Friday , October 30 2020
Home / Eric Peters /A Maverick, Literally

A Maverick, Literally

Summary:
And the children shall lead us – since the adults, apparently, won’t. One such is 17-year-old Maverick Stow of Long Island, NY. He decided to lead by example – and go back to school. In person rather than virtual – because he’s sick of being treated as if he might be sick by people who are sick in the head. Stow showed up for class – and was promptly suspended, for a year. He has been excluded from his senior prom as well as graduation. He also was arrested by Suffolk County police, who have stopped arresting criminals and now arrest kids for showing up to school – and  failing to pretend they are sick. The school says it has a “zero tolerance” policy for “unauthorized people trying to enter our buildings to disrupt the

Topics:
Eric Peters considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Tyler Durden writes China’s Central Bank Poised To Legalize Digital Yuan As Part Of Sovereign Fiat Currency

Tyler Durden writes Smith: A Biden Presidency Will Mean A Faster US Collapse

Tyler Durden writes Apartment Prices Are Crashing In Major Cities Worldwide

Tyler Durden writes Welcome To COVID-World

And the children shall lead us – since the adults, apparently, won’t.

One such is 17-year-old Maverick Stow of Long Island, NY. He decided to lead by example – and go back to school. In person rather than virtual – because he’s sick of being treated as if he might be sick by people who are sick in the head.

Stow showed up for class – and was promptly suspended, for a year. He has been excluded from his senior prom as well as graduation. He also was arrested by Suffolk County police, who have stopped arresting criminals and now arrest kids for showing up to school – and  failing to pretend they are sick.

The school says it has a “zero tolerance” policy for “unauthorized people trying to enter our buildings to disrupt the educational process and/or to potentially cause an unsafe environment for our students and staff.”

So many italics added. Where to begin?

How about with all these possessives? Our buildings? Aren’t public schools public property, Herr (or is it Frau) Gesundheitsfuhrer? They are certainly paid for by the public, which  includes Stow’s parents – who haven’t got a say as far as whether to not pay for buildings their kids are forbidden to enter by those who control them.

Perhaps the Stow family is due a refund?

And our students? Interesting that the Herr/Frau Gesundheitsfuhrers also regard the humans they control as their property, too.

Aber, the most loathsome italicized thing is this business of sanctioning kids who are potentially unsafe.  An assertion which cannot be disproved since anyone – kid or adult – is potentially practically anything. It is a sentence of guilt without even the possibility of establishing innocence – which is the glowing radioactive core of this WuFlu hysteria.

Also italicized – to make the point that punishing anyone on the basis of assertions is a pretty solid working definition of “hysteria.”

Stow isn’t sick. No one has even accused him of being sick. His actual health status is immaterial.  It is apparently sufficient to assert that he might be sick to punish him for refusing to pretend he is sick. Consider what this implies – in principle – if it is allowed to be established as the “new normal” for restricting and punishing people.

Wait. It has already been established as the basis for restricting and punishing people. Many examples, but here are a few:

Someone – it doesn’t have to be anyone specific; indeed, the absence of specificity is entirely the point – might use a gun to shoot up a school. People who never shot up anything (well, other than a paper target at a shooting range) are restricted and punished because the potential exists that they might shoot up something other than a paper target.

You go to an airport. You’ve never been to a jihadi training camp. You aren’t wearing a hijab much less a dynamite corset. But because it is asserted that the potential exists that you might be a “trrrist” – something that requires no proof at all – you are treated as such.

You are out driving – and forced to stop – not because you broke any law or gave any reason to suspect you might be so inclined. Your presence on the road requires you to prove you are not “drunk” – based on the potential that someone might be.

In the last two cases, at least, one can avoid punishment by proving one’s innocence (as opposed to the former standard of it being the obligation of the accuser to prove guilt before imposing punishment). You pass the “drunk” test – and you’re free to continue driving.

You let them jiggle your junk, you are free to board the airplane.

Eric Peters
Eric Peters is a freelance car/bike/political columnist. He escaped the corporate-owned media Big Boys years ago. Without the censorship of the corporate tools

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *