Sex Clubs are OK, Milk Clubs Must Be Eliminated! Bureaucratic Madness Over a Drink of Raw Milk

It is legal in Canada to drink raw milk from your own cow, but not to sell it to anyone else. Heroin injections sites are legal in Canada. Private sex clubs are legal. Killing your unborn child is legal. But the nanny state is out to clamp down on those evil milk pushers!

Michael Schmidt is an Ontario farmer who has set up a business in which people buy shares in his dairy herd and then they get raw milk from the herd. Some people who are informed adults wish to drink raw milk. What on earth is wrong with that?

Plenty says the Ontario court of appeal. After being acquited by a judge, the Province appealed and now Mr. Schmidt has had his acquittal overturned.

Go here and see Ezra Levant interview Michael Schmidt.

You will notice his German accent. Toward the end of the interview Levant asks why Schmidt has fought for his rights for 17 years and Schmidt tells him that he grew up in Germany during World War II and saw the government take away individual rights. After the war Schmidt asked his parents and others what had gone wrong and he concluded that people need to stand up to the government whenever individual liberties are curtailed needlessly.

My hat is off to Michael Schmidt as he continues the fight. He will appeal and, God willing, he will win. It is time to fire the nanny.

It Can't Happen Here - Can It?

I can't believe this story is true, but it seems to be factually accurate so far. I want to hear more information. But on the surface this looks like America is a lot closer to a ruthless police state than anyone could have ever imagined.

News 10 in Stockton, California, an ABC affiliate, reports that a SWAT team from the Department of Education broke down the door of a Stockton man's house at 6 am on Tuesday morning and held him captive for 6 hours in a police car in his underwear. They were looking for his estranged wife (who wasn't even there) because of something to do with unpaid student loans. Here is part of the story from the ABC News 10 website:

STOCKTON, CA - Kenneth Wright does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 a.m. on Tuesday.

"I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers," Wright said.

Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts as the officers team barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.

"He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.

According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children ages 3, 7, and 11, and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.

As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for was not there - Wright's estranged wife.

"They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids," Wright said.

Wright said he later went to the mayor and Stockton Police Department, but the city of Stockton had nothing to do with Wright's search warrant.

The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans.

"They busted down my door for this," Wright said. "It wasn't even me."

Wow! Go here to see the TV report. The Department of Education apparently has confirmed that they did this but they are refusing to explain.

Things that are shocking:

1. The Department of Education has a SWAT team?
2. The government carries out home invasions over debt collection?
3. The national news media is not all over this story like flies on honey?

Maybe there will be a public outcry and a thorough investigation. Maybe heads will roll and high up officials in the Department of Education will be forced to explain what is going on.

Or maybe Obama will say it is all Bush's fault and the media will give it a pass.

You might want to note Kenneth Wright's skin color. Let's see how the Democratic appointee who heads the Department of Education, Arne Duncan, responds. I hope with outrage and decisive action. Is this administration on the side of black Americans or just left-wing black Americans?

If the facts are as they have been reported, I also hope Mr. Wright sues the Government and gets lots of free legal help. We shall see.

Why the Tea Party Gives Hope to a Brit and a Canadian

Here is a great post from James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph. Here is a Brit whose feelings I resonate with as a Canadian. The United States of America is not just a country; it is the embodiment of the best of Western political ideals and the home of liberty.

As Daniel Hannan, another conservative Brit, would be quick to point out: the American Revolution was a conservative revolution in favor of ideals of English freedom which were under attack by an out of touch elite. America represents the hope we all have for Western civilization and it is no wonder that the enemies of the West hate Israel and America above all.

Delingpole writes in his post "Only the Tea Party Can Save Us Now":

Arriving back at Heathrow late on Sunday night I felt – as you do on returning to Britain these days – as if I were entering a failed state. It’s not just the Third World shabbiness which is so dispiriting. It’s the knowledge that from its surveillance cameras to its tax regime, from its (mostly) EU-inspired regulations to its whole attitude to the role of government, Britain is a country which has forgotten what it means to be free.

God how I wish I were American right now. In the US they may not have the Cairngorms, the River Wye, cream teas, University Challenge, Cotswold villages or decent curries. But they do still understand the principles of “don’t tread on me” and “live free or die.” Not all of them, obviously – otherwise a socialist like Barack Obama would never have got into power. But enough of them to understand that in the last 80 or more years – and not just in the US but throughout the Western world – government has forgotten its purpose. It has now grown so arrogant and swollen as to believe its job is to shape and improve and generally interfere with our lives. And it’s not. Government’s job is to act as our humble servant.

What’s terrifying is how few of us there are left anywhere in the supposedly free world who properly appreciate this.

Delingpole laments the degradation of the once proud British Conservative Party into a party that merely advocates socialist decline more gradually.

Rarely have I felt more despondent about the world’s future than I do right now, Britain’s especially. At least when Blair and Brown were in charge, busily ruining things, there was always the consolation that soon would come the backlash which would see a decent, small-state, conservative administration regaining power and the country’s fortunes restored. This hasn’t happened. The similarities between the Eton Grocer’s Coalition and the New Labour government he ousted are far greater than the differences. All are run by a professional political mandarin class in the interests of the professional political mandarin class.

This is not a man who loves a foreign country more than his own; it is a man who sees the best ideals of his own country no longer characterizing his own country but being preserved elsewhere. He concludes:

Sure there’s no comparison (well not that much) between Obama’s US and Stalin’s Soviet Union; Coalition Britain and Mao’s China; Julia Gillard’s Australia and Queen Ranavalona’s Madagascar; sure the war we’re currently fighting doesn’t involve mass destruction like that of World Wars I and II. But it’s precisely because the ideological struggle we’re currently engaged in is so seemingly democratic and innocuous that it is in fact so dangerous. With Hitler and Stalin it was easy: the enemy was plain in view. Today’s encroaching tyranny is an of altogether more subtle, slippery variety. It takes the form of the steady “engrenage” – ratcheting – of EU legislation; of the stealthy removal of property rights and personal liberty under the UN’s Agenda 21; of the eco-legislation created by democratically unaccountable bodies like America’s Environmental Protection Agency; of the stealthy encroachment of the Big Government into the most intimate recesses of our daily lives – not just under barely disguised socialist administrations like Obama’s even under notionally “Centre right” ones such as Cameron’s or Sarkozy’s. When the Enemy is as sly and insidious as that, it’s much much harder for the increasingly oppressed populace to rouse itself to the appropriate state of alarm and rebellion.

That’s why today I say: “Thank God for the Tea Party!” Though it has been typically misrepresented by the liberal media as a rattlers’ nest of gun-toting fruitcakes who want to ban masturbation and abortion, it is, of course, nothing of the kind. It is – whatever the increasingly redundant Moonbat may claim – a genuine grass roots movement inspired by the one great political cause truly worth fighting and dying for: the cause of liberty.

Our ancestors fought and died to preserve Western freedom against the hard totalitarianism of the fascist and communist regimes of the mid twentieth century. But now we, their decadent children, are in mortal danger of surrendering to the soft totalitarianism of the nanny state. But this is to narrowly avoid Animal Farm only to fall into Brave New World.

To my American friends I would say this on election night: you won't realize what riches you had until you suddenly realize they are gone. Don't trade liberty for security; it is not a good deal.

The Federal Government Can Do Anything

Seldom does the totalitarian face of raw, naked power show its contempt for the citizens of the United States of America so openly. Watch this clip of Rep. Pete Stark as he answers a question from a constituent. There are some reasonable answers to her question but he appears not even to be aware of the debates carried on by constitutional law experts and philosophers as to the different schools of constitutional interpretation. And there are political ways to answer this question by appealing to democracy.

But he is either ignorant of the issues or he just plain chooses to answer in the way he does. His words should send a shiver up the spine of any descendant of those Englishmen who wrung the Magna Carta out of King John on June 15, 1215.



HT Michelle Malkin

It is beyond ridiculous to see this kind of politician as a "Progressive" when he is trying to take the country back to the 12th century when kings ruled with no constitutional check on their power. King Barack I and his merry court feels free to ignore the constitution; I think we already knew that. Did he not arrogantly administer a tongue lashing to the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address?

But for a Democrat to sit in a town hall meeting and show this level of contempt for the serfs is astounding. If this attitude does not provoke an electoral backlash then I don't know what would.

Freedom and Equality: Contested Ideas in the Modern World

I find that in talking to people about ethics and politics, there is a lot of fuzzy thinking about certain key concepts. Many people have a vague idea that socialism is about sharing and capitalism is about the strong exploiting the weak and that is about it. Cultural Marxism has so infiltrated our institutions in the contemporary Western world that our Western intellectual heritage is in the process of being overwhelmed. Freedom and equality are two key ideas in modernity that need close definitions.

Freedom #1: There are two very different ideas of freedom abroad today. First, there is the classical/Christian definition of freedom as the ability to realize one's telos, to actualize one's true nature, to attain one's potential. This idea of freedom requires that the rational part of one's being control the appetites so as to direct us toward the goal of becoming all that we can be. Self-discipline, the cultivation of the virtues and practical wisdom are necessary here and, in a Christian perspective, heeding Divine revelation is necessary as well.

Freedom #2: The second idea of freedom is the late-modern degenerate concept of freedom as the ability to do whatever I feel I want to do at the moment: freedom from constraint. This idea of freedom is what is left when political liberalism is practiced in a totally secularized context by a post-Christian culture. Freedom from constraint is highly individualistic and practically indistinguishable from slavery to one's irrational appetites. It is a self-contradictory notion of freedom because it tries to expand personal freedom in such a way as to destroy freedom by allowing the strong to prey upon the weak with no moral constraints.

Equality #1: The first concept of equality is equality before the law, the idea that there is not one law for the rich and another law for the poor, but one law over all. This is the idea of the rule of law, which is seen as more objective than merely the will of the strong. This idea has deep roots in Western culture: in the Old Testament where even the king was under Torah and in republican Rome where all were under the law. The rule of law is incompatible with absolute monarchy or dictatorship.

Equality #2: The second concept of equality is the animating principle of the French Revolution and was formulated by the theoretician of the French Revolution, J. J. Rousseau. This concept of equality sees equality as equality, not of opportunity, but of outcome. It is equality not under the law, but equality of income under the administration of the bureaucratic state. This kind of equality is not found in nature; it must be created by rational, bureaucratic state.

In order to understand modern politics, it is necessary to distinguish clearly between these two sets of ideas. Freedom #1 and Equality #1 are rooted deep within Western culture and are held by conservatives. But Freedom #2 and Equality #2 are held by progressives, the heirs of the French Revolution. Extreme individualism (in the name of Freedom #2) and extreme statism (in the name of Equality) go together. The all-powerful State becomes the only limitation on the social Darwinism in which the strong prey on the weak. Intermediate institutions like the family are seen as ineffective and the State becomes that Protector of the Individual and Guarantor of Freedom and Equality.

What is confusing is that the progressive agenda is often pushed in the name of freedom and equality and Christians rightly believe that equality and freedom are good ideals, so they do not oppose the progressive agenda. But Freedom #2 and Equality #2 lead to statism, slavery and the loss of personhood, whereas Freedom #1 and Equality #2 lead to democratic governance, personal freedom, the rule of law, limited government and free enterprise.

Christians should seek a politics in which Freedom #1 and Equality #1 are the basis of public law. This is not to impose a theocracy, but merely to cultivate a humane and just politics.

Today Europe; Tororrow the World!

Here is the new president of the European Union, Herbert Van Rompuy setting out his agenda. All he wants is "global governance." Notice how he attempts to manipulate his hearers with the politics of fear - the moral of which story is "Don't worry about a thing, big brother (the state) is here to wipe your nose, put you to bed and watch over you."



My son wants to know why I write so much about American politics. One reason is that if I didn't I would have to write more about depressing, statist, refugees from an Aldous Huxley novel like this one.

HT Daniel Hannan

They Said Conservatism Was Dead, So What Happened?

Nile Gardner in the Daily telegraph writes in an article "Conservatism is the Future of America" about what a difference a year makes.

"What a difference a year makes. A year ago, the liberal media in America (i.e. about 90% of the print press) had written off conservatism as dead and buried. An avowedly left-wing president worshipped with almost messianic zeal across much of the world, from Paris to Nairobi, had swept into the White House, bolstered by a Democrat-dominated Congress in both the House and the Senate. The Right appeared broken, divided, and disillusioned, rudderless and leaderless, supposedly the political equivalent of the remnants of Custer’s Last Stand.

One year on, it is the Left that is imploding, weakend by faction-fighting, struggling to keep momentum, and increasingly lacking in self-confidence, led by the least popular American president of the modern era at such an early stage of the presidency. Liberals have been stunningly humbled by three catastrophic defeats in Virginia, Massachusetts and New Jersey, political earthquakes that have transformed the electoral landscape ahead of the November 2010 mid-terms. And worse was to come. Just this week, the White House was stunned by a CNN poll that showed that 52 percent of Americans believe Barack Obama should not be reelected in 2012, a powerful vote of no confidence in a president who’s big government agenda has been overwhelmingly rejected."

Read the rest here.

Barack Obama is now going around whining about the lack of bipartisanship in Washington and blaming Republicans for thwarting his plans to remake America into a European style social democracy. But he had 60 votes in the Senate and a 40 vote majority in the House and he still could not get more than half of his agenda through. The fact that he has to come to grips with (though he shows not signs of doing so) is that his agenda has been stymied by members of his own party.

In other words, it is conservative Democrats, who represent conservative constituencies and who have to be moderate in order to have any chance whatsoever of re-election, who have saved America from Obama's statist ambitions. They did this when the Republicans simply did not have the numbers to do it.

The rest of the world would do well to ponder this reality of American politics. There are simply not enough liberal congressional districts or states in which to elect a liberal majority of lawmakers - regardless of the party label. America is a predominantly conservative country. Let that sink in. It is the liberal media, liberal academia and the liberal elite of America that is in tune with Europe but out of touch with the majority of Americans.

America now stands alone as the only Western nation left which has not repudiated its history, its religion, its traditions and its principles. Those political leaders who believed that America's destiny is to follow Europe into the culture of death and then into a slow but accelerating cultural decline are now faced with becoming yesterday's news. They are losing their grip and soon will lose office.

Oh, the whining and the screaming will be terrible. I suggest that you might want to prepare yourself for the mother of all 60's rebellions. Why, they might occupy an office or two just to bring back memories of the "good old days." Maybe the homosexuals will have a "kiss-in" in front of Liberty University. Or perhaps they will have a march on Washington DC and leave a lot of garbage behind. But in the end, conservatives have nothing to fear from liberals whose bark is worse than their bite because their entire worldview is centered on being comfortable and cool. They may make a lot of noise but they are too preoccupied with free sex, consumerism and organizing children's choirs to sing praises to Obama to actually to make any sacrifices for their cause.

Just as European elites are destined to come under the hard yoke of Islam, so American liberals are destined to live under conservative rule. The American liberals, however, will have by far the easier lot, which means, of course, that their wailing and complaining will be proportionately louder. For American conservatives will respect their rights to free speech and their deviant lifestyles, while European liberals will find themselves facing the tender mercies of Sharia Law. Like the French Revolutionaries who themselves ended up on the guillotine, they will find themselves regretting their anti-Christian and anti-Western activities before the end. But their American liberal cousins will just whine until they die.

The Drive to Abolish Childhood in the UK

From the UK, news that the government is imposing sex education on children as young as 7 years old. Gerald Warner, in his blog at the Daily Telegraph, has a trenchant analysis of the never-ending drive of the Labour government to abolish Christian morals and entrench an ethic that holds promiscuity as the highest good in the UK. He begins:

"The drive to abolish childhood continues apace. The government is ordering “sex education” to be imposed on primary school children from as young as five. The premature sexualisation of children and the encouragement of prurient interest in sexual matters at a tender age has already provoked increasing numbers of underage pregnancies (which the hypocrites enforcing this degenerate agenda claim it is designed to reduce), but still the fanatics persist in destroying what little remains of childhood innocence in this decadent age.

While anti-paedophile hysteria prevents a mother from pushing her own child on a swing in a playground without undergoing criminal record checks, the most widespread child abuse in this country is being perpetrated by the government."

This is indeed systematic, institutionalized child abuse. But he is just getting warmed up. He notes the anti-Christian arrogance:

"A further aggression against conscience is the imposition on faith schools of a duty to teach this rebarbative curriculum. The cosmetic concession is that they may do so within the “tenets of their faith”; but they must impart the factual information on contraception, homosexuality, etc. So, are Catholic schools supposed to say to pupils: “Contraception is a mortal sin. Now, here are the methods and how to employ them…” or “The Church condemns sodomy as one of the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance, but in case you are interested, here’s the deal…”?"

And why is the government doing this? Warner calls a spade a spade:

"If that seems insane, it is in fact simply a cynical method of enforcing anti-Christian values on faith schools. It will be interesting, however, to see how the government sets about the enforcement of such teaching in the more robust environment of Muslim schools. Suddenly, it’s fatwah time for New Labour…

This New Labour government has been the most virulently anti-family, anti-Judaeo-Christian ethic administration in British history. It has unravelled the whole fabric of society with its anti-family crusade. In this it betrays its Frankfurt School of Marxism agenda, which it shares with the EU. Compulsory sex education was always a major plank in the Frankfurt School’s programme."

As if the government bureaucrats and their political masters had the guts to try and impose this on Muslim schools. They won't. They wouldn't dare. The hypocrisy is breath-taking. They are doing this to Christians just because they calculate that Christians can be bullied and won't fight back - even at the ballot box.

Well, it is time for parents to rise up against the arrogant, child-abusing, Marxists and throw them out. Past time. Way past time. Memo to the formerly free people of the UK: no state will allow you to have freedom; you have to take it. .

After the Labour Party Debacle: Picking up the Pieces in the UK

Here is a terrific article from the British magazine The Standpoint entitled "Brown's Britain is Bankrupt." It is actually a conversation featuring Labour backbencher Frank Field and political philosopher Jeremy Jennings and moderated by Daniel Johnson. Frank Field was elected in 1979 and he became a member of Tony Blair's first cabinet, only to end up resigning in frustration. (He must have been doing something right!) He has since become a prominent critic of New Labour from the backbenches and has been continuously re-elected.

The reason the article is so exciting is the obviously conservative (not neo-conservative) ideas that Field enunciates. He talks about the Victorian age postively because of its emphasis on rearing children well. He dissects the horrendus "Equality Bill" that is currently being considered. He talks about reducing the size of government and allowing for more personal responsibility and the development of civil society. He actually thinks it might be a better society if more people went to church. (Radical thinking indeed!) He is a kind of socialist, but one who seems to be able to name and critique most of the weaknesses of contemparary leftist politics.

Here is a tidbit from Field to whet your appetite:

"Two things are happening when looking in the mirror. One is we've looked in it and it's all pretty shocking, because I think probably lots of people hadn't realised how representative the House of Commons was of the outside world. Therefore, we have shattered what was all part of this: that people in public life aspired to it, somehow their characters were ones we looked up to. And I don't think after the last few weeks that they could say that.

It does come back to what I think is the central problem we have as a society, that somehow if we on the centre-Left raise character, that we were somehow trying to promote a moral means test, so that we could fail people. Instead of thinking that this was the great engine force which changed Victorian into Edwardian England, into Georgian England — something glorious — there was then a backlash against it, and everything was going to be mechanical. And of course we can change the laws with MPs and with bankers, and of course we can enforce them and put them under the criminal code. But all of that is a glorious demonstration of failure, isn't it? You want people to have freedom and behave properly, and have a sense of order about their life and know what their duties are. That's what's so shocking about the last 18 months, isn't it?"

It is food for thought. Read it and think about how great it will be when New Labour is finally defeated and the UK has a chance at recovering from the nightmare of Blair-Brown and their clumsy and heavy-handed attempts at social engineering.

Original Sin: What is It?

In the last post, I gave a quick overview of the heart of liberal theology. Now I want to probe the concept of sin a bit further. Modernity is essentially Pelagian and the denial of the Christian (i.e. Augustinian) understanding of sin is at its heart.

Sin in modernity, strictly speaking, does not exist. It is mythical in the sense that unicorns are mythical. It is a fairy tale, not in the exalted Tolkien sense, but in the stripped-down Dawkins sense. It does not exist and need not be taken seriously by adults.

For Christians, sin is the libido dominandi, the lust for dominion, power and control. It is, to put it in modern terms, the will to power and therefore it is intricately bound up with technology and the science that undergirds it. The ability to manipulate the environment, sought by magicans and sorcerers down through the ages, has been grasped by modern, technological science.

For moderns, the individual creates value by an act of his sovereign will. To the extent that modernity has a religion (it is better to say that modernity is a religion), one can say that its religion is the worship of the goddess Liberty. This is a way of saying that freedom is the highest value in modernity and that freedom is basically understood as freedom from constraint: the freedom to do whatever the individual desires to do at any given moment.

Science certainly gives us this kind of freedom. It aids us in being free in the sense of being less and less constrained by repetitive, routine work. As we are set free from daily chores and routine work, we increasingly desire also to be set free from particular roles and duties to others that likewise constrain our freedom.

The only problem is that the more we achieve this negative vision of the isolated individual self, unfettered by work, relationships and duties, the less we know how to fill the empty time. So we turn to hedonism, materialism and entertainment to fill the void that used to be occupied with loved ones, duties and chores. We become increasingly isolated and all sense of purpose evaporates from our lives. In the most "developed" and secular states in the world, the suicide rates are the highest. Shopping and wide screen TV's simply do not provide identity, meaning and purpose for our lives. Is it any wonder that support for euthanasia is gaining ground?

This sense of anomie, this drifting and aimless existence could be termed sloth and it is a sin. More precisely, it is a sinful condition that results in sinful actions - or non-actions. It may seem surprising to a culture used to thinking of sin as the rebellion of the heroic individual who stands up to the establishment and refuses to conform to think of sin as something like clinical depression. But that is modern sin.

Augustine thought that our main problem is not that we desire too ardently, but that our desiring is too weak. Our problem is not that we are great rebels without causes, but that we are bored and boring. We are ripe for manipulation by advertisers and managers.

Modernity is so sure that we are not essentially sinful that it views us as perfectible. I think that the difference between the Augustinian and modern views of man come down to this issue of whether or not we are perfectible. Modern politics fancies itself as a "science" and pursues the perfect society relentlessly. All problems will be solved by experts and the problem of imperfect people will be overcome by the erection of perfect social structures.

Modernity's belief in progress rests on the assumption that science can be applied to human affairs, which is why we have departments in universities called "Political Science." Yet the application of the empirical scientific method to human behaviour results inevitably in the reduction of the human to the physical and the reduction of free will to laws of biology, chemistry and physics. The interaction of bits of matter according to the laws of physics "explain" why we love, laugh, dance, paint, compose, serve, hate and rejoice. Really. So human freedom turns out to be nothing but the apparently (but not really) random interaction of bits of matter! Oddly, this scientific determinism turns out to be a much worse type of falalistic determinism than the most extreme double predistinarian Calvinist ever dreamed of! And we got to this point by pursuing freedom?

It is ironic in the extreme that the worship of liberty should lead to the loss of liberty. For humans to worship liberty leads to humans not being free: this is the lesson of modernity. Liberation from constraints is not the same as true Christian freedom to be all that we were created to be. Truly, we come to resemble that which we worship. Thus, we can say that the modern exaltation of freedom, defined as freedom from constraint, is as good a definition of sin as any. Sin equals the worship of freedom and this is what sin means in modernity.

Big Brother in Britain

Here is a story about how big government and its insatiable desire to monitor and control the lives of citizens is getting out of hand in Britain, where it seems to be marginally worse than here in Canada:

"It's not insane to be paranoid. That is the comforting message I took from the speech given this week by Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who warned the Government not to abuse its “enormous powers of access to information”. In a direct hit on the Home Secretary's desire to record on an Orwellian database every e-mail, phone call and website visited, he said that “freedom's back is broken” if ministers give in to the pressures of a State that is insatiable."

Imagine! They want to have a record of every single email, phone call and website visited by every citizen. It is enough to make chills run up and down one's spine. This kind of information is power and power of this magnitude in the hands of mere mortals is bound to be corrupting.

There is no possible justiifcation for such intrusive and high-handed behaviour by one's servants - that is, by the people we elect to public office to do our will. Will the sheep revolt or will they just demand a slightly bigger pasture to graze in while being fattened for the slaughter?

Read the whole article here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article5003254.eceurv