Final Reminder of the Monorail Nightmare

As if even the naïve voters of Seattle had not already figured out that the monorail was a bad project, the existing monorail seemed to crash just to demonstrate just why.


The company that currently operates the monorail is actually a pretty good, having managed to keep an old system relatively healthy. But, the recent crash shows why it would never have been wise to allow the bozos running SMP to run a new one, especially not with a single track running in both directions for a span.

Thank goodness that nightmare is behind us. I’m sure the intrepid people of Seattle will find another looser project to get wrapped up in, and waste our money on, though. Tunnel anyone?

There's more! Click to read

Sno-Isle Libraries Welcome Feminists Only

Here are interesting minutes of the Sno-Isle Library Board meeting back in May of this year. It appears that a patron requested the library to add the book The Rantings of a Single Male (discussed on this blog here). The library, predictably, refused.


Here is the minute from the Board meeting on this topic:

Mr. Freeman reporting for the System Services Committee informed the Board that the committee met with Ms. Woolf-Ivory to review a request from a customer to purchase the book, Rantings of a Single Male, by Thomas Ellis. Collection Development staff as well as Ms. Woolf-Ivory evaluated the request and declined to add the specific title to the Libraries’ collection as it did not meet the criteria established in the Collection Development Policy. The book in question was not reviewed by reputable reviewers and was published by a self-publishing company.

The committee agreed with both the customer and staff that there were more items in the Library’s collection concerning the women’s rights movement as compared to the men’s rights movement. This is due in large part to the lack of materials currently published in this area. After reviewing the individual book request as well as the correspondence regarding the collection, the committee agreed with staff’s decision not to purchase the book. The decision guidelines for the purchasing of materials for the collection were followed very carefully and thoughtfully by staff.

The System Services Committee’s recommendation was that a letter be sent informing the customer of the committee’s decision. The Board agreed with the committee’s recommendation.

Why, that is interesting. I have never heard of any library that rejected all self-published books. I’m sure the Board reviewed Ellis’ book about as far as required to learn that it does not fit into their feminist ideology box.

Every public library in the country should be requested to carry this book. And, those that refuse should be subject to a letter writing campaign.

The first letter writing campaign should be to the Sno-Isle library. We encourage all of our readers to go to the Sno-Isle Library’s Contact Us page and send a request to everyone there that they (1) stock Rantings of a Single Male and (2) provide a logical reason as to why they will not stock it if they refuse.

There's more! Click to read

Are we tired of Danny Westneat?

After starting with an interesting question, The Seattle Times’ Danny Westneat concludes with his usual lazy standby explanation based on white guilt


Westneat asks if we are burned out on charitable giving after a year of several large natural (semi-natural in the case of New Orleans) disasters. As evidence, he points out our lack of response to suffering in Pakistan in the wake of a massive earthquake there.

Of course, according to Westneat, we are not giving more for earthquake relief to Pakistan because the people there have black hair and eyes. It’s too bad our region’s flagship newspaper gives newsprint space to someone that can tease us by asking a relevant question, then fall back on such a silly and all-to-predictable explanation straight out of the Political Correctness for Dummies handbook.

It’s obvious the guy has not spent much time out in the world. The extent of his “diversity culturalization” is listening to NPR while driving to a foreign land, like perhaps Kent. Anyone who has spent substantial time in one of these perpetually impoverished countries realizes that throwing money at the latest disaster does little to help. It might make white boys like Westneat, who seem to have some sort of unresolved guilt, feel better about themselves, but that’s sort of like Don Quixote challenging windmills to protect the honor of his maiden. There isn’t much wider benefit in the self indulgent exercise.

While CNN uses dramatized portrayals of the latest disaster in an effort to boost ratings, most of us have caught on to the fact that CNN simply needs to maintain bureaus in a predictable set of countries to find content. The countries themselves are perpetual disasters.

Instead of concluding that we are simply fat, consumption addicted, racist white people who care not about the rest of the world, it would be much more interesting for someone with newsprint space to examine honestly why we are sometimes slow to give. What are our perceptions are of places like Pakistan, for example? It could just be that we are getting better at choosing and prioritizing our charity so that we are not constantly chasing hopeless cases.

Or, someone like Westneat could appeal to our logic. It could be that we are getting worse at choosing where to send our charity because we are not factoring in long term interests. Pakistan is a great example where appealing to our intellect and logic might be the best way to inspire us to give. After all, you can be sure that Islamic fascist organizations are using the occasion to blame Western influence for inspiring God's wrath, while giving money with religious indoctrination attached. Help from us, with some PR attached, might be some of the best spent charity in a year that has required a lot of it.

Yeah, we are tired of Westneat. Let’s get someone in our media that appeals to something more than his own feel-good (and make us feel bad) impulses.

There's more! Click to read

Balter says, "Join the Seattle Borg"

Joni Balter says the rest of the state now has a love affair with Seattle.

In the old days of Washington politics, Republicans delighted in using the state's premier city as the ultimate wedge issue. Say something nasty about Seattle liberals — or Seattleliberals, all one word — and automatically drive up the Republican turnout and vote in Eastern Washington.

The strategy worked in statewide election contests... well, until it didn't.

The GOP's proclivity for Seattle-bashing has run its course.

According to Balter, what she calls the “politics of division” is old news. She wants everyone to jump on the Seattle bandwagon of mindless political correctness.

Actually, Joni, what you call “division” is just political debate. It’s the process of vetting ideas, thinking originally, and questioning premises. I know you’d like for everyone to be assimilated into the Seattle Borg, but resistance still exists and is not likely to go away.

You can wish all you want, Joni Balter, since wishes don’t cost anything. But, if anything, Seattle is likely to start looking more like the rest of the state than the other way around.

Seattle's old politburo mindset is changing as people slowly see that "we defy, therefor we are" doesn't get you very far. It doesn't get you federal money to replace the Viaduct and it doesn't attract employers.

Balter would like for you to shut down your mind and throw in the towel. She wants you to accept vote fraud, a corrupt elections office, and the poor judgement of a city that will waste millions of dollars on a monorail project that from the very beginning defied the most basic laws of economics.

We say these are the sorts of common sense issues suburbanites will wake up to.

There's more! Click to read

Really Want to Save Lives?

Here is a positive development, if you are truly interested in reducing carbon emissions and saving the lives of people: doing something about motorcyclist deaths. After all, motorcycles are not merely the mounts of roughnecks and the irresponsible any more.

The State of Washington spends enormous amounts of money on the latest hysteria to grip the nation (which always seems to get amplified to ridiculous proportions in Seattle), but historically has done little to reduce harm to people as they do the ordinary things they enjoy.

Motorcycling is increasingly popular. Yet, there is not a single road in the state that has been designed with motorcyclists in mind. The Seattle, King County, and the state are delirious about doing the most politically correct transportation thing, like build an overpriced light rail system, use billions to add HOV lanes, or add bicycle trails crisscrossing the region. But, it has only recently occurred to them that something should be done for motorcyclists.

Currently, the only focus seems to be on educating motorcyclists. That’s a good thing, since practice makes perfect and it would be better for that to occur off the state’s highways. But, it is far from what should be done.

No matter how much you practice on a motorcycle, you can never control what the woman in an SUV does. Smack into her big Suburban after she changes lanes without looking while you are going 40 to 50 miles per hour on your motorcycle, and you are not likely to survive.

If transportation planners want to move people while using the least space, motorcycles are a great thing to encourage. Instead of HOV lanes, or in addition to them, the state should add special motorcycles-only lanes to all major highways that do not allow cars and trucks. With study, additional changes to regular roads could probably also be found that aid and assist motorcyclists.

These things may not be as politically fulfilling as, say, limiting the civil rights of all fathers in order fight the phantasmal “patriarchy,” but it would save more lives, would be constructive instead of destructive, save gas, and allow more people to enjoy something that is a helluva lot of fun with much less risk.

There's more! Click to read

The Outrageous Claim that a Father Should Know

All the hoopla now surrounding Judge Alito’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 14 years ago, which stated that a woman should be required to inform her husband prior to getting an abortion, is missing the point entirely. And does so deliberately.

For an example of how twisted the arguments are.... check out this column in Slate by William Saletan. Saletan claims that because Alito referred to the simple fact that the Court found no undue burden in requiring a minor to get consent from her parents prior to getting an abortion, it should also be assumed that it would not be an undue burden for a wife to inform with her husband first.

All the usual hysterical claims are made in this column and all of the others as genderists attempt to fan the flames that would burn Alito’s nomination. Saletan makes the specious argument that since Alito referred to parental consent, he must think that all adult women are nothing more than girls.

Now, here's my question, Judge. Do you really think an undue burden for a grown woman is the same as an undue burden for a teenager? Do you think a woman deserves no more deference than a girl?

Well, no. This is an example of the logic errors made deliberately by the genderist crowd in order to confuse intellectual debate. They count on the reader to be ignorant or at least incapable of understanding the logic of an argument.

Alito was using the Court’s finding regarding the “burden” required for teenagers to consent their parents in order to have a means of measuring the possible burden placed on an adult woman. There is nothing in this line of thinking that equates the treatment or “deference” of society towards a woman with that of a mere girl. Moreover, the requirement of a woman seeking an abortion was simply to “inform,” while that of a teenage girl was to acquire “consent.”

In spite of himself, Saletan touches on the real reason that a woman should be required to inform her husband (or even lover, in my opinion) that she will abort a fetus that is formed partly of his genetic material.

And the other argument is that the husband has such a profound interest in keeping the fetus alive—and his wife has such a small interest in controlling what happens to her body—that the government can force her to consult him even if she's so afraid of him, or so certain she can't have this baby, that she won't talk to him unless we threaten her with criminal charges.

Why, yes. Perhaps the husband does have a profound interest in keeping the fetus alive. Perhaps the husband believes that he should take responsibility for creating a life. Perhaps the husband – now hold on to your chair – believes that he has some rights with regard to a fetus that he played a 50% role in creating. Perhaps the guy just wants to have a baby and thought, at the time of conception, that this was the plan. Maybe he should at least be informed when his wife has changed her mind.

And, what is so horrible about that? From the genderist perspective, the simple idea that a husband or a man would have any rights at all is abhorrent. There is nothing in Alito’s decision that diminishes the status of a woman as an equal to her husband. It simply says that a woman is equal, but not more equal, than her husband and the father of the fetus. In fact, it does not even go that far. The woman is still more equal, because all she needs to do is inform her husband and does not require his consent. She still has all the rights she had before, including the right to make the abortion decision, and with that right comes a simple obligation to let another obviously and rightfully interested party know what she has decided.

If anyone is equating women with girls, it is Saletan and other genderists like him. Using his stretching of logic to make unintended inferences, he is suggesting that women should never have any obligations. How far should we take that? Should women not be required to pay taxes because they have a right to their income, but not an obligation to report it to the IRS?

Worse, we keep children in the dark about some things in order to protect them or simply because they have no role to play in adult decisions. So, are the genderists saying that men are really just boys and should be kept in the dark about such important matters? Does an adult man have no role in making an "adult" decision? In fact, by keeping the truth from a man, they are conspiring to take away his ability to make a choice - the choice of whether he can remain married to a woman that would abort a fetus he played a role in creating. If abortion is all about choice, why shouldn't he have a choice too?

Alito’s argument is about providing at least a smidgen of rights to fathers. What an outrageous idea! If anyone in this debate had any gumption at all, or if they cared one iota about the most basic rights of men and fathers, they would point out that the least a wife can do is inform her husband that she is aborting their child. In fact, as a prelude to Hillary Rodham running for President on the Democratic ticket, Republicans should corner her side into admitting that they believe men and fathers in fact don’t have rights. Really, there is no other reasonable interpretation of their position on this matter and many others.

But, alas, with the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), we know that Republicans too do not believe that men or fathers have all of the Constitutional rights that women have. Or, at least, they are willing to trade away these rights for political expediency or simply to avoid being labeled as misogynists.

This is one of the reasons that the country is cooling to conservatives. That cooling is coming from men who thought they were voting for a political party that would uphold their most basic rights and put up a defense to genderist forces that would tear down their families in order to re-engineer society. In the wake of VAWA, and the weak defense of Alito’s opinion, we now know that is not the case.

So, who will we vote for now?

There's more! Click to read

72 Osamas

Jordan says that they captured a woman involved in the recent homicide bombings. She was going to blow herself up too, but her bomb vest failed to ignite.

I’m a little a confused.... Most martyrs are male and are inspired to blow themselves up by the promise of 72 black eyed virgins in Paradise. A horny lot, those Islamic fascists are. (Really, this topic ought to be further explored. Maybe if we could just find a bunch of black eyed sluts to go screw the hell out of these guys, they would be pacified. They would also learn that 72 women, black eyed or not, are not worth dying for.)

But, what then is the promise made to a female martyr?

Perhaps all of the women who blow themselves up are lesbians. And, the promise is that these 72 black eyed virgins swim both ways.

Or, maybe they promise 72 well endowed Osamas. “You are sure to be impregnated in paradise.”

Or, maybe they just point to a picture of Maureen Dowd and say, “This is you in the future if the West wins this war.”

There's more! Click to read

Dowd is to Family as Fish is to Bicycle

NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd appeared on the Larry King show tonight (pre-recorded apparently) to tout her new book “Are Men Necessary?”

She was full of her usual genderist drivel, which she unsuccessfully tries to smooth over with chilly humor. No surprise there.

Ironically, what I found the most humorous about Dowd was her attempted serious response to Larry King’s last question. King asked her if she wanted to get married and have children some day.

Dowd’s response: “Yes, I would like to have all of that.”

Now, that is funny! Good luck, Ms. Dowd, in your frantic search for a man willing to make a sacrifice like that. You better hurry, because if you’re not in your forties already, you look to be pretty close.

Many of you may be asking what planet Dowd is from, realizing that no man on this planet would be willing to marry her and, worse, impregnate her, after she wrote a book asking whether men are really necessary.

This may seem a mysterious question with no answer. But, there is another book on the market by a guy named Thomas Ellis that may explain it all for you. Ellis’ new book is called “The Rantings of a Single Male.” His prose is unique, direct, and full of painful truth as well as gut splitting humor. The chapter entitled “Incompatible Histories” may shed some light on Dowd’s incompatible desire for family life.

I can’t say enough about how good Ellis’ book is. Once the domain of women only, we now finally have a book written for men, explaining the perplexities of genderism, that men will actually buy, read, and enjoy. Pick it up. You will not regret it.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that “The Rantings of a Single Male” will go down in history as an early 21st century classic.

There's more! Click to read

An Ugly Reminder

In case you have forgotten


I ran across this photo at a blog called Atlas Shrugs. I haven’t sorted out who keeps this blog, but it appears to be a Jewish woman that is tired of genderism (gender feminism) and it’s complete obsession with misandry while ignoring real threats to women around the world.

At any rate, this photo is a reminder of what we are up against in our war against Islamic fascism. While the people of Seattle sit comfy with their liberal world view that just being nice, another government program, and a good lawyer, will fix everything, this photo provides an example of the brutality and lack of basic humanity of Muslim extremists.

I’m sorry if this grosses you out. Our prissy newspapers and PC news networks like CNN will never show this sort of picture. But, this is reality and we all need a dose of it.

This image, in fact, may show something that Islamic fascists and genderists have in common: They’d both like to see your son’s head in a box.

There's more! Click to read

What's That Loud Popping Sound?

Well, as with the monorail, you can’t say we didn’t warn you. We’ve been talking about the real estate bubble for months.

That popping sound you hear is the real estate bubble bursting. For some reason, bursting bubbles seem to like to start in the Washington DC metropolitan area. After an article only a few weeks ago that only hinted at major trouble for anyone that jumped into the real estate market in the last couple of years, The Washington Post now tells us about huge inventories of listed homes and a dearth of buyers.

It’s funny how newspapers always seem to go to some association of realtors for extensive quotes about the market. Whatever the circumstances, these associations always have something glib to say:

Howell [of a real estate association] and others point out that the Washington area is unlikely to experience a major decline in prices because of its continued job growth and the prevalence of government jobs, which tend to be more stable than private-sector employment. "We're the most insulated of any market in the country" from extreme price volatility, Howell said.

The slower market "is so much healthier, it really is," Susann H. Haskins, president of the Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors and a broker at Long & Foster Real Estate Inc. in Potomac. "It's a better balance between buyers and sellers."

Economist Gregory H. Leisch, chief executive of Delta Associates, an Alexandria-based real estate consulting firm, said consumers would benefit in the long run from the slowdown because house prices had been rising so quickly that the market was destabilized.

"The market is fatigued, and it should be taking a breather," Leisch said. "It's healthy that it takes a breather."

Yeah, right. And, what was it again that you were telling buyers six months ago? Something along the lines of, "this market is going nowhere but up, so you better get in now while you still can."

The Washington DC metropolitan area has been growing rapidly and unabated since the late 1970s. Yet, residential real estate values plummeted in the early 1990s and did not recover until late in the decade. So, clearly population growth is not the only factor to consider when looking at real estate prices. Supply and speculative demand are also important.

We’ve seen all of this before. The difference this time around, though, is the rampant speculation that saw people purchasing new and existing homes and condos entirely with the idea of "flipping" it. These people are stuck without a chair now that the music has stopped, and the panic will set in sooner rather than later.

An average decline in real estate values in the Washington DC area of 20% by this time next year would not surprise me. And that will not be the bottom of this down market. All the crazy gimmick mortgage loans, including interest only mortgages, are going to eventually run their course. Then, the foreclosures and desperation sales will start. The bottom of this thing might not be for another three to five years.

The upside? Savy and patient investors who sat out during the craziness and who want to diversify or re-balance their portfolio with more real estate will finally have their day in the sun. The deals will feel like highway robbery. In ten or so years, the next hysteria driven real estate bull market will come charging along and another killing will be made by those who buy while the herd was elsewhere and sell upon their return.

Recent columns in Seattle’s silly newspapers suggested that our area is somehow immune from the bursting real estate bubble. As usual, Seattle thinks it is separate from the rest of the country. Don’t buy it, though.

There's more! Click to read

Voter Dysfunction

The death of the silly monorail is such a beautiful thing to write about. But, that does not mean it is not also sad.

It’s nice to see such an albatross of a project finally find its grave. It’s even better to see Seattle voters finally wake up to the fact that it was never a viable project.

It’s sad, though, to think about how long we had to go through this nonsense. From the very beginning, it did not take an MBA to understand that the project would never have the funding required to actually produce something useful from a transportation perspective. Never mind the silly debate over growth in MVET fees or the complicated financing package. Clear answers or understanding of these things was never required.

All that one had to look at was the size of the project relative to the source of funding. The only source of funds was the MVET on automobiles registered in the City of Seattle. There is no major transportation project in the country that gets by on such a small revenue source. In order to do anything of substance, a mix of local, state, and federal money is needed. This, on its face, should have been enough to convince the average voter not to vote for the monorail from the beginning.

Of course, then there was the glaring contradiction – the monorail was touted as a way to reduce dependence on the automobile, but more automobiles was exactly what it depended on.

The monorail true-believers have been busy blaming others for the downfall of their silly dream. Mayor Nickels, the City Council, and naysayers like us are apparently to blame.

The Mayor really should be blamed for the fact that he did not have either the brains or the backbone to stop a stupid project before it wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. Many members of the City Council, on the other hand, actually had their feet on the ground early on and were pointing out the weaknesses of the project. Richard Conlin, in particularl, deserves admiration. As for us – well, we told you so. Blame us if you want.

But, these all seem like cop outs to me. The real blame belongs with Seattle voters. What is it with them? Are they just not very bright as a result of pathetic Seattle public schools? Are they so blinded by environmental extremism that they can’t see a dog of a project when it’s obvious to everyone else? Or, was the monorail just another example of Seattle thumbing its nose at reality and the laws of economics?

We have to hope that this was a wake up call. There are several other issues out there simmering that should be addressed. Ron Sims and his corrupt elections department are one, but voters seemed happy to keep the crook in office. That one will come back to bite us once Sims finally gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. The CAO and its impact on rural residents is another; King County is likely to split into two counties some time in our generation. Mayor Nickels’ silly “urban villages” are another. This plan requires urban Seattle to have hegemony over rural King County in order to limit the options of where you choose to live.

Seattle voters woke up to the monorail debacle several million dollars (leaving us with at least 2 or 3 more years of MVET taxes going to pay for exactly nothing) too late. How long will it take to wake up to dysfunctional government run by a mafia of Democrat elitists?

There's more! Click to read

New Term: Genderism

Yes, we coined a new term in the posting below.

Christina Hoff Sommers correctly re-characterized contemporary feminism as gender feminism in her book "Who Stole Feminism." Sommer's definition of gender feminism still stands and has become a universal term applied to the brand of feminism that wears misandrist blinders.

But, further refinement is always a good thing. We encourage everyone to begin using the term "genderism" from now on. Using the term "feminism" in any sort of label for today's cult of disaffected misandrists leaves a hint of something positive (e.g., equality for women). We know that achieving something positive is about the last thing they are after.

So, let's purify the term and take it right down to its essence: genderism.

There's more! Click to read

Pushing Back Against Genderism

Amatuer journalist extraordinaire Nicole Brodeur asks the question: Are feminists onboard or overboard?

As for me, I’m just plain bored. Brodeur’s question is irrelevant.
The silly and artificial debate Broduer posses between perpetually whinny Maureen Dowd and anachronistic Gloria Steinem is a sideshow to a much larger and more important story. It's like newspapers debating whether color print or black and white print are more important to their future as their circulation plummets.

We all know that contemporary feminism, or gender feminism as we call it now much to chagrin of Women Studies graduates everywhere, has veered from a pursuit of equality of opportunity to simple hatefulness and spite. Look at the curriculum of any university Women Studies program or the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and that fact is plain enough to see. Yawn.

While feminism is now a misnomer for today’s disaffected genderism, the interesting story is the fact that men and fathers took so long to respond to a frontal attack inspired by hate. But, this is changing, and it is changing fast.

Glenn Sacks, a leader in the men and fathers movement, provides an example of the increasing effectiveness of these organizations stepping up to repair the destruction reeked by 30 plus years of unabated misandry. PBS recently aired a program purporting to expose how women seemingly are loosing custody of children to abusive men. Yes, according to PBS and the creators of the documentary, this is yet another “epidemic” of female victimhood.

Loose with facts, and imaginative in their story telling, the PBS documentary claims that practically every divorced father that wants to maintain a relationship with his children is abusive. This is as utterly silly as it is false, but amazingly for the past 20 or so years, these sorts of assertions have been taken seriously by the media and policy makers. Thus, we have pervasive claims of girls loosing their voice in high school (even though they have long outperformed boys on practically every measure of academic success), claims that 1 in the 3 women are abused by men at some point in their lives (even though study after study shows men and women share abusive tendencies in equal proportions), and claims that college campuses are date rape Mecca’s for every young man (again, with made up “statistics”).

In its arrogance, genderist controlled PBS never thought it had to worry about a negative response from its propaganda. Men and fathers, though, are starting to push back. Sacks has uncovered damning facts demonstrating the extent to which Women Studies trained documentary makers are willing to not simply stretch the truth, but completely fabricate reality: One of the so-called abused mothers featured in the PBS documentary has actually been convicted of child abuse, while her ex-husband has fought hard to protect his children from her.

So, Nicole Brodeur can continue to quote irrelevant women like Steinem when they suggest that America was once a place where all women had to wear head-to-toe Burkhas. And, she can continue to show herself as bitter about the fact that she pays child support. But, the real action is elsewhere. And, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture of contemporary feminism turned genderism.

We know she reads this blog.

There's more! Click to read

Rights of Single Lesbian Valued More Than All Fathers

Vagina Warriors Susan Paynter and Nicole Brodeur go to bat for a lesbian woman claiming parental rights to a child who she did not bear.


As usual Paynter’s appeal is loaded with melodrama while dismissing critics of a State Supreme Court ruling that clearly opens a Pandora’s Box of “parental rights” and diminishes the rights of biological parents.

But, where is Paynter, Brodeur, the State Surpreme Court, or anyone in the Seattle media for that matter, when the rights of fathers to visitation and involvement in the lives of their biological children are squashed based on flimsy allegations or simply a move away Mom? Brodeur suggests that adoption is the cure all for any lesbian hoping to secure rights to a child, but if these rights are anything like those of biological fathers, they are not rights at all.

With nearly half of all children in the State of Washington going to bed without a father in the house, and most of these fatherless households the result of a system that devalues them (and vindictive ex-wives that use that system), one would think some ink would be spent in support of fathers before such emotional appeals are made for a single lesbian with spurious claims to being a redundant mother. While it is sad to see this woman's love and attachment to a child cause her pain, this is something that thousands of fathers in the State of Washington suffer daily, and usually it is the children that ultimately suffer.

There's more! Click to read