific people suddenly above the law? Does that mean that if someone's father had committed aggravated assault of an innocent civilian and stolen their money, they shouldn't report them for that either?

And is bravery a bad thing? Does that mean that if Sanchez had discovered some terrorists operating in his neighborhood that he wouldn't report them? Boy, now is this setting a good example!

Maybe, if he'd had some coherent principled objection to pot, that would be applicable, giving his loathesome act some minute glimmer of nobility.

"Loathsome"? Go jump in the lake, bozo.

..."it's illegal" is about as far as his analysis got. Oh, and kids -- his siblings -- shouldn't have to grow up around drugs. Well, maybe heroin, but pot? Why? Apparently, because twice some of dad's buddies stopped by for dope. I'm sure the kids were scarred for life... whereas having dad locked away in prison couldn't possibly do them any harm.

In other words, he's saying that the illegality of growing crack alone isn't enough of an argument, and that the guy's siblings didn't deserve protection from something awful lurking around the corner? Sanchez clearly knows no shame, and I doubt he's changed much now. What if the "buddies" ended up going violent and attacking the children while they were there? And it seems that some people like Sanchez seem to think that because cannabis isn't as harmful as heroin that that alone makes it worthy of legalization. Sorry, but there have been people whose minds have been sent into tailspin by marijuana, much worse than what alcohol can do, even if they don't end up in a hospital as quickly as they could by gobbling cocaine.

Reason magazine deserves much better than this awful writer, if they're still employing him.

Labels: Moonbattery