Monday, June 30, 2008

Riding The Southwest - Day 1

These are some of the pictures taken during my awesome weeklong ride through the American Southwest.

This day was from Colorado Springs to Durango, Colorado

Enjoy!




Mountains on the way out to Telluride





Mrs Wapiti and my BMW at the highest point in the trip, Monarch Pass





Somewhere along the "Million Dollar Highway"



Also somewhere along the Million Dollar Highway





Bridal veil falls outside of Silverton





Mountain range west of Mancos, Colorado



Next: Day Two

Saturday, June 28, 2008

How Is This...

...any different than what an abortionist does?


A 14-year-old girl has been arrested and charged with murder after she allegedly killed her newborn baby in a school bathroom. Baytown, Texas, police said the eighth-grade student submerged the 7 pound infant in a Cedar Bayou Junior School toilet and jammed toilet paper down his throat so he wouldn't cry, the Houston Chronicle reported. Police have been investigating the incident since the baby was found April 2. The baby also suffered blunt trauma to his head and neck, according to a Harris County autopsy.


As Bane pointed out, had she only gone to PP a few hours earlier, she wouldn't have been charged with murder. Does that make sense or what?

Boy do we live in a fallen world.

Where are the Men In Chuch?

They left because the churches became feminized and women were put into leadership positions contrary to the Word. Now Jews are doing the same thing, and are now wondering why their men are bailing out of the synagogue in droves:


Non-Orthodox Jewish men are becoming alienated from their faith, a "crisis" that foreshadows a rise in interfaith marriages and secular generations, according to a new study from Brandeis University. The findings, based on 300 interviews, report the rise of female leadership and participation in Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative Judaism has prompted men to opt out of religious activities, in contrast to Orthodox Judaism, which still requires men for traditional worship and family life.


It's quite simple, really. If you create an environment that is toxic and alien for men, and define away meaningful roles for men in the church and in the family, then it should be no surprise that these homeless men find other places to "live".

Who Is Steven Hatfill?

For those of you with short memories, Steven Hatfill is the US Army doctor that was slimed by DoJ investigators during the anthrax hoopla six years ago. Yesterday, he got a $5.8M payday. Good for him, I guess.

Some time ago, I posted about accountability for LEOs/LEAs who abuse their authority and violate citizens' rights. One of the tools of accountability is the exclusionary rule, another is a financial penalty for the agencies that employ the officers. Neither measure works well. In both cases, the system just shrugged, and no one is personally held accountable for this abuse.

At least Hatfill is one of the lucky ones who is financially compensated for g-men and the media ruining his life. There are untold others whose reputations are tarnished and smeared by prosecutors concerned more with marking another notch in their belts than with the rights of the accused.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Barack Obama's Pledge Gaffe



Image source here


Received this via email:


Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem.

Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name).....the article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief


As much as I think Obama is a tool, it appears that he just lacked situational awareness when he neglected to render the proper salute to the flag and the national anthem back in November at an event in Iowa. On other occasions, he has rendered the proper salute.

SCOTUS: Individual Right to Keep And Bear Arms

I'm probably the last person to have picked up this story, being in the road-trip bubble as I have, but this morning I learned that the SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Readers of EW are probably not shocked that I am quite happily surprised by this ruling, or that the NRA is planning lotsa lawsuits to overturn firearms bans nationwide.

I hope against hope that this event will mark a turning point in American law enforcement wherein the People take back their right and responsibility to defend themselves, and stop outsourcing that duty to bureaucrats whose focus is neither defending the People nor preserving their rights. More citizens taking charge of their own self-defense can't help but to lower crime--both by other citizens and by LEOs--and also help arrest the erosion of civil rights.

Speaking of crime prevention, I am a CCW permit holder and have been carrying my entire trip. While Lott has found that CCW laws reduce crime, I think CCW laws don't prevent as much crime as would citizens carrying openly, as I happened to witness in an H-D dealership in Kingman the day before yesterday. A customer came into the dealership wearing a nickel Colt 1911/1991 on his hip. I suspect that citizens carrying openly, and not being harassed by government agents police officers who hate competition, do much to deter crime, particularly of the personal assault variety. That the 2d Amendment has finally been interpreted as enshrining the natural right to self defense as an inviolable right will go quite far, I think, in making all of us safer in the long run.

Going back to the SCOTUS decision, I noted that Stevens, has suddenly came out against the very same judicial activism that left-wing fascists like him have been foisting on the country for 50-odd years now:


Stevens warned the ruling would launch new judicial involvement in an issue he said should be left to legislators. "I fear that the district's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table," he wrote.


Hmm. Sour grapes, anyone, now that it is your ox being gored? How many arenas belonging to the domain of legislatures have judges inserted their camel's noses into in the last half-century? Has Steven forgotten Roe v Wade or the host of other cases where judges have legislated from the bench?

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

On The Road

Sorry for the slowdown in posts and responses to comments folks...have been on a week-long motorcycle tour of the Southwest. Will post some great pictures when it's all done.

Democrats Wage Class Warfare...

...which is not a shock to those of us who watch it happen each and every day and shake our heads at the demagoguery. Usually the targets of said class warfare are members of the productive classes who actually make money (to be taxed) and create jobs, usually for those poorer than they.

But what may surprise those poor and downtrodden souls who may be tempted to vote "D" and stick it to "the rich" is the fact that the very same Dems who purport to wage class warfare on the behalf of the poor and downtrodden, are themselves putting the screws to the economic underclass just as badly as the most rapacious capitalistic Republican when it comes to energy policy:


Gas in central California is right at $4.50 a gallon. Those who are hurt most are the poorer who don't drive Priuses and Civics, but who pull into the rural service station not far away from my home with second- and third-hand SUVs, Crown Victorias, and F-150s. Most are either Hispanic or poor whites. None can afford solar panels, hybrids, or on-demand water heaters. Somewhere, somehow the Republicans, inept as
usual, have not been able to make the argument that they as a whole voted for ANWR, off-shore drilling, tar sands and shale, refineries, clean coal and coal to liquid-not to enrich oil companies or destroy the environment, but to provide accessible energy supplies to the citizenry, while Democrats stopped them all.

It really is a class issue. Democratic elite environmentalists road-blocked all these avenues, each of which might have added a million barrels here, a million there. We're not talking going back to $2 a gallon, but that additional production might have allowed gas to stay at $2.50 a gallon for example. Few Americans realize that the current Democratic leadership (cf. the SF regional proximity of a Boxer, Feinstein, and Pelosi) pretty much reflects the ideology of an upper-class Bay area elite, with ample capital and income, access to mass transit, who really has very little concern in the world for a guy who lives in Parlier and hangs doors up and down the Valley in his 10-year-old Ford 250-truck and trailer.


I also find ironic to note that Democratic opposition to energy extraction here in America, the land of regulated businesses and pollution- and spill-prevention technologies, just means that the energy must be extracted somewhere else, such as Venezuela, Nigeria, the Persian Gulf, Russia, or China, places not necessarily known for their pro-environmentalist policies. So Democrats, far from being friends of
the environment, actually help to dirty up "spaceship Earth" with their ill-conceived opposition to domestic oil exploration.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

It's Only A Matter of Time...

...before a full-up fembot is invented:


TOKYO - She is big-busted, petite, very friendly, and she runs on batteries. A Japanese firm has produced a 38 cm (15 inch) tall robotic girlfriend that kisses on command, to go on sale in September for around US$175, with a target market of lonely adult men. Using her infrared sensors and battery power, the diminutive damsel named "EMA" puckers up for nearby human heads, entering what designers call its "love mode".


Many women have already found a replacement for men. We've seen the social breakdown that resulted from that. Imagine the societal earthquake that will result when men find a replacement for women.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Friday Roundup

Statewide child support peon dragnet in NJ arrests 42 "deadbeat dads" and yields $4,413 in back child support payments from them, for an average of $105 per "deadbeat dad" caught. Think about that for a second...a statewide hunt for noncustodial dads behind on their child support only results in $4,413...but how much was spent by law enforcement officials to hunt down and squeeze blood from these turnips? And all they could get from these indigent guys--using all the coercive tools at their disposal--was $105 each? So much for the caricature of deadbeat dads...perhaps they should be called "deadbroke dads" instead.

Occaisionally some sense emanates from female-ly courts. In this case, a judge ruled a against a lesbian bio mom who was attempting to cut her lesbian ex-partner out from their child's life. Although children need both a father and a mother, in the case of lesbians, that's not possible, and the bio mom has no right to cut another social parent out of the picture just because she's angry or hormonal or PMSing or whatever. As I've mentioned before, women, who can be so capable of great empathy and caring, also have a defective sense of justice and right and wrong. This is particularly so where kids are concerned, in my observations.

The Democrat-controlled Congress proposed to use confiscated taxpayer monies to ride to the rescue of banks and mortgage investors, and in the process make creating moral hazards part of official government policy. Bush, to his credit, is threatening to veto it.

Some of God's shepherds are telling Caesar to stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Although I take difference with pastors saying that God wants people to vote a particular way, I do think that the IRS will have a job reconciling Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC with the First Amendment. Wish I could be selected for that jury...nullification anyone?

Glenn Sacks picks up the story about when moms criticize father's childcare techniques, dads back off as a result (I blogged about it here). Maternal gatekeeping is real--my ex wife did it (and does it) to me all of the time. Personally, I think that men make just as good of parents--sometimes better, sometimes not--as women. I would exhort men to parent the way that they feel is necessary and right, and quit using women as the standard by which they judge themselves. MGTOW.

From Glenn Sacks again: DV more common in lesbian relationships than hetero ones. So if the Patriarchy is responsible for men beating their wives, is the Matriarchy responsible for women beating their "wives" in a similar fashion?

NorCal man arrested and pleads guilty to felony possession of child porn for filming a cheerleading practice held outdoors at a public university. Let me repeat that again...he was filming fully clothed girls in a public venue on state property. How this differs from the underwear section of the newspaper, or from some guys or lezzie women oogling the cheerleaders from the stands with their eyes, I don't know. If this is porn, how come the girls filmed weren't themselves arrested and charged with public indecency or something? Personally, I'm surprised this guy plead out...but perhaps he thought that a jury of his peers would convict him despite the fact that he did nothing wrong. Not an unfounded fear, since Americans have no friggin idea about liberty these days.

More On the Gloucester Sevente...er, Eighteen

This story is the gift that keeps on giving, at least from a men's / father's rights perspective.

As I posted yesterday, I wondered what would happen to the children that would likely grow up without fathers, since these selfish little girls decided to get themselves impregnated (almost assuredly without the knowledge or consent of their boyfriends) with plans to raise them up in Hillary's metaphorical Village of women. No dads were envisioned in this adolescent fantasy apparently.

We hear a lot about irresponsible men, and in some cases it is justified. But we need to hear about selfish, irresponsible women a whole helluva lot more, for they're at least 50% of the problem. As Ned Holstein noted:

[A] few days ago, Senator Obama gave a Father's Day speech calling for "responsible fatherhood." He, like President Bush, lays all the blame for rampant fatherlessness on irresponsible fathers who are "acting like boys, not men." Now along comes Gloucester High School to show that the Senator got it only part right. Seventeen girls are expecting babies in this 1,200-student school. None of these girls is older than 16 [note...only one is 16, the remainder are 15]. It now turns out that nearly half these girls have confessed to making a pact to have babies and raise them together-a sad adolescent fantasy if ever there was one.

Senator Obama, this proves my point, that irresponsible fathers are just one part of the problem. Women too are choosing fatherlessness for their children-single mothers by choice, single mothers by semi-choice (if the kid can have a father great, but if not, no big deal), and divorcing mothers who obstruct shared parenting, who move far away, or who obtain false restraining orders against the father. Gloucester High School shows us that both males and females have decided that children having fathers is not nearly as important as adult narcissism-men who can have sex without consequences, and women who can have babies to love them without the bother of a partner.

Gloucester officials and the media are debating all the wrong points, and are neglecting all the important ones. During the school year, the school nurse and a local pediatrician wanted to prescribe contraceptives without parental consent. But the girls wanted to get pregnant, so this would have prevented nothing. Besides, this is a terrible idea; what we need is more parental involvement, not less.

Why did these girls feel so unloved that they needed babies to feel whole? What's going on in their families? Here's my wager: most of these girls are fatherless - the strongest predictor of teenage pregnancy is fatherlessness. Is anyone counseling these girls to adopt out their babies (with the consent of the fathers)? This is the best solution for the babies. There are long waiting lists of loving, fit, middle class parents trying to adopt newborns. Where is the concept of "best interests of the child" when we need it? It will be painful for the girls and boys who have produced these babies, but we all suffer pain when we make a bad mistake, and it will be far less than the chronic pain for girls of single parenting and for boys of crushing child support payments.

Who are the fathers? How old are they? Will the parents of the babies marry, and if not, what role will the fathers be allowed to take in helping to raise the children?


Well, now there is talk about bringing up the boyfriends on statutory rape charges, since the boyfriends--of whom we currently don't know the ages, but this report says they are mostly non-students over the age of 20--are considered by the law to have raped the girls despite the fact that all of the girls consented to the sex. That's par for the course these days...hold boys/men accountable for the choices of both themselves and the girls/women around them, the girls/women have no consequences whatsoever. In fact, this whole mess is all good from a chick's perspective...get the kid that you want to "make you feel loved", get free child care in high school, get some attention, and oh, yeah, get a welfare and/or child support check out of it.

There's also talk of jacking up these boyfriends for child support; I fail to see how this does much good. What those poor children need is a family...not a high-five-ing, single-mom-by-choice trying to subsist on welfare and what little pittance can be extracted from a teenager or young twenty-something who evidently lives in an economically depressed town.

It's funny, but the only time our society thinks of "best interests of the children" is during a divorce, and usually those "best interests" is crypto-code for mother-only custody with an estranged man bankrolling all of it. This is a great opportunity to break from this destructive self-reinforcing cycle. This is a great chance to have a discussion about the real, genuine best interests of the children here, and not vindictively slam some boys (who were likely duped into impregnating their sperm bandit girlfriends) while coddling selfish girls who knowingly act to create life without the ability to care for it.

Lastly, many of the news reports are making a lot of hay about this supposedly Catholic (and heavily Democrat) town. Just goes to show that one's professed religion nothing about one's heart-state, and just because one calls themselves Catholic or Christian doesn't make them so.

The Progressive Left Gave Us Eugenics...

...all stamped "approved" by left-wing academic and scientific elites, as a new exhibit in the Canadian War Museum documents:


...it reveals how it was not thoughtless right-wing thugs as much as writers and scientists, the intellectual elite, who led the movement. The exhibit is important, accurate but, regrettably, long overdue. It also fails to stress just how much the socialist left initiated and supported the eugenics campaign, not only in Germany but in Britain, the U. S. and the rest of Europe. Playwright George Bernard Shaw, English social democrat leader Sydney Webb and, in Canada, Tommy Douglas were just three influential socialists who called, for example, for the mass sterilization of the handicapped. In his Master's thesis The Problems of the Subnormal Family, the now revered Douglas argued that the mentally and even physically disabled should be sterilized and sent to camps so as not to "infect" the rest of the population. It is deeply significant that few if any of Douglas's left-wing comrades in this country or internationally were surprised or offended by his proposals. Indeed the early fascism of 1920s Italy, while unsavoury and dictatorial, had little connection with social engineering and eugenics. The latter German version of fascism was influenced not by ultra conservatism in southern Europe but, as is made clear in the writings of the Nazi ideologues, by the Marxist left. History is often clouded by fashion and the whims of the victorious. Because some of the most pernicious intellectual criminals of the past century wore red they have escaped condemnation.


One of the more persistent, wrong-headed, and harmful myths propagated by leftists is that Fascism and Nazism were outgrowths of right-wing imaginations, when in reality, these horrible political movements, as well as Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, and feminism, all sprang from the fevered imaginations of 'enlightened' left-wing academics and scientists. Same for the modern-day horrors of eugenics, abortion, and the abolition of marriage...all came from the utopian dreams of illiberal so-called "liberals", people whose normative belief in the all-consuming State tramples human rights and dismisses human dignity. I guess one could hardly blame them, for if one rejects the moral system bequeathed by an unseen mystical being, then a post-Enlightenment thinker's only recourse is to subscribe to a value system based on the cost/benefit analyses of science.

I also note that this author traces the philosophical pedigree of Naziism to the Marxist left. Guess which other modern political movement derives directly from Marxism?

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Surprise! Mass Teens Make Pregnancy Pact

In a development that is sure to provide fuel for compulsory birth control and sex-ed advocates' fires--I mean, what they're doing is working so well--17 girls, none older than 16, from Gloucester High in Massachusetts vowed to get knocked up and raise their babies collectively:


Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby. "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally," Ireland says. "I try to explain it's hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m."

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

Gloucester's elected school committee plans to vote later this summer on whether to provide contraceptives. But that won't do much to solve the issue of teens wanting to get pregnant. Says rising junior Kacia Lowe, who is a classmate of the pactmakers': "No one's offered them a better option."


One of the effects of sex ed and free contraceptive distribution in schools is to send a message of condonation of extra-marital sex activity among children. Kids will internalize the message of "well, they're going to do it anyway" as evidence of society's approval of extra marital sexuality among teenagers and act accordingly.

This case also provides an excellent example of one of the iron laws of government economics: "if you subsidize something, you'll get more of it". In this case, free on-site day care for teen moms just makes it that much easier for girls to have their babies and school too. All under the approving eye of majority-female teachers. Wanna bet that these girls will mature into women who think they're similarly entitled to such subsidization from the government or their employer?

I also note that some of the government agen...er, school district employees...advocate heaping more compulsion on top of the compulsory school attendance, this time by wanting to prescribing birth control pills regardless of the parent's consent. Once one starts down the road of violating parental authority--in this case, mandating that children must attend a government education camp--it's easy to keep sliding down that slippery slope. What's the big deal about prescribing the Pill to girls over their parent's consent if the kids are forced to be at the school anyway, again without the parent's consent? Where does one stop abrogating parental authority, and what right do State agents have to complain about the immoral behavior of wayward kids when the parents' authority has been liquidated by other agents of the State?

So what will be the outcome of all this? Well, I have to wonder what will come of those poor children born to these selfish little girls. Through no fault of their own, the kids will suffer the brunt of the negative effects stemming from their mothers' choice to procreate irresponsibly. They will suffer dearly from the choice to bring them into the world without a family to love, teach, and support them. They will learn that a father is not important to a family--for girls, this means that they'll likely repeat their mothers' choices. For boys, they'll grow up with a greater propensity to "find 'em, f*ck 'em, and flee", since they've been shown that dads really aren't all that necessary. After all, that's the behavior that their parents modelled for them. Who are they to argue with the example set by their parents and of the parents of their friends?

Update 1: It's not only school policies that encourage teen sexuality. Try magazines targeted at teen girls on for size. I realize that they're "trying to help", but if there isn't an inherent message of approval here, I don't know what one is. HT: Rod Dreher

Update 2: Well, it appears that feminists also contribute their stamp of approval to the trend of increasing teen and unwed pregnancy by applauding the schools' "free" (TANSTAAFL*) day care center, the girls' rejection of the oppressive nuclear family, and purported plans to raise their misbegotten children in a girls-only club. HT: Liesel.

* Read some Heinlein if you don't know what this acronym means.

A Warning To Residents...


...if you do obey a "mandatory evacuation" order*, you place the protection of your property in the hands of someone who has no interest or duty to protect it. And if you try to re-enter the scene to secure your property against looters or salvage what remains, the police will have no truck with making your life very uncomfortable in their efforts to keep you out, even if the scene is objectively safe, even if you are happy to assume the risk. Although in this case, the guy did ram a state police vehicle, which I think is a justification for officers to draw weapons in self defense.

*To my knowledge, no one can be forcibly removed from their home under any kind of evacuation order. Just don't expect rescue efforts if you stay

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Drugs Don't Cause Crime...

...the drug war does. So sayeth John Stossel, in an article on RCP titled "Legalize All Drugs":


Myth No. 3: Drugs cause crime.

Truth: The drug war causes the crime.

Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high.

Most of the crime occurs because the drugs are illegal and available only through a black market. Drug sellers arm themselves and form gangs because they cannot ask the police to protect their persons and property. In turn, some buyers steal to pay the high black-market prices. The government says heroin, cocaine and nicotine are similarly addictive, and about half the people who both smoke cigarettes and use cocaine say smoking is at least as strong an urge. But no one robs convenience stores for Marlboros.

Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone and the Mafia. Drug prohibition is worse. It's corrupting whole countries and financing terrorism.


While I find it difficult to argue with Stossel's logic, I still have a hard time getting comfortable with the notion that all drugs should be legalized, simply because of the wasting effects on humanity that drug use has. Blame it on my internal moralizing tendency, or simply my desire to see that people not hurt themselves or those around them.

However, his point about drug prohibition causing crime is a good one. For starters, if drugs weren't illegal, it wouldn't be a crime to have them. There's a cause of crime right there, albeit a minor and technical one. But more importantly though, is the violence and suffering that comes hand-in-hand with government prohibiting a good that for which there is significant demand. Ordinary people suffer greatly for this unnecessary prohibition. Moreover, our prisons are chock full of people whose only err is to be in possession of a prohibited substance; tallying all of the lost productivity and wasted potential that those incarcerated folks represent boggles the mind. One could also argue that detaining folks for mere posession creates crime as well: not only are they exposed to more hardened criminals, but they bear the mark of Cain of a convict. Unable to obtain high-quality employment as a convicted felon, they may be tempted to "go bad" in order to eat.

But what Stossel forgets to mention entirely is the negative effect that the War on Drugs has had on our liberties, especially in regards to the militarization of the police, search and seizure laws, asset forfeiture laws, no-knock raids, dynamic entry, and the public's acceptance of all these infringements. The War on Drugs has unmistakably taken our society closer to a police state. This loss of liberty and creeping despotism dwarfs the undesirable effects of wasted lives and higher crime in my book.

So Stossel may be right that drugs don't cause crime. He's certainly correct that trying to prevent the damage to the moral ecology caused by widespread drug use causes more problems that it solves. But the erosion of liberties inherent in government's opposing someone's free choice to do as they wish with their own body is crime enough in itself to warrant calling the whole thing off.

HT: Mike T

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Why Are Female Breadwinners Terrifying to Men?

So ask several women in the UK in this article from the "Femail" section of the DailyMail:


Her marriage to Galvin, a builder, ended last year after just 16 months, prompted by the £70,000 pay gap between them and their vastly different ambitions. 'The things that I loved about Galvin initially eventually became the things that irritated me,' says Diahanne, who lives in Essex. 'At first I'd envied his laid-back nature. As long as there was money to cover the bills he was happy down the local pub with his mates having a beer. He was content doing the nine to five and wasn't a workaholic like me.

'But eventually it set us at odds. Money gives you choices and, because of the pay gap, those choices were vastly different for each of us. I don't take my earnings for granted, which is why I continue to work very hard but, yes, there were times that I wanted to travel first class or dine in a top restaurant and Galvin didn't feel the same because he didn't have the same disposable income as I did. 'Men are very proud and don't feel comfortable with the idea of their partner being the breadwinner or paying for them all the time. But I'd worked hard and wanted to enjoy the fruits of my labour.


Perhaps there is a nugget of truth in what these women complain about...that some men have difficulty reconciling the reality of a relationship with a wealthier woman with the cultural imperative, even in these days where feminism rules the roost, that man must provide or is worthless, a bum.

But reading the article, it was clear to me that some of these womens' predicaments were somewhat of their own making. For instance, if a woman makes more than double what a man makes, why is she making him pay for his share of the meal? Why must she insist on equality when their relationship is inherently unequal in nearly all practical respects?

I think there's also an element of selection going on here as well. Each one of the women interviewed had paired themselves with non-ambitious men. Was that because the women themselves wanted a dependent, slacker guy they could dominate, but then came to resent him later? Or was it because ambitious men choose non-career women because they want families, thus leaving only slacking dudes behind for career chicks to choose from?

Personally, I wouldn't mind it one bit if my wife brought home the bacon and I not. She can have the hassle of having a boss breathe down her neck day in and day out, of having to produce on a deadline or perish. Moreover, from a father's/men's rights perspective, if a guy marries a higher earning woman, he's got it pretty good. Not only does he not have to literally kill himself being the "provider"--adding years to his life span--he gets to raise his children. Not a bad gig, to be a hausherr, if one can get it. He is also divorce-proof; a woman would have to want a divorce quite badly indeed if it means that she'll have to pay him off, plus probably lose the kids, to get out of the relationship.

Perhaps the SAHD is the solution to the family crisis that exists in our culture. Perhaps all we need to do to ensure that Dad remains in the family unit is to complete the inversion of the sex roles in the family. Make woman provide and men stay at home in a supportive role. Granted, this is far from scriptural...but we are far from scriptural presently. Men's insistence on clinging to a more traditional role in today's less-than-balanced family law environment and with women's itchy divorce trigger finger and inability to be satisfied only makes the problem of father absence and divorce even worse.

The Standing Army...



AH-6 In The Skies Above Denver

...that the Founding Fathers warned us about, brought to you courtesy of the War On Terror and the resultant State of Fear and citizen compliance that said "war" is to generate:

"It's nothing more than Special Operations Command training with local authorities," said Lt. Nathan Potter, with Special Operations Command, which has authority over special forces from all branches of the military. Potter would not say which branch of the military was flying the choppers over Denver. The training has nothing to do with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in Denver in August, Potter said. "We've gotten quite a few calls, but it's a training exercise that the DPD is involved in, and there's nothing going on," said a Denver police dispatcher. "The vast majority of people, after we tell them what's going on, they say, 'Oh, OK.' "[emphasis mine]


The quote from the dispatcher, relaying the reaction of concerned people calling in to the police department, is the part that disturbs me the most. The passive acceptance of Americans to the outsourcing of their security to government agents is very unhealthy IMHO. Americans are more willing to entrust their safety and liberty to government agents than to trust themselves and their neighbors with keeping themselves safe and free, a troubling development for those that purport to inhabit the "land of the free and the home of the brave". And as Franklin said: "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".

I'm not all that supportive of military aid to law enforcement activities. It's one thing for military assets to aid in disaster relief efforts or search and rescue efforts. It's quite another to have the military participate in law enforcement activities, even in a support role. I think it only aids in the gradual militarization of the civil law enforcement paradigm, continues to alienate the police from the People, and converts the civilian police forces (who, in a clue as to their mindset, refer to the People as "civilians") into the very same standing army that the Founding Fathers warned us about. An alienated police force is a police force that is less effective at law enforcement, and is a police force that is in constant fear for their lives. The result that the People and their rights will inevitably be abused, cops may be killed by a hostile populace, and law-and-order suffers as the police are less effective at keeping the peace.

It also doesn't help civilian-police relations that police actively try to incite those who would otherwise be law-abiding people into wrong doing. I've discussed it here and here, MikeT has discussed it many times, most recently here, and NYPD agents were implicated as instigators in clashes during the 2004 Republican Convention:


There were also two reported instances of police officers, dressed as protestors, purposefully instigating clashes. At the 2004 Republican National Convention, the NYPD orchestrated a fake arrest to incite protestors. When a blond man was "arrested," nearby protestors began shouting, "Let him go!" The helmeted police proceeded to push back against the crowd with batons and arrested at least two. In a similar instance, during an April 29, 2005, Critical Mass bike ride in New York, video footage captured a "protestor"-in reality an undercover cop-telling his captor, "I'm on the job," and being subsequently let go.


Oh, and as far as which branch of the military was flying over Denver, there is only one Department in DoD that flies Hughes 500/530s-and that is the US Army, specifically, the 160th SOAR. You know, the guys from Mogadishu in Somalia in 1993.

Lastly, what is it with leftist groups that makes them so prone to violence? So much so that the City of Denver received a $50M homeland security grand from the FedGov to counter leftist violence at the DNC?

Today Is Firefox 3 Download Day

Apparently Mozilla is trying to break the downloading record by having as many copies of their new Firefox 3 downloaded in one day as possible.

Far be it from me to stop a meme, click on the button below to participate...

Download Day 2008

Whatever You Do, Dude, Don't Fart!

Monday, June 16, 2008

Obama Panders to Women on Father's Day

Candidate Obama follows the general trend of lauding mothers on Mother's Day and lecturing dads on Father's Day. Oh well, it's not like he was going to get my vote anyway:
CHICAGO (AP) - Barack Obama celebrated Father's Day by calling on black fathers, who he said are "missing from too many lives and too many homes," to become active in raising their children. "They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it," the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown. Obama often speaks about the importance of parental involvement. In Washington, he sponsored legislation to get more child support money to children by offering a tax credit for fathers who pay support, more efficient collection and penalties for fathers who don't meet their obligations.


Hmm. What happens more often, Mr. Obama? Men abandoning their families, or men being forcibily evicted from their families? A simple look at who initiates divorces in this country when there are children involved provides the answer to this question. But Obama needs to shore up his percentages among women, particularly Clinton supporters, so he enables female blame-shifting onto the hapless shoulders of men once again. As for those who say "well, who's stopping those guys from seeing their kids after the divorce?". To those useless idiots, I say "the mothers are!", and the same legal system used to pry the father away from his children is not very enthusiastic about ensuring his contact with them.

Furthermore, among non-married men, and particularly the black men taken to task by Obama in his address to the Apostolic Church congregation, the picture doesn't change much. As I wrote in my post "Black Men and Commitment", black men try mightily to be involved with their children, to "break the cycle", as Obama put it. But they are prevented from doing so by a possessive mom and a culture that values men more for the money they earn than for the much-more-critical male socialization and guidance that is desperately needed for the spawn of these single mothers by choice.

So, Mr. Obama, contrary to your claim, men, particularly the black men you lecture, do try to "man up" and be a dad, each and every day. Perhaps you should take those women, whose votes you covet, to task for their failure to have sex responsibly and to commit to the father of their child(ren). Perhaps, as a legislator, rather than bloviating about so-called irresponsible men and deadbeat dads, you could dismantle the feminist legal system whose primary purpose is to split families and keep single women single.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Branding at the OK Corral

Well, it wasn't quite at the OK Corral, but I did take a couple of days off from work last week to assist a local rancher north of town with the brandings of the calves in his herd. Below are some of the pictures taken at the event.

It was very interesting to note that the tools of the trade haven't really changed all that much in 300 years.

Enjoy!



The Ranchhouse



Calf Being Drug Out of the Herd to be "Processed"





Your Host and a 11 Year-Old Boy, Holding Down a Heifer to be Branded After We Just Wrestled Her to the Ground. Although it was mostly adult men doing the wrestling, occasionally teenage boys, a couple of the more daring women, and a girl or two got into the mix





Branding In Progress...





...Sometimes You Get Some Flamage



All told, was a great time. Good to see how the other half lives every once in a while. Hard but enjoyable work. I figure that I personally wrestled down about 70-odd calves in the two days I was there.

It was a good thing PETA wasn't there, either. The boy calves would have their scrotum sliced in two with a pocketknife and be deprived of their "bullhood" with no anesthesia. Then they would be treated to the brand, which was actually three brands because the rancher's brand was three-parts. The heifers got four brands...the rancher's brand, plus another brand indicating the year of their birth.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

2 Penna Moms Turn Sleepover Into Orgy

In another example of how women are just as sexual as men, and are just as susceptible to misusing that sexuality as guys, two Pennsylvania women are arrested on allegations of participating in a "sex sleepover" in which one mother performed sex acts on two teenage boys while the other mother just instructed the remaining boys to watch and be quiet:


Authorities said the teens, ages 14 to 16, were attending a sleepover at Long's Lower Makefield home when Honeycutt, a mother of two young children, allegedly had sex with a 14-year-old and performed sex acts with a 15-year-old. Long allegedly watched, listened and instructed the teens not to say anything. In addition to the alleged sexual assault, detectives said Honeycutt exposed her breasts to the teens; open-mouth kissed some of the minors, entered a shower with a juvenile and engaged conversation of a sexual nature. Honeycutt is facing charges of statutory sexual assault, unlawful contact with a minor and other related charges. Long is facing charges of endangering the welfare of children and corruption of minors.


This will be an interesting case to watch and see if these two women get the book thrown at them the same way two fathers in the same situation would. I wonder how long it will take for the "they're boys, they wanted it" card will be thrown out here?

Friday, June 13, 2008

No Perpetrator, No Victim, and....

...no conviction for R Kelly on 14 counts, including allegations of possession of child porn and having sexual relations with a 13 year old prostitute.

At least the justice system works, sometimes.

Cool Picture of the Day



A huge tornado funnel cloud touches down in Orchard, Iowa, Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 9:04 p.m.

Photo Credit: Lori Mehmen, AP

Life Expectancy Gap As Evidence of Systemic Discrimination

Last year, I wrote a paper that applied a thesis expounded by the Indian economist Amaryta Sen--that unequal treatment may be located and fixed by simply observing who dies earlier--and concluded that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that think that Indian women have it bad, their men have it much worse, since they keel over much earlier and have much less quality of life when alive.

Well, today, we learned that life expectancies in the United States have reached record highs. Which is really good news for white women, who can expect to outlive all, with a life expectancy of 81 years at birth. Black women come in second, with a life expectancy of 77 years. Next come white men, at 76 years, and black men bring up the rear at 70 years.

I find myself scratching my head about how this information was received by the media. Women didn't always outlive men by 5+ years-in fact, as recently as 1920, it was almost equal-but a news story is published that states that women outlive men by between 5 and 10 years and no one so much as yawns. It is accepted that women outlive men by several years. But why?

As you've probably guessed, I have some theories as to why men die earlier than women. The first is one of simple biology. Male babies die more often than female ones. Testosterone makes men more susceptible to cardiovascular disease. Biologically speaking, the "weaker sex" is the male one--harder to make in utero, and more fragile ex utero, especially when an infant.

The second is that feminism, far from being about equality of the sexes, really just cares about women and women alone. Heck, I'll go out on a cynical limb and state uncategorically that, when it comes down to it, women are concerned primarily about themselves, and a bit less about their children. Men are a distant third, and that's assuming that men's concerns are scored above procuring a new prada bag or getting your nails done. It tends to be men as a sex who look after the good of the whole tribe. Why do I think that? Well, it's certainly interesting to me to observe that life expectancies were about even until women's suffrage came to town. The gap has been expanding ever since, in parallel with the increase of women's power. Nowadays, there is nearly twice as much money thrown at women's health than at men's health, and it shows in women's advantageous longevity. Even the Pentagon has been enlisted to fight for better women's health. There are also at least 7 Federal agencies dedicated to women's health issues. Guess how many government agencies are dedicated to thinking about and advocating for making life better for men? Zero. One would think that women would be greatly concerned about the early demise of their fathers and brothers and particularly husbands, but sadly, this concern just isn't there, not enough to do anything about it anyway.

The third is more of a social aspect. To be sure, men have some sex-specific behaviors under their control that contribute to the disparity. Risk-taking behavior is the primary one. However, violence also strikes men, particularly black men, at rates that far exceed what women suffer, and much much more can be done along these lines, not only from a criminal justice standpoint, but from a cultural context as well. For instance, issues such as divorce and single parenthood greatly effect crime rates and poverty and educational achievement. All three tend to penalize men more. Moreover, if you take a bite out of divorce, you reduce depression and suicide, which men suffer from many times more than women. Lastly, the social safety net exists primarily for women in our society. Men have much fewer resources available to them to draw on. All these factors cut men's lives short.

Fourth is how our health care system is delivered and the social attitudes surrounding its use. Women go to the doctor. Twice as often as men do. Each visit, even if it's for an ob or gyn appointment, results in someone assessing the health of the woman. But our culture does not have a symmetrical health-care-seeking culture between men and women. It is much more accepting of women seeking health care, and penalizes men for doing so....this is particularly true for men seeking mental health care. As a result, men just don't have the reasons or the opportunities to visit with a health care professional like women do, with the result that men "live sicker and die younger" than women.

My fifth and last theory is that men's lives are just plain harder and more dangerous. Our work lives are more stressful and longer, and men are less likely to have flexible working lives. We commute further distances, which entail greater risk. And, since men are still uniquely responsible for their families, they often have to take jobs which are much more dangerous--men vastly outnumber women in the most dangerous occupations; the upside is that they pay enough to sustain your family.

Taking all these factors into consideration, it's clear to me that the sex that has been discriminated against in our society is men. And it's no wonder there is a gap in life expectancies. The real question is, are we as a society going to do something about it, or are we just going to accept as an "inevitable fact" that men will croak so much faster than women that there are 8 female centagenarians to every male one.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Illiberal Liberals

VDH wonders about where liberalism went:


[Regarding Obama], I also thought identifying with a candidate on the basis of race was illiberal. Why then is a 90% or more African-American majority voting for Obama deemed a mere matter of "pride"? And what is so admirable that millions in Africa and the Middle East suddenly inform our journalists abroad that they would change their opinion of American should we elected a person of color, or the son of an African, or somebody who was once a Muslim, or someone with a middle name like Hussein? In other words, why would liberals think it is liberal to favor someone solely on the basis of shared race or religion-a bias that was the traditional enemy of the Enlightenment?


I find it interesting that libertarians and some conservatives are the new Liberals, those that want to maximize freedom and reduce the control that government has on the daily life of the individual. Democrats and other leftists in the West are the new Conservatives, those whom have no problems with the application of government power to control the lives and thoughts of their fellow citizens.

On the subject of racism, we have entered an Orwellian world where racism is only racism if Whites commit it; if Blacks or other non-Whites commit racism, it is defined away or even laughed at, as El Borak found recently. On the subject of opinions that offend the psyche of preferred minorities, leftist blackshirts ensure that such opinions are not left unpoliced and unpunished, regardless of whether or not the opinion is an objectively true fact. This phenomenon holds even when those offensive opinions were first uttered by a member of a protected minority; it becomes a "hate crime" only after a White repeats it.

It's a very strange thing, that the West has largely rejected the very traditions of the Enlightenment that made the West both liberal and great. In fact, really the only Enlightenment plank that remains is the one that is the most odious and the most counter-productive: a tradition of virulent anti-theism. And even that is a tenuous Enlightenment feature these days, as the anti-theists aren't godless...they simply practice the religion of secular humanism and persecute those who don't adhere to it.

Boiling the Civil Rights Frog...

...is best done little by little, so that one doesn't know that they are slowly being turned into subjects of a police state.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Hey, At Least He Has A Spotter...

And today's Darwin Award contestant is:

Men and Pogo: We Are Our Own Worst Enemy

Marc Rudov on why the words "men" and "rights" only seem to be found adjacent to one another on blogs such as his and mine:


The reality is, men must blame themselves for slowly giving away their rights over the past 50 years. They must stop behaving like cringing, passive, silent, cheap ostriches and become titans of action - before the indefatigable feminists, with their deep Louis Vuitton bags, completely gut men's rights. Men cling to their remaining right - the right to remain silent - and have made it an artform, a self-defeating death wish.

Men make two key mistakes in life: they recruit
merchant maureens and elect gynocrats . A merchant maureen is a woman who drops her anchor into a man's wallet, with his consent. He is silent, out of desperation for sex, and willingly gives her his gold. Most men, whether in private life or politics, just don't have the balls to stand up to merchant maureens.

A gynocrat is a politician who cares only about women's rights - men are invisible and irrelevant. Can you name an American politician who isn't a gynocrat? Didn't think so. Yet, gynocrats hold - and keep - elected office because men, 44% of the electorate, put and keep them there. Accordingly, gynocrats care nothing about men because they have no evidence that men care about themselves.

Men will protest a bad referee call during the Super Bowl, but they won't protest bad laws that strip them of their rights. Men will pay thousands of dollars to purchase widescreen TVs the week before the Super Bowl, but they won't contribute $10 to a lobbyist fighting for their rights to live as protected citizens.


This blog exists partially to entertain, partially to educate, and partially for me to rant and rave about what tees me off. Yes, I hope to educate women on the demerits of feminism, in the hope that I'll open up a few minds to the truth.

But, more importantly, I hope to educate men, particularly young ones, as to the reality of things for guys in our society. I hope to persuade a few men to unplug from the Femmatrix and push back against those that aim to subjugate them. I hope to convince men that they should go their own way (if not a Believer) or go with God (if a Believer) and not let others, particularly those who are not men, define their masculinity and what it means to be a man for them.

After perusing what I have posted here, I would hope that a fellow brother would not recruit one of Rudov's "merchant Maureens"--paying for dates, paying for marriage, only to have a .4 probability of paying for a divorce as well.

And I hope that a fellow brother who reads what I write here would not participate in the election of any more gynocrats who, if men, faux-chivalrously champion the cause of women's rights when it's men who need the championing, and who, if women, chauvinistically agitate for a strengthened matriarchy in our culture. The law, particularly the reproductive and domestic relations varieties, serves primarily women and generally leaves men to fend for themselves. It's high time that the law and government served both sexes equally, as the 14th Amendment says it's supposed to.

We men are part of the problem. We can start being not part of the problem tomorrow, if we wanted to.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Too Much Sex In The City, Part II

Apparently cribbing from the experience of their NYC fellow citizens, the 125 scientists stationed at McMurdo Research Station in Antarctica had 16,500 rubbers delivered just prior to the onset of winter.

Some quick back-of-the-napkin math gives me 132 condoms for each staffer at the station. Assuming winter lasts 6 months, that's 22 rubbers per month per scientist.

That a lot of beast-with-two-backs going on...mayhaps they're studying biology? Or cultural anthropology?

I Wonder...

...if the propensity to divorce is linked more to the financial incentives to do so--awarding of property and child support bonuses to the primary caregiver--vice an apparent unwillingness for women to commit to lifelong marriage in today's culture.

I couldn't find any stats on how many SAHDs file for divorces when compared to their SAHM counterparts, but it would be interesting information indeed. As would be information on custody rates for SAHDs compared to SAHMs following a divorce.

It's too bad Heche got rewarded for her return to hetero-dom with a divorce suit.

It Is The Rabbit!!

Not to be outdone by Roci, but I have....


BUNNIES!!!!

Took these pictures while gassing up on the ramp waiting on a customer. Too cute to resist.








But that's no ordinary rabbit...it's got a vicious streak a mile wide...look at the bones!!





Monday, June 9, 2008

Female vs Male Unchasitity and Infidelity

Recently, I had a discussion with a longtime female friend who vigorously disputed my contention that female adultery/unchastity is more damaging to the social fabric than male adultery/unchasitity.

Her point, IIRC, was that the infidelity of both men and women was equally damaging to the social fabric. Both actions are equally injurious to the marriage bond, if there was one, or to the resultant child born of the union, if the dalliances of two unmarrieds resulted in a child.

While she is correct that both are injurious to the marriage bond in equal amounts, I maintain that they are not equal in their effect on the fabric of a family in a patriarchal society. Below is the argument that I should have made then, but was tongue-tied at the time.

I am not claiming that the promiscuous male does not work his own damage to the institutions of marriage and the father-child bond upon which the whole of modern civilization rests. No, his actions are quite injurious, particularly in those events where his promiscuities with a married woman result in the breakdown of her marriage with her husband. But his acts are eclipsed in scale by the damage that a promiscuous woman wreaks. A man's promiscuity affects only a very small number of children, only denying those few children of a unmarried woman a father. (Note that children born to an adulterous affair between a married woman and a man already have a father...the cuckolded husband...thus children born to an already married woman are less likely to grow up without a father). A woman's promiscuity, either through multiple sexual unions with many men as a single woman or, much more damagingly, through serial polyandry via frequent female-initiated divorce, has the potential to deny a great many more children access to their father. More than 1 million children annually are rendered fatherless in the USA. Many more children's homes are broken when a cohabiting couple-- making up 41% of the births to "unwed mothers" --breaks up. That is why I say that female promiscuity--expressed mostly through divorce or separation--is much more consequential than the male variety.

It is the effect of denying children a father that I hinge my argument upon. The social science literature is replete with data that demonstrates what happens to a society when dad is removed from the family wholesale, and I will not review that literature here.

One may argue that a woman who has children out of wedlock by many different men, or by one man whom she later divorces, has access to a man's wealth and that money makes up for the absence of a father. In effect, one may argue that her actions do not threaten the solvency of society. While true that Mom has claim through the Patriarchal Sexual Contract to Dad's (or many Dad's) wealth, or even wealth confiscated from other Dads (and employed Moms), that wealth is not equivalent to the daily involvement of the Dad. Money and resources is what Mom needs, but it is only part of what the child(ren) needs, and the negative social effects of fatherlessness are independent of access to resources (or lack of it).

Moreover, a woman's breaching of the Sexual Contract threatens the marriage ecology of the community in a way that a man's breaching of it does not. Again it is a matter of scale. Both men and women cheat on their spouses, in roughly equal amounts. That much is true. But women evict the father from the family at a rate 3-7 times more often than men self-eliminate. Besides stripping children of their father, which we have discussed above, this has the effect of reducing the willingness of other men to enter into marriage contracts with women, thus short-circuiting male involvement in the family before it even has a chance to start. The result is hordes of irresponsible, shiftless males who "hit it" and run, or are unemployable, or commit crimes, or are otherwise unsuitable for marriage. Women are left with the children, and cry out for the security and involvement and loyalty to the family that, ironically, the Sexual Contract that those same women rejected guarantees to women from men. One only has to look at communities where Mom rules and Dad is either on the periphery or doesn't exist altogether, namely the urban ghettoes in the USA or other places where dad is scarce and the family unit consists of mom and children, such as Jamaica, to see what happens when both men and women reject the Sexual Contract.

This is the argument that I should have made. My longtime friend visits here from time to time. I'd like to hear what she has to say if she reads this (if you do, please pick a handle and not respond as Anonymous).

Too Much Sex In The City, Apparently

When 1 in 4 NYC residents pop positive for herpes. Among New Yorkers, the herpes infection rate is highest for women, blacks, and homosexual men.

This is compared to 1 in 5 nationwide, which is still way to high of a
number for comfort.

F4J Strikes Again...



...this time at the home of Harriet Marmon, British Minister for Women (do they have a Minister for Men? Oh, never mind), hanging banners from her roof with the slogan "A Father Is For Life, Not Just For Conception".

Read the DailyMail article here.

Personally, I like David Usher's proposed slogan better, albeit it is a bit more cumbersome:

"We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace"

HT: MensNewsDaily

Guys, Just In Case You Don't Know Where You Stand...

...here's another piece of evidence that lays it out for you:


Vincent M.’s mother surrendered him for adoption at birth, and declined to identify his father. The mother had allegedly deliberately concealed the pregnancy and birth from Vincent’s asserted biological father, identified in the opinion as Jorge C., who had relocated out of state and was allegedly expecting mother to join him and continue their relationship. Jorge C. said the mother finally told him about Vincent when the baby was seven months old, and he flew back to California to try and obtain custody.

He appeared at the permanency hearing, claiming paternity. He filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 388 requesting presumed father status and reunification services. Citing Civil Code Sec. 7004(a)(4), Kriegler said Jorge C. was not a presumed father because he did not receive Vincent into his home and hold the child out as his own.

Relying on In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435—-which held that a man who fails to achieve presumed father status prior to the expiration of the reunification period is not entitled to reunification services unless he can establish, in a Sec. 388 petition, changed circumstances or new evidence demonstrating that the child’s best interest would be promoted by reunification.

Kriegler concluded the trial judge had abused her discretion in disregarding Vincent’s best interests.


Let me translate this: The mother concealed a birth long enough from a father, who in the minority opinion of the court, "did everything one would hope a man in his position would do", and her perfidy is rewarded by terminating his paternal rights and awarding the child to a set of prospective adoptive parents.

The implication of this is clear. Men, the only role that the Courts want for you is that of a wallet to gouge. Don't believe me? Just ask your British bretheren, who may have a new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to contend with that considers their rights less inviolable than that of suspected terrorists. Do you want to be a parent over a mother's wishes? Too bad, she pushed the kid out, she gets to call the shots. Your kid isn't your kid if the mother hides him from you long enough, and the Court will go along with her deception "in the child's best interests".

Conversely, don't want to be a parent over a mother's wishes? Too bad, she pushes the kid out, she again gets to call the shots, and bills you for the trouble. You'd be lucky if you got one-weekend-a-month visitation.

Brothers, just in case you didn't know it already, you have no rights worth respecting in the new modern matriarchal family. Mom rules. What she says goes. And if you're married, don't rock the boat too hard, or she'll cashier you for a fat monthly maintenance check.

HT: Glenn Sacks

This Is Something...

...that I worry about quite a bit, given that my PEW was overly lax--her discipline at times involved begging, pleading, and cajoling--with our boys when we were married. Now, after divorce, this problem is much worse:


The father’s relationship with his children can also be influenced by how different or how alike his style of parenting is to their mother’s. When both parents are similar in terms of setting limits and disciplining the children, then the father isn’t as likely to end up being criticized or shunned. But in cases where the mother continually excuses and tolerates the children’s infantile, aggressive, or inappropriate behavior, then the father can come across as much too uptight, inflexible, or demanding. Especially as teenagers, children in such situations sometimes pull away from their father after the divorce in part because he has higher expectations for them and is willing to discipline and to stand up to them when they are out of line.

The bad news for many divorced fathers is that many mothers abdicate too much power and control to their children - especially if the mother hasn’t remarried and especially if the child is a boy. And sadly, these children often end up less socially mature, less self-reliant, less self-disciplined, and less psychologically well-adjusted than their peers.


I see this quite often vis-a-vis my boys whenever they are over at my place during the aptly named visitation. The shift between different homes and different rules is jarring enough for my boys. But the transition between a home with few rules and expectations placed on them, where they are indulged sickeningly, and given way too much access to media--to one with boundaries and expectations and a notable lack of media (no telly, no XBox, no Nintendo) is difficult for them. Also hard for them in a way is the latitude that I think I offer them as a result of those boundaries and expectations...I see my role as training them to leave the home and enter the world as men. That can't happen if they're coddled and sheltered and spoiled and tied to apron strings.

I don't know what I can do about it, since I'm not likely to indulge their every whim or shower them with gifts upon their arrival (as what happens when they return from my house each visit). I guess the best I can do is just parent the way I am Led to do, and let God handle the rest.

Ugh. No wonder the statistics about children of divorced parents reflects so much pathology.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Guess Gerbils Weren't Enough

From the Richard Gere department of anal horseplay comes this gift from Australia. You can't make stuff like this up, I'm telling you:


Surgeons Remove 16 Steel Washers From Man's 'Nether Region'

Monday, June 02, 2008

An Australian man was operated on in Hornsby Hospital in Berowra Sunday where surgeons removed 16 stainless steel washers from "down under," The Daily Telegraph reports.


All I can say is, I hope that there was beer involved. Or maybe "rape-enol".

Baby Airplanes

A mother and her very young son were flying Southwest Airlines from
Kansas City to Chicago.

The little boy (who had been looking out the window) turned to his mother and asked, 'If big dogs have baby dogs, and big cats have baby cats, why don't big airplanes have baby airplanes?'

The mother (who couldn't think of an answer) told her son to ask the flight attendant, so the boy went down the aisle and asked the flight attendant.

The flight attendant, who was very busy at the time, smiled and said, 'Did your Mom tell you to ask me?'

The boy said, 'Yes she did.'

'Well, then, you go and tell your mother that there are no baby airplanes because Southwest always pulls out on time. Have your Mom explain that to you.'

Study: 1 in 30 Infants Born Alive...

...after an abortion attempt, so says a study from the UK released last year:


One in 30 babies aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a study has found. They lived for an average of 80 minutes - although in some cases foetuses survived for over six hours. Researchers looked at the outcome of 3,189 abortions performed on seriously handicapped foetuses at 20 hospitals between 1995 and 2004. It showed that 102 - or around one in 30 - aborted for reasons such as Down's Syndrome and heart defects, were born alive.


I first discussed this monstrous issue of failed abortions back in November, when a woman from Stoke gave birth to two healthy twins after she tried to eliminate the smaller of the two. Twice. Failing that, she posed for a picture with the survivor of her attempt at fetuscide.

Well, yesterday, a post over at Mrs. H's place made me think that I was experiencing some powerful botched abortion deja vu. Mrs H's post linked to a DailyMailUK article about a another British woman who birthed a healthy baby boy after attempting to kill it six months previously. She too posed for a picture, all smiles with the very same boy she tried to off.




Attempted Abortionettes Jodie Percival (left) and Rebecca Jones (right) Mug for the Cameras with the Kids They Tried to Kill


It is interesting to note that both of these women proceeded with the abortion attempt on the recommendations of doctors who told them their child would not survive or have a decent quality of life. The same folks whose Hippocratic oath states that they shall "do no harm" are advising people to kill their unborn children. What's worse is that they know that the abortion failure rate is better than 5% (by "failure", I mean that the intended murder victim survives the attempt).

It is people like these women and doctors that bring us right up to (and sometimes over) the precipice of euthanasia. As I explained in a comment at Mrs H's blog A Stepmom's Say, a very steep slippery slope exists between abortion and non-consensual euthanasia. Non-consensual euthanasia is believed to be widespread in Holland, where the old or infirm folks are slain for the sole reason that they are too burdensome or too costly. The society that allows human life to be subject to another's leave at any point is the society that makes the value of human life negotiable at all points, and in the end, human life has no intrinsic value and may be disposed of at will.

Back to the study mentioned at the beginning of this post. Apparently, 1 in 30 may be a lower bound, as some UK anti-abortion groups speculate that the true rate is much higher:


Campaigners said it was likely the Midlands figures were just the tip of the iceberg as the region only accounts for around a tenth of the babies born in the country each year. In addition, the study only looked at babies whose lives were ended because of disability. However, most abortions are carried out on 'healthy' babies for social reasons.

Julia Millington of the pro-life group Alive and Kicking said: "This can't just be happening in the West Midlands. It begs the question of how many healthy babies must be surviving? It would suggest the true figure must be much higher. With live births after abortion occurring in 18 out of the 20 maternity units in the West Midlands alone, it is difficult to comprehend the numbers of babies around the country left fighting for their lives."

Babies born alive after abortion are entitled to medical care. However, anti-abortion campaigners claim that some are so unwanted, they are simply left to die.


An American woman who herself was the survivor of a failed abortion attempt in the USA testified to Parliament about the grisly procedure. Her 7-months pregnant mother tried to abort her for unknown reasons 31 years ago; she ended up with cerebral palsy as a result of the botched procedure. I leave you with one of the questions she posed to the MPs during her testimony:

"If abortion is about women's rights, then what were my rights? No decision is solely yours to make. All decisions affect another human being - whether it is for good or for ill"

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Wednesday Linkage

Michelle Obama places all the blame for the world's ills on honkeys/crackers/whiteys. Her husband should invest in duct tape and Prozac if he wants to have a prayer this election.

Update: (8 Jun 08) There is a distinct possibility that what Mme Obama is alleged to have said on tape is a hoax.

Speaking of Obama, the rest of the world is apparently jubilant that Obama has all but secured the Democratic nomination for president. Apparently the rest of the world is a lot like America, in that they have no idea what the man stands for but like how he talks and the fact that he's a black man competing for election to a still majority white country.

The amount of gatekeeping by Mom is inversely related to the quantity of Dad's fathering behavior. Maybe women who complain about a lack of Dad's involvement should examine if/how their behavior is preventing/frustrating Dad from engaging.

Twenty-five year old female teacher from Australia wanted to be a 15 year-old boy's sex slave. I wonder if she'll get jail time, or if the female sentencing discount will ride to the rescue again?

Also from Australia, a photographer displays his "art", which consists of nude 12 and 13 year old girls (link SFW: contains censored pictures).

In a rare piece of good news on the youth front, both black and white US teens are having less extra-marital sex, using less drugs, drinking less alcohol, and buckling up more often.

Three Men, A Pool, and A Power Strip...

...a guide to what not to do when recreating in your backyard:



A Public Service Message Brought to You by EW.

Want to Lower Gas Prices? Well, Start...

...by building refineries, you idiots! Like this one in South Dakota which, if completed, will be the nation's first in 32 years:


The final tally was 3,932 votes in favor of the ordinance and 2,832 against.

Hyperion touted the so-called "green" technology in its proposed energy center, which it claims would be the world's cleanest. The refinery would process 400,000 barrels of tar sands crude from Alberta into low-sulfur gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Supporters argued that tapping into reserves from our neighbor to the north would reduce the nation's dependence on Mideast oil and add badly needed refining capacity in the U.S., where the last all-new refinery was built in 1976.


Even with gas in some areas pushing $5/gal, it's clear that folks still just don't get it. Gas is high not because Exxon and ShellBP are price gouging. Gas prices are high because the market is inflicting pain on mamby-pamby NIMBY retards who prevent refinery construction. That the vote on this refinery was so close demonstrates to me that gas prices need to rise more for the Americans to get serious.

That's not to say that the enviros don't have a legitimate worry about pollution. The Texaco and Conoco refineries in my home town of Casper both leaked petroleum byproducts into the ground water supply under the town and into the North Platte River. But those plants were built in the 50s; I suspect that technology has come a long way in 50 years. Besides, I bet Hyperion knows that it's behavior and care will be scrutinized heavily here.

Obama: The Messiah Complex Continues

If one has any doubt as to who Obama thinks he is, just check out this NRO interview:


GG:
Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:
Yes.

GG:
What is sin?

OBAMA:
Being out of alignment with my values.


I don't know about you, dear reader, but the concept of sin in Christianity is the opposite of what Obama says. Sin is being out of alignment with God's values, not being out of alignment with human values. Being out of alignment with human values is a sin against secular humanism, not Christianity.

That is, unless Obama is claiming to be the Second Coming, in which case, sin would be a lack of alignment with Obama-values.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Lookit Me Mom--I'm Self Medicating

Mrs Wapiti prolly won't appreciate this, but I'm actually improving my health by planting myself in front of a computer for hours on end:


Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not.


The study also noted that blogging releases dopamine, much like other stimulants such as listening to music, looking at art, or running. Which helps explain how it's so addicting...

HT: Bane

Monday, June 2, 2008

She Lied, Now His Freedom Is Denied



In another entry to be filed under "take the words a woman says with a grain of salt", a 13 year old girl posed as an 19 year old divorcee in order to attract and have sex with adult men:


A 13-year-old girl's sexual shenanigans have put a second man behind bars. Morris Williams, 22, told the judge he thought the girl was 18-years-old, but he found out Tuesday that ignorance is not a defense. The judge asked for media not to show 13-year-old Alisha Dean's face in court, but her pictures are all over her MySpace page and they portray a sexy, 19-year-old divorced woman.

"She told me she had just turned 18," Williams said. Williams said Dean picked him up on the street and after a few conversations they had sex. Williams said he never did it again, but Dean has done it before with 24-year-old Darwin Mills. Mills was sentenced to five years in prison.

Dean's father wanted Williams to join Mills there. "One of the reasons for the law is the fact that minors have poor judgment," said Jerry Dean, the girl's father. Dean's family admits Alisha still stays out late and has yet to delete her misleading MySpace page.


Lessee. She commits fraud. The target of her advances is held responsible for believing her lies and is sent to join the previous guy she banged. And best of all, her father doesn't seem all that concerned. Maybe the one with the poor judgement is her dad, who let it all happen. Twice.

There could hardly be a better example than this of why jury nullification is essential. If I were on that jury, and saw how mature she looked in those pictures, you bet I'd vote not guilty. She's the one that belongs in jail, not him.

Update: This post by the Dreamin' Demon fills in a little bit more data about the Deans' Myspace page and then asks an excellent question:


Alisha’s public Myspace is now down, but it wasn’t, even when the case went to court yesterday. The suggestive material was enough to make grown women blush. A couple of her videos show the minor child shaking her womanly booty like she’s working the pole. It’s totally believable to me that young men might not realize the girl’s age if she lied about it. Furthermore, Jerry Dean openly admitted that Alisha continues to stay out late and hadn’t deleted the Myspace that listed her as an adult. Even now, her private page says she’s 16 - three years older than she really is.

So what’s the answer? Lori Drew has been charged for essentially lying about her age and identity on a website resulting in harm to Megan Meier. Can’t the same charges be placed on a kid who let men go to jail without telling them her age? What about her parents, who are clearly unwilling to curtail her online and offline activities?


An excellent question indeed. Lori Drew, Drew's daughter, and Ashley Grill's Myspace mischievery resulted in the suicide of a 13 y.o. girl, Megan Meier. Lori Drew was arrested and charged with fraudulently using an account on Myspace and with conspiracy. Ashley Grill is an unindicted co-conspirator.

Clearly there is a precedent being set that holds people accountable for how they represent themselves, or direct others to represent themselves in cyberspace if their fraudulent representation knowingly results in, or is intended to result in, a crime. Why isn't that same standard being applied to how people represent themselves in real life too?