Holding true to its motto of misrepresenting all the news that's fit to print, the Post saves a few bucks by dipping into its pool of excitable, wanky bloggers to tab the one known as "Raphael Alexander," who does to journalism what a couple of banjo players once did to Ned Beatty:
What Ms. Evans said is something very close to my own heart. My own family sacrifices a great deal in order for my wife to stay at home full-time to raise our two young children. Her earning potential is at least as great as mine, and together we could probably afford a home, more savings, more investment, and more long-term security. But we didn’t want to leave our children with people in a daycare, or have their formative years shaped by people hired to look after them. That was a personal decision we made, and we’re happy with the results. Our kids are very well bonded with their mother, and they are very happy and secure.
Gosh, Ralphie, that's an eloquent defense, and it would almost make me feel charitable, except for the fact that it's crap. Evans wasn't simply extolling the virtues of having a stay-at-home parent -- she was explicitly demeaning and denigrating those couples who opted for a different choice. Let me refresh your memory, Raph, you insufferable twit (emphasis towel-smackingly added):
'Raising children properly' requires stay-at-home parent: Alberta minister
Alberta's Liberal leader is demanding an apology from Finance Minister Iris Evans, who suggested that in order to raise children "properly" one parent should stay at home while the other goes to work...
"They've understood perfectly well that when you're raising children, you don't both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise," Evans said...
See what's happening there, Raph? She's out-and-out dissing those parents who, for whatever reason, might both need to bring home the bacon as it were. Ah, but such distinctions are lost on "Raphael Alexander," who continues his noble defense by, well, lying about what Evans said:
That isn’t to say that we know whether our choice was the right one. That’s the beauty of personal choice; it isn’t a “debate” as Ms. Evans said on Friday when she apologized for starting a controversy with parents arguing what is ultimately best for their kids. The fact is that there is no right answer that would be satisfactory to end such a debate. Nobody knows what the absolute best thing is when raising children, which is why parents often make decisions that they feel is best for them, and for them alone. Nobody else can make the decisions but the parents.
Quite so, Raph -- the beauty of "choice" -- which is precisely what Evans wasn't acknowledging when she slagged one choice while praising another. And, sadly, "Raphael" continues his eye-rolling dumbassitude right to the very end of his journalistically fecal-smeared contribution to public discourse by yammering on about the beauty of "choice" that Evans never uttered:
My wife deserves the freedom of choice to raise our children in the way Ms. Evans spoke of, and doesn’t have an obligation to answer to anyone but the needs of her family.
That would be such an eloquent and touching finish, Raph, if it were not for the fact that you're full of shit and are carefully avoiding what Evans actually said. But let's not be too hard on "Raphael." This is, after all, the National Post, and we all know what that means. Journalistic integrity optional. Or just plain discouraged.
AFTERSNARK: Unsurprisingly, regular comments section cementhead "Sassylassie" brings her own brand of crazy:
Any opinion that doesn't parrot the twisted ideology of the left is condoned as intolerant. On the upside we've seen how the minority leftwingers respect free speech, they don't if you espouse something that doesn't 'mirror their twisted dogma of "It takes a village to raise a child". Of course they never asked society if we wanted to be burdened with their brats.
And by "twisted ideology of the left," I believe Sassylassie means "basic literacy." But that's just a guess.
LET THE FUN BEGIN: Why, yes, I did leave that comment that just appeared on that Full Comment piece. Now let's watch how quickly its contents are distorted and misrepresented, and how quickly the strawmen are dragged out and flayed mercilessly. You know it's coming.
WELL, THAT DIDN'T LAST LONG: It was up and, less than five minutes later, it was gone. Not quite the journalistic profile in courage you were looking for, was it?
I don't see a problem. Do you see a problem?
OH, WAIT ... suddenly it's back. I see massive entertainment value in all of this.