Response to article in the Santa Barbara News Press
It is nice to know that Democrats also squabble, as I saw in today’s News-Press, page A3, in the article titled, “In protest, gay couple quits Democrat group.” Having encountered monumental political wars as a Libertarian and then as a Republican, it is both sad and illuminating to see that this is a behavior that rears its head in all political institutions.
It is, however disturbing to think that with Democrats political expedience over rides an issue of principle, as we can construe in the words of Ms. Carey when she said, “,,, at this time, we Democrats need to be united against the recall.” What does gay marriage have to do with the recall? This kind of reasoning is morally bankrupt. Gay people have the same inherent rights, possessed by each individual. These must never be traded for purposes of political positioning.
It is appropriate, however, to question whether or not the State should ever have been making policy in this most personal area of our lives. With the best motives ‘family law’ has been used to steal the lives of uncounted numbers of women – and men, who thought that marriage, as defined by the State, was an institution of responsibility, integrity and honor. It started as a tool to undo great wrongs. It has been converted into a means for the unethical and irresponsible minority to feed off the decent majority. It is the base cause of many of the present social ills that distort our nation.
Be careful what you ask for because the version of ‘marriage’ produced by the State will cost you more than you can imagine. The State has taken it upon themselves to produce, the last time I looked, more than 50 specific things one partner is obliged to do for another. It had separated responsibility from the equation, empowering predators to steal, abuse, rape, molest and lie with impunity. It happens right here in Santa Barbara. It happens every day.
Imagine signing a contract then you do not know in advance what it really says? The three-party contract, that we know as ‘the marriage license’ is a contract between you, your spouse and the State. The State, as usual, has all of the power. Your contract can be altered without your consent and without your knowledge. Would you do business that way? Could you? Imagine having this most intimate and personal part of your life at the mercy of the same people who bring you fiasco after fiasco and vote themselves raises with cheerful abandon.
I suggest that gay couples use private contract and mandate arbitration, naming their own agents instead of thrusting their necks into the noose of State control. This makes much better sense. Heterosexual couples should also give the marriage license bureau a pass.
What gays are trying to achieve is clearly a public validation for their relationships. But in believing that the State is the appropriate institution to provide this they are inadvertently setting themselves up for the inching fingers of control that now distort and destroy the lives of so many good women and men.
Gays are better off without State marriage. I sincerely hope they decide to have someone else do the calligraphy. It’s much cheaper that way.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Wendy McElroy: NeoCon Flack
As always Wendy McElroy has failed to do the due diligence you would expect of a first grader.
I first met Wendy over twenty five years ago at a Libertarian event in West Los Angeles. My daughter, Morgan, was a small girl then.
This is relevant because the case she is citing in this most inane of screeds is the one in which my daughter was battered into an inch of her life by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal. I was a witness. I heard two events of battery going on over the phone. Later, I saw her bruises and I watched as she vomited blood from internal injuries. I nursed her through those first horrible days. I sat with her on the phone all one long night after the almost successful break-in attempt at her apartment in New York. John has thugs who work for him. I helped move her into hiding so that John Fund and his NeoCon buddies could not find and kill her.
I am not the only such witness.
You might ask why Wendy did not know this. Perhaps because like Alterman she never asked. You see victims and those who love them are deemed to be unreliable witnesses in the eyes of women like Wendy who would prefer for reasons of their own financial wellbeing to continue to doubt without ever asking for proof. Wendy McElroy makes a living off the raped and brutalized bodies of women and children. She is an apologist and enabler for those who steal through violence, stealth, and deceit. Her comfort level means more to her than the freedom from violence for the innocent. She is a dishonest, aging intellectual pygmy with the morals of a William Bennett. With this ‘opinion piece’ she has proven her moral weight to anyone with even a modicum of brains and objectivity.
The last several years has taught me a lot about human nature. I am no longer as trusting as I once was. I have learned some ugly truths about human action and the greedy side of self justification and how the cults of philosophical posturing are used by those in power.
At one time I thought I was working for freedom. I thought that I shared a common understanding of freedom with those who surrounded me. I dealt with people on a handshake, always taking pride in being my word. Unlike so many of my former compatriots I never tried to make a living out that work. I worked for the future I wanted to leave for my children. That was more than enough.
To them it turned out that the rhetoric of freedom is just another tool to continue the ugliness of a different flavor of slavery. A culture that allows, tolerates and enables the kind of abuse we have suffered should be destroyed so that something better can take its place.
When John Fund lied to my daughter he took from her. When he coerced her into having an abortion he destroyed the child she wanted. When he battered her and stole thousands of dollars from her with the help of American Express, Citibank and Chase he committed felonies. He used his influence in continuous attempts to destroy both of us so that he would not be found out. But he was. The courts do not work well. They are often corrupt and it is difficult for those who have less to get the simple justice that our ancestors believed were their due.
Today the fight for freedom is not to be fought in the safe incestuous maunderings of the political parties but at the grass roots.
Only when all of the power is returned to the people will America be free. When that happens Wendy will have to find an honest job.
Unlike Wendy McElroy I do not expect to be believed in the absence of proof.
I first met Wendy over twenty five years ago at a Libertarian event in West Los Angeles. My daughter, Morgan, was a small girl then.
This is relevant because the case she is citing in this most inane of screeds is the one in which my daughter was battered into an inch of her life by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal. I was a witness. I heard two events of battery going on over the phone. Later, I saw her bruises and I watched as she vomited blood from internal injuries. I nursed her through those first horrible days. I sat with her on the phone all one long night after the almost successful break-in attempt at her apartment in New York. John has thugs who work for him. I helped move her into hiding so that John Fund and his NeoCon buddies could not find and kill her.
I am not the only such witness.
You might ask why Wendy did not know this. Perhaps because like Alterman she never asked. You see victims and those who love them are deemed to be unreliable witnesses in the eyes of women like Wendy who would prefer for reasons of their own financial wellbeing to continue to doubt without ever asking for proof. Wendy McElroy makes a living off the raped and brutalized bodies of women and children. She is an apologist and enabler for those who steal through violence, stealth, and deceit. Her comfort level means more to her than the freedom from violence for the innocent. She is a dishonest, aging intellectual pygmy with the morals of a William Bennett. With this ‘opinion piece’ she has proven her moral weight to anyone with even a modicum of brains and objectivity.
The last several years has taught me a lot about human nature. I am no longer as trusting as I once was. I have learned some ugly truths about human action and the greedy side of self justification and how the cults of philosophical posturing are used by those in power.
At one time I thought I was working for freedom. I thought that I shared a common understanding of freedom with those who surrounded me. I dealt with people on a handshake, always taking pride in being my word. Unlike so many of my former compatriots I never tried to make a living out that work. I worked for the future I wanted to leave for my children. That was more than enough.
To them it turned out that the rhetoric of freedom is just another tool to continue the ugliness of a different flavor of slavery. A culture that allows, tolerates and enables the kind of abuse we have suffered should be destroyed so that something better can take its place.
When John Fund lied to my daughter he took from her. When he coerced her into having an abortion he destroyed the child she wanted. When he battered her and stole thousands of dollars from her with the help of American Express, Citibank and Chase he committed felonies. He used his influence in continuous attempts to destroy both of us so that he would not be found out. But he was. The courts do not work well. They are often corrupt and it is difficult for those who have less to get the simple justice that our ancestors believed were their due.
Today the fight for freedom is not to be fought in the safe incestuous maunderings of the political parties but at the grass roots.
Only when all of the power is returned to the people will America be free. When that happens Wendy will have to find an honest job.
Unlike Wendy McElroy I do not expect to be believed in the absence of proof.
Ann Coulter and the ERA
Anne Coulter wears skirts so short you can see her brains. Or you could if she had any. She is the best argument that the foamy-mouthed Right has made for the immediate passage of the long delayed ERA.
Nasty? Yes, and like all humor it arrives at a truth seen but not spoken.
Coulter is the unwoman prime of this generation; the latest and least representative of a species of women who have carried the ball, and presumably the coffee, for an establishment that wants more than anything to deny women the seats they earn at the table of power and their place in deciding for themselves how their lives will be lived.
The ERA is history but it is also the future. Americans assume equality for men and women by an overwhelming percentage. A recent poll from Opinion Research Corporation found that 96% of all Americans believe that men and women should have equal rights even as the Foamy-mouthed Right, and Libertarians deny it to women by blocking the passage of the ERA.
Congress will be taking up the question again. So far the measure has 186 cosponsors, nearly enough to push it past the blockage put up by Republicans.
That, and other factors mean it is about to happen despite Anne Coulter.
The Good Old Boys needed a titular woman who would obfuscate the truth. They found a real tool in Coulter to replace the sad, silly spokeswoman they had found in Phyllis Schlafly.
They still use carefully forged campaigns of disinformation and managed pressure groups to arrest the future. Coulter has rung in new variations on the theme. Such women are conscious tools of the GOB network. They have a long and dishonorable history in American politics.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, along with other leaders of the original American Women’s Movement, were at first astonished to be sniped at and then virulently attacked by women of privilege. Why would those who had so much grudge other women, most of them far less wealthy, a voice in public affaires and the right to their own lives and property? The Madams of Privilege had not been asked to give up their soirees, their laundrywomen, their coachmen, and their wealth. Why would they seek to deny working women the rights of self-determination?
The answer is not nice.
The fact is that there are always individuals out there looking for the benefits of public acclaim.
Therefore with women arming for war Phyllis Schlafly still tries to frighten us by urging mothers not to allow their daughters to risk joining the military. Anne Coulter goes farther, asserting that women should not be allowed to vote – while voting herself and enjoying all of the privileges of power.
These MOPs accept the privileges of fame and adulation for destroying the future of women unborn. It is the best job they could find – and the perks have been very good.
America has birthed many famous women, women who poured lifetimes into finding better truths for all of us.
Such is the fame of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Margaret Sanger and the host of other women who redefined the world in which we live. Fame is a heady drug for some, a tool for others.
Mother Theresa could tell you about the benefits of fame. The best holders of fame convert it into movements that change the world. The best are not about having the perks. They are about service.
This is about the MOPs. They are not good enough to make it to the upper echelons in their chosen marketplace as proponents for women - but they mightily want the flavor of fame and the favors fame brings.
So the GOBs sign them up. It is easier to join the Good Old Boys and shoot down those struggling for equality than it is to fight city hall. There are always those who valued the advantages of fame and wealth over being particularly discriminating about how they accomplish those ends. Fame and money are aphrodisiacs for self-love, too.
The subtext of GOB Babes like Phyllis Schlafly and Anne Coulter is not just, “to the back of the bus,” but, “on your back, bitch.” Not that they would fail to be outraged if they were treated like that themselves. Anne expects to be treated like a celebrity, meaning she does not expect to do the right thing herself, just to talk about it.
They have changed their strategies but their ends are the same.
Anne Coulter in particular has used the FemCard. She is blond by choice, razor thin and dresses like a two bit whore. This allows her the natural protection of femininity, armoring her from males on the left. All males hope they might get lucky, that is simple biology. Leftist males are no different.
The issue is what comes out of her mouth.
She has a mouth like a toilet and a mind to match. She calls for death, destruction, hate, and female servitude to the principle of masculinity. Her book, Slander was well named. It marks what we must hope is the low tide mark for journalistic standards. The challenge to the reader is finding statements that are true, not those that are false. We can hope that this attack of the undead of the Right will die in oncoming light, leaving the field open to a productive discourse between the decent majority.
Think of the ERA as the garlic that will put Anne Coulter back in her coffin. There, she cannot offend.
Nasty? Yes, and like all humor it arrives at a truth seen but not spoken.
Coulter is the unwoman prime of this generation; the latest and least representative of a species of women who have carried the ball, and presumably the coffee, for an establishment that wants more than anything to deny women the seats they earn at the table of power and their place in deciding for themselves how their lives will be lived.
The ERA is history but it is also the future. Americans assume equality for men and women by an overwhelming percentage. A recent poll from Opinion Research Corporation found that 96% of all Americans believe that men and women should have equal rights even as the Foamy-mouthed Right, and Libertarians deny it to women by blocking the passage of the ERA.
Congress will be taking up the question again. So far the measure has 186 cosponsors, nearly enough to push it past the blockage put up by Republicans.
That, and other factors mean it is about to happen despite Anne Coulter.
The Good Old Boys needed a titular woman who would obfuscate the truth. They found a real tool in Coulter to replace the sad, silly spokeswoman they had found in Phyllis Schlafly.
They still use carefully forged campaigns of disinformation and managed pressure groups to arrest the future. Coulter has rung in new variations on the theme. Such women are conscious tools of the GOB network. They have a long and dishonorable history in American politics.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, along with other leaders of the original American Women’s Movement, were at first astonished to be sniped at and then virulently attacked by women of privilege. Why would those who had so much grudge other women, most of them far less wealthy, a voice in public affaires and the right to their own lives and property? The Madams of Privilege had not been asked to give up their soirees, their laundrywomen, their coachmen, and their wealth. Why would they seek to deny working women the rights of self-determination?
The answer is not nice.
The fact is that there are always individuals out there looking for the benefits of public acclaim.
Therefore with women arming for war Phyllis Schlafly still tries to frighten us by urging mothers not to allow their daughters to risk joining the military. Anne Coulter goes farther, asserting that women should not be allowed to vote – while voting herself and enjoying all of the privileges of power.
These MOPs accept the privileges of fame and adulation for destroying the future of women unborn. It is the best job they could find – and the perks have been very good.
America has birthed many famous women, women who poured lifetimes into finding better truths for all of us.
Such is the fame of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Margaret Sanger and the host of other women who redefined the world in which we live. Fame is a heady drug for some, a tool for others.
Mother Theresa could tell you about the benefits of fame. The best holders of fame convert it into movements that change the world. The best are not about having the perks. They are about service.
This is about the MOPs. They are not good enough to make it to the upper echelons in their chosen marketplace as proponents for women - but they mightily want the flavor of fame and the favors fame brings.
So the GOBs sign them up. It is easier to join the Good Old Boys and shoot down those struggling for equality than it is to fight city hall. There are always those who valued the advantages of fame and wealth over being particularly discriminating about how they accomplish those ends. Fame and money are aphrodisiacs for self-love, too.
The subtext of GOB Babes like Phyllis Schlafly and Anne Coulter is not just, “to the back of the bus,” but, “on your back, bitch.” Not that they would fail to be outraged if they were treated like that themselves. Anne expects to be treated like a celebrity, meaning she does not expect to do the right thing herself, just to talk about it.
They have changed their strategies but their ends are the same.
Anne Coulter in particular has used the FemCard. She is blond by choice, razor thin and dresses like a two bit whore. This allows her the natural protection of femininity, armoring her from males on the left. All males hope they might get lucky, that is simple biology. Leftist males are no different.
The issue is what comes out of her mouth.
She has a mouth like a toilet and a mind to match. She calls for death, destruction, hate, and female servitude to the principle of masculinity. Her book, Slander was well named. It marks what we must hope is the low tide mark for journalistic standards. The challenge to the reader is finding statements that are true, not those that are false. We can hope that this attack of the undead of the Right will die in oncoming light, leaving the field open to a productive discourse between the decent majority.
Think of the ERA as the garlic that will put Anne Coulter back in her coffin. There, she cannot offend.
A Valentine for San Francisco
San Francisco is to be congratulated for affirming the right of gays to marry and doing so in defiance of all higher authority except their consciences.
Marriage is an ancient human relationship and will always remain the only familial connection that can be based entirely on choice. We do not get to choose our mother, father, sisters, brothers, cousins or children; in the sense that we know exactly who children are going to turn out to be after investing eighteen years in their raising. Children come with mountains of obligations beyond the diapers, and although they are certainly worth every moment of the time we invest it can even happen that they grow up and register in some Party that is antithetical to our own beliefs.
The featured simulation above symbolizes the freedom that will now be offered even to those who will probably reject this particular match for a variety of reasons. Matt Drudge will probably not be moving to San Francisco so he can offer David Brock marriage with a bouquet of yellow roses. David already spurned him. David would probably not be interested in a man who does not share his new political beliefs now any more than he was when he occupied a prominent position on the Right. Ann Coulter, while doubtless the best man of the three, will therefore miss out on the chance of standing up for the fantasy duo. But we can wonder who else might have been involved if such a wedding took place.
Weddings are always a wonderful human experience.
So while I hardly ever agree with anything that happens politically in San Francisco it was very nice today to open my paper and see that the city of the Golden Gate had allowed gays to put their head in the same noose provided for heterosexuals.
Now, having said that, and along with advising that the calligraphy on the wedding certificate be in Old English, I would like to add a cautionary note on the institution of Marriage as practiced by the government.
Before you pick you bride’s maids, groomsmen, and decide on what kind of wedding cake to serve at the reception think about that license you take out from the government. Read the contract the government issues. It is a Soviet kind of one size fits all document. This is in itself enough to sour you on the project. There are over 50 obligations intrinsic in the deal; the contract can be changed without notice and on the whim of the legislature, most of whom are attorneys. Would you sign a contract like that for a motor home? No way.
Think about that. Also, the judicial system is staffed by a cadre of former attorneys and judges who are immune from accountability. You can sue your contractor but not the judge. Which do you think can cost you more?
While getting government to recognize that you are married is necessary to securing benefits such as medical insurance, government marriage can cost you in ways you do not anticipate.
The better approach on the issue would actually be to let people determine who they name as their family members and write their own contracts, where necessary. A further objection, not often cited, to the current involvement of government in marriage is that some Americans view it as a sacred bond, affirmed by God, and therefore within the covenant of a religious institution; others as a civil contract, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the right of individuals for self determination. Many Suffragists married with a conscience contract in which their husband agreed to ignore the mandates of government.
The bottom line issue is that it is we ourselves who should be making these choices about our lives, not the government.
But tomorrow is Valentine’s Day – so congratulations to San Francisco and long live romance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)