Oh Canada...

Now that our "historic" election is over (and people have mostly forgotten about what sort of change we are hoping to believe in) it might be nice to poke fun at a few other countries who are also making themselves appear rather silly. I happened upon two news items from my lovely neighbors to the north.

The first one is really quite absurd. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are "functionally disabled by obesity" have a right to two seats (or more?) for the price of one fare. So where do we begin? I didn't know that being obese meant one automatically had more "rights." Do people who are obese also have the right not to pay more for food? Or are they entitled to a larger house or vehicle to accommodate their disability? If obese people have this right, what about very tall people? Surely they are just as uncomfortable squeezing into a single seat - they really could use the whole row. What about people with kids? Why stop at one seat - families with young children must have a right to the whole plane! Right?

The right to a free airline seat certainly isn't an inalienable right. If the Canadian government wants certain people to have additional legal rights, then so be it. It will be interesting to see what sort of rights will magically appear next...

And speaking of rights, the Canadian government seems just as happy to take them away. Students at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario will now have to be much more careful of what they say and to whom they say it.

"The Kingston university has hired student facilitators to step in when they overhear homophobic slurs, remarks bashing women or racially tinged insults, along with an array of other language that could be deemed offensive."

Who decides what is offensive? Apparently the facilitators were trained, but it seems like the policies they follow could be changed on a whim. I would guess that making comments about someone being obese would fall under the "array" of language that could be offensive. Where does it end? At least some of the students have concerns about this new initiative.

" "Having a program like this in place could stifle public discussion if people are worried their private conversations are being monitored," said Angela Hickman, managing editor of the Queen's Journal, a campus newspaper."

If I were a student at any university with a policy like this, I would be very concerned about what could happen if you say anything remotely offensive. Which of your classmates could you trust? What if your friends enjoy the (artificial) power it gives them to report something they heard to a facilitator? Notice the article made no mention of what happens to students who refuse to change the way in which they speak.

Well, at least Canada gave us hockey and Wendy.

School Choice? No you can't

I have been thinking quite a lot about where (and if) my son will attend school next year. I have always had a positive opinion of homeschooling even though I only began to seriously consider the issue in the last two years. As someone who doesn't believe the state has any business in education, I will not be sending my children to public school. Ever. There is an excellent private school nearby and a thriving local homeschooling community so I am happy to pursue either of those options

What happens when families don't have a choice? What if the state regulations for homeschooling are too burdensome? What if there are no private schools or if private school tuition is too expensive? What if the local public schools are horrible, boring, unsafe, etc.?

If we want to have more choice in how our children are educated, then we need to allow competition. The massive public school system in this country is exactly the opposite of a market-based competitive system. It will exist no matter how poor of a product it produces.

Which brings me to why I wrote this post in the first place. Our president-elect does not support school choice - at least not for your family:

"Which is to say that Obama (as he has already demonstrated via his own kids) is in favor of school choice, at least when it comes to his family (he has said a variety of phoney-baloney platitudes about not "walking away" from public schools and creating more charters, etc.)"

The next administration not only doesn't support school choice, but in reality won't change anything from our current failing system:

"It is tragic to see Senator Obama clinging to the failed approaches of the past, and ironic that his education platform so closely resembles that of President Bush. For, despite his protestations to the contrary, Obama's calls for massive spending increases on existing programs look like nothing so much as a third Bush term."

On a related note, there is a new grassroots effort to support real education reform. I think efforts of this type will produce the much needed change that our kids can actually believe in.

Remember, remember...

On this day one year ago, Ron Paul made history by raising over $4.2 million in one day, making it at that time the largest one-day Internet political fundraiser ever.

Can anyone blame me for having some hope (real hope, not the Obama brand) for our Republic one year ago?

Happy Guy Fawkes Night! It seems like a good night to watch this of course...

Don't blame me - I didn't vote

For the first time since I have been eligible to vote in a presidential election, I did not vote for president. After weeks of careful consideration, I chose not to vote for any of the candidates listed on the ballot (there were 4 to choose from) nor did I write-in a candidate.

A simple answer to the question of "Why not?" would be "There was no one I believed capable of holding the office of President of our country as defined by the Constitution." The longer answer includes the fact that I am disgusted with politics, especially on the federal level, and that my vote doesn't really make a difference. If you have doubts as to whether your vote truly counts, then read this.

"By not voting people can “signal” to others their disapproval of a system that allows one person (or group) to gain at the expense of another."

In a way, my not voting was a protest against the fact that I really had no choice. A vote for Obama is a vote for wealth-redistribution and an interventionist foreign policy. A vote for McCain is a vote for censorship and an interventionist foreign policy.

As for the two Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot, I don't believe that Bob Barr will follow the principles of the Libertarian Party platform based on his prior voting record. As for George Phillies, I know little about him but I no longer trust the Libertarian Party to produce honest candidates. Essentially, Bob Barr cost George Phillies my vote. Not that it matters...

I did however vote for state and local candidates. Ballot access is an important issue and a Libertarian candidate receiving 4% of the vote would allow them future access to the ballot without the unfair and time-consuming process of petitioning. I believe that change (the real kind, not the Obama brand) happens by educating people at the local level. I hope to lead by example and encourage others to pay attention to their representatives and hold them accountable. After all, this election isn't historic and isn't about Obama, but rather about taking responsibility for yourself and how you wish to be governed.

About Housewifeistan

I have been meaning to start a blog for some time as I greatly enjoy reading the many blogs available on the internets. It seems only right to add my contribution, at least until I start writing.

I plan to focus on specific issues closely related to my current occupation as a housewife: parental rights, health care, men's rights, educational freedom, economics, foreign policy, anarchy... Well, I will try to stick to a somewhat smaller range of topics but there are so many terrifying (albeit interesting) events occurring right now that it will be difficult to narrow it down to just a few.

I would like to give credit to my husband for helping me name this blog. I was first inspired by the term "Trashcanistan" from P.J. O'Rourke's "Eat the Rich". The citizens of my country are all firm believers in limited government and the free-market (well, I have yet to get a clear answer from my 2.5 year-old daughter) so hopefully the problems plaguing those other countries will stay in...those other countries. Welcome to Housewifeistan where Big Brother isn't very big and the women are armed.