Casey Anthony : The Poster-Child for Progressive Politics
Well.
Yesterday, I'm sitting in court waiting for my client's matter to be called up.
And as I sit there, a matter comes before the Judge where a woman is seeking to avoid paying court ordered child support for her two children living with their father.
And - as I look back in the gallery - I see her. Looking all "cougar-chic" in her workout wear - I'd peg her in her early-30's.
So.
Anyway.
Here's the thing.
She has two children, and then leaves a marriage, leaving the children in the full-time care of their father. Which is fine. Maybe - as it becomes apparent - it's in their best interests.
But the problem is, she doesn't want to provide reasonable support for her children and she wants relief from arrears of support that have accumulated.
Why?
Well - as the story is provided to the court - it becomes apparent that shortly after leaving her two children, paying relatively marginal support as it was, she entered into another relationship, had another baby, and then quickly left that child's father too - because of "serious domestic abuse".
And so, as the sad tale goes, she finds herself residing full-time in a women's shelter - and, according to her lawyer, "is not allowed to have a job" for the next 6 months as a condition of her living there.
So - she can't pay support you see, because she is on social assistance.
Really.
Lady - you brought two children into this world - and as it was, you weren't providing reasonably for their financial needs - and decided to get into an ill-conceived relationship with an apparently abusive boyfriend, and, to make everything a little bit better, you decided to have ANOTHER child that you can't afford to support.
Lovely.
THIS is what progressive politics breeds. Literally.
Consider for a moment:
- She was in court with a free lawyer;
- After giving birth to two children - she not only was not out seeking to improve her ability to support them - she engaged in an ill-considered relationship with another idiot, and made yet another baby that she has no apparent ability to support.
- She is living on social assistance, and has brought another child in the world who is also being supported on social assistance.
- She's living in a residence subsidized by others.
- She's coming to court - using tax-payer funded facilities - judges, clerks, court room and all - seeking to utilize those facilities to help her avoid her financial responsibilities for her oldest two children.
- And - one assumes - she will be seeking yet further subsized legal assistance, and court services - and then government-paid-for Maintenance Enforcement to collect support from father #2.
What's wrong with this picture?
And who gets to pay for this?
Mostly average Canadians. The people who DO hold down jobs, the people who DO support their own children, the people who DO NOT regularly go to Court and use up government resources to help them avoid the direct consequences of their own poorly-considered choices.
Pathetic.
And if the theories of Pavlov and Skinner have any validity at all - society is effectively conditioning us towards worse behavior.
When people do the "right things" - IE) support themselves and their families - they receive no reward from our broader society - not even a little pat on the back or a thank-you.
When people do the "wrong things" - IE) refuse to support themselves and their families - they receive untold benefits from the broader society.
It almost seems like a sucker-play to to the "right thing" - except for this pesky thing called "integrity" and "self-respect". Of course - in the drive to make sure that there are no "losers" in the rat-race called life - progressives are doing their best to assure that we water-down the impact of these factors as well.
Lest we look down at middle-aged cougars messing up their lives at OUR expense.
People like, oh, say, Casey Anthony.
I mean - she's someone's child. Have some compassion.