Dumb as Nails

Joel Connelly of the Seattle PI is basically just full of shit.

He fails miserably at trying to make Chirstine Gregoire and Maria Cantwell look “tough as nails.” He does nothing more than illustrate the double standard applied for the benefit of the state’s women politicians. As politicians go, neither of these two are very impressive. Gregoire is illegitimate and not much liked in the state. Cantwell has the charismatic appeal of a frozen bog.

The supposed victories these two have recently taken credit for are even less impressive. Gregoire wants to spend a $1.5 billion budget surplus on social programs (either now, or next year when they balloon out of control). But, that budget surplus is a direct result of new taxes, especially the gas tax. Supposedly, without the gas tax, our transportation infrastructure would collapse due to lack of money. Now, however, we find that all that money is surplus, so it will be spent on every favorite pork program of the Democrats EXCEPT transportation? Huh?

Meanwhile, Cantwell is getting free PR out of the Seattle press for saving the caribou of ANWR from the horrors of oil drilling. In the halls of Congress, a ninny like Cantwell doesn’t do much moving and shaking. Democratic leaders are giving her the credit because they are afraid that she might loose her seat next year to Mike McGavick if she is not made a little more high profile. I sure hope those caribou appreciate the favor, because this issue sure doesn't do a damn thing for the families of Washington State. Of course, family is not something the single and childless Cantwell would know much about.

On the other hand, Cantwell did accomplish chasing new refineries out of the state. The country desperately needs those refineries because lack of refining capacity is the principle reason for the sharp spike in gas prices we experienced in the wake of Katrina. Washington could use the business too and because of our states plentiful ports we are uniquely positioned for the job. If nothing else, we could lower our own gas prices a little to compensate for the gas tax that is now being used to fund social programs. Cantwell worships at the alter of Seattle’s silly and idealistic environmentalism though, so the families of the state will just have to pay more.

Not that Connelly would point these things out. He does manage to whine about some of the political humor he saw on Sound Politics. He was upset that Sharkansky depicted Gregoire as Miss Piggy. I guess Connely didn’t notice Horsey’s depiction of a conniving Bush walking away from a tent with the GOP elephant – the obvious suggestion in the cartoon was that Bush and the elephant just made some whoopy.

Logical consistency has never been a strong point of the Seattle borg anyway. I guess you can’t expect much from a two-bit columnist working for a dying newspaper in a town as intellectually uninspired as Seattle.

There's more! Click to read

When Boys are Not Worthy

Another teenage boy commits suicide - the son of Indianapolis coach Tony Dungy.

Rarely in the history of this country ... has there been such a mismatch between government programs and a genuine social need. Just a week ago, Congress ratified the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The most bigoted and hateful legislation since Jim Crow, VAWA is a gender feminist’s dream: money for Women Studies graduates specifically targeted at conducting a war on men, fathers, and now even boys.

Meanwhile, our boys, men and fathers are suffering. As Glenn Sacks accurately describes, billions of dollars of federal money are spent each year incarcerating men because of child support arrearages loaded up with penalties that are several times the average annual incomes of these men. In states that are especially rigorous in the gender war, such as Washington State, nearly half the state’s children live in homes where their natural fathers are not present. Many of these men have been forced unwillingly out of their children’s lives. The picture is even more bleak as you look to the next generation, where you will find boys failing miserably in public schools that ignore their needs for action oriented learning environments.

If you don't already want to call in the fire brigade, consider the fact that men and boys commit suicide at alarming rates. There are no special government programs to address this problem, even though the number of male suicides in our country is at least 25 times the number of women killed by their intimate partner. (And, don't forget, women kill their male partners too). Teenage boys kill themselves at five times the rate of teenage girls.

Dungy is part of the culture that contributes to the problem. While girls receive the message that value and power come from victimhood, boys are taught that to have value they must do something extraordinary. For those gifted with exceptional athletic ability, there is the NFL. For those that are more like the rest of us, there is the military. For the son of a successful football coach surrounded by some of the best athletes in the country, it must have been especially difficult.

Instead of providing a positive message to our boys, telling them of their worth and providing constructive avenues for them to find their own talents and secure a productive future, our country spends billions tearing them down. They are told they must sit still and, if not, be medicated to cure them of their “disorder.” They are taught that they are innately prone to violence against women. And, thanks to a new provision in the “new” VAWA, they will be told that they are rapists.

Sadly, neither the media nor the government seem to recognize the problem. While everyone is temporarily sad for the pain suffered by Dungy, the underlying problem will be missed. With the genderist onslaught reinvigorated by increased federal funding for an expanded gender war, the male suicide rate is likely to continue rising.

Not to worry, though, because the Super Bowl will be played this year as always – by the only worthy men around.

There's more! Click to read

Merry Christmas!

Hope all of our readers are enjoying the holiday.

We know some fathers are spending another lonely day without their children, however. On days like today, all of us who are interested in changing this fact recommit ourselves to our work.

There's more! Click to read

Excuses for Mothers' Abuses

Susan Paynter of the Seattle PI never misses a chance to advance her victim oriented genderist ideology. She did that again today in the wake of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Included in this new five year boondoggle for hateful genderists is $200 million per year to pay graduates of Women Studies programs from around the country to lecture police officers about patriarchal control and oppression.

As usual, Paynter uses plenty of emotional baiting. This time using the death of Crystal Brame and the grieving family she left behind to trick readers into suspending critical judgment. Such license has proven to be the fastest way to get people to ignore the other side of the story, coming from David Brame’s sister, who described a very different Crystal than the one her family knew.

From all the hysteria surrounding domestic violence, one would think that women were being murdered by spouses in far larger numbers than children dying needlessly at the cruel hands of their mother. Genderists are happy to imply that fathers are also responsible for most child abuse. In fact, not only do women equal their male partners in violence, the abusers of children are most often women, and usually in households where the biological father is not present. The number of needless deaths of children due to neglect or outright physical abuse is far larger.

If Paynter really cared about the innocent and defenseless, she would write a column about 18-month-old Brenda Amythest Rhoades, who died of severe neglect at the hands of her mother.

But, the answer to the problem of women abusing children is not the sort of "gender" attacking perscription of the genderists. We need not round up women by the jail-full and treat them guilty until proven innocent. Neither do we need to make up myths like "1 in 3 children is abused by a woman." That would simply immitate the destruction approach that genderists have for every perceived inequity.

$200 million per year would be better spent on educating police officers and social workers about the epidemic of mothers who murder and teach them the warning signs. Even more importantly, the rest of the VAWA money should be spent on helping biological fathers stay in their children's lives. Children in the care of their biological fathers are the safest of children. Instead, VAWA only serves to push fathers out of the lives of their children.

Plenty of ink is spent on spreading the myths of domestic violence, but not a single editorial column was written about the death of little Brenda. The media is only interested in excuses for the abuses of mothers. It's well past time that someone spoke for those that truly do not have a voice.

There's more! Click to read

Straight Talk

A speech about property rights and a column in the Seattle Times about the absurdity of scientists claiming that global warming is a fact - both by Ron Ewart. I didn't know there were any sensible thinkers left in the Seattle area.

There's more! Click to read

Will Bush Betray Soldiers in Iraq?

It's time someone asked the question.

By ratifying the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Congress stated clearly that it will continue to implement the genderist agenda of male punishment and family destruction.

Yes, the many men and fathers’ rights groups that worked hard to defeat VAWA did manage to get a statement or two in about the law being gender neutral. But, with a pejorative title, and little that stands in the way of genderists slurping up their pork to fuel their hateful war on the patriarchy, we all know that we are in for another five years of civil rights violations for men.

Worse, since VAWA now includes a war on the nebulous concept of “date rape,” genderists have extended their war on males to teenage boys. Teenage boys are already suffering mightily in feminized public schools that appear to be deliberately interfering with their education in order to diminish their ability to succeed later in life. Success later in life, according to genderists, provides the economic muscle for men to perpetuate the patriarchy.

But, with the Napoleonic legal code implemented by VAWA, our teenage boys will be considered guilty from the moment a date rape charge is made. Their self-respect will be further diminished by VAWA funded programs teaching that within all teenage boys is a date rapist trying to get out.

While some men’s rights activists are happy with making an ever-so-slight dent in a small portion of VAWA’s language, I am having trouble being so sanguine. I believe we are in for an even worse five years of civil rights abuses and male oppression. When an organization like NOW applauds the ratification of a law such as VAWA, you have to wonder.

Up to now, I have supported Bush’s adventure into Iraq. Islamic-fascist extremism can only be fought by changing the Middle East. I never believed the WMD arguments for going to Iraq, but always agreed that creating a beacon of democracy in the heard of the Middle East would provide substantial long term benefits for the not just the US, but the entire global community.

Changing Iraq helps to protect our Constitutional form of government over the long haul. It helps to protect our citizens from attacks by terrorists over the long haul. It helps to protect our freedoms and our civil rights.

Unfortunately, men are dying in order to this. This is as it has always been. But, back home, these same men have lost their guarantee of involvement in their children’s lives. They have lost their civil rights due to a federal government happy to feed on hysteria. In short, while they may not all realize it yet, these men are fighting for a hollow promise back home.

If Bush does not veto VAWA out of respect for the more than 2,000 men that have died in Iraq, and the others that have or continue to risk their lives, he will find that he has lost another supporter of his war. In fact, I will loose such faith in the man and our federal government that I will be happy to stand beside the most pathetically defeatist and anti-American socialist the Democrats have to offer and call for Bush to bring our men home.

Not another American soldier should die to protect America until America renews its comment to them.

There's more! Click to read

Party Like Its 1999 ... Plus 1

Prepare yourself, Seattle. That popping sound from the bursting real estate bubble is headed your way. In fact, 84% of the respondents answered yes to our survey question asking, “Do you believe there is a real estate bubble?”

No, Seattle is not immune from the national economy even though Mayor Nickels thinks he is running his own little city-state. Yes, there are still a few areas of the residential real estate market in Seattle that are a little short on supply, such as the low end condo market. But, the agents I’ve talked to believe that the large number of middle and high end condos going up in Seattle and other parts of King County will create a glut in the overall condo market. Meanwhile, of course, rising interest rates and just generally unsustainable prices that have grown several times faster than income levels are taking a heavy toll as well.

Sims, Nickels, and the rest of those merry control freaks that would like nothing more than for real estate prices to continue toward the sky are in for a shock. The Washington DC area is already feeling it. Not only is there a glut of condos and other residential developments in the DC area, but also a nation of real estate agents. They, like day traders from the late 1990s, thought they had found a quick way to make a buck.

I, for one, am looking forward to the real estate down market hitting Seattle with a resounding thud. All these newbie real estate agent flyers stuffed in my mailbox daily are more than a little tiresome.

There's more! Click to read

The Choices Women Make

Here is a classic example of holier-than-thou genderism that should lay to rest any lingering doubts you have about contemporary feminism’s aims for the American family... Linda Hirshman laments the fact that many college educated women still opt for a family life. Or, as Hirshman puts it, "opt out" of her plan for them. She claims that feminism has not been “radical enough” in changing America because it has not yet been able to have an impact on the choices women make regarding family life. Turns out, according to Hirshman, feminism has not yet “reconstructed” the American family.

Conservatives contend that the dropouts prove that feminism “failed” because it was too radical, because women didn’t want what feminism had to offer. In fact, if half or more of feminism’s heirs (85 percent of the women in my Times sample), are not working seriously, it’s because feminism wasn’t radical enough: It changed the workplace but it didn’t change men, and, more importantly, it didn’t fundamentally change how women related to men.

Well, isn’t it interesting that Hirshman would declare that her fellow sisters must change in order for her to realize her dream of a feminist utopia. This comes, of course, from her own negative view of family life and, I suspect, her own mixed (to say the least) feelings about bearing and raising children. All of you women out there are supposed to think like Linda Hirshman, or better yet, stop thinking and let her do your thinking for you!

Here’s the feminist moral analysis that choice [author’s note: “choice” in this context refers to a woman’s choice to raise a family, not choice to have an abortion] avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”

That’s funny. Pretty much every woman I have known has experienced a strong draw to having children, and then to being with them after they are born. They describe an instinctive need to make and maintain a nest for them. Plans to quickly return to work made before childbirth are often changed once mother sees baby. Hirshman claims that this is not natural and, I suppose, a “social construct.” But, plenty of evidence suggests otherwise.

Linda goes on to provide advice as to how to acquire and maintain a powerful job in the private or public sector. This includes going to a good college (more than 50% of college students are female now anyway - any lingering doubt that the unfriendly atmosphere created for boys in public schools is not by design?), advice on which high earning majors to choose, and advice on finding a job that provides “power” and good finances. She advises women to do all of this in order to increase their bargaining power within their domestic relationships. Isn’t it telling that genderists like Hirshman only see relationships in the context of money?

Next, she provides advice on the type of husband to find. The ideal choice, of course, is a liberal husband. According to her calculation, he would be enough of a wet noodle to allow the woman full control. (And, I thought “control” was a bad trait of the so-called patriarchy). No partnership there. Other options include a much younger man, who she says will not have the financial power in the household and will therefore need to subordinate himself to the wishes of his older wife. A much older man can also be a possibility, since he will have more time on his hands for child-raising and might even come with the financial capacity to hire domestic help. The worst option on Hirshman’s list would be a man slightly older or of the same age.

Linda even gives advice on the number of children a woman should have:

If these prescriptions sound less than family-friendly, here’s the last rule: Have a baby. Just don’t have two.

She believes a woman should have just one child, because that dreaded second child could draw her back home to "unfulfilling" work as a plain old mother.

Hirshman lambastes women who choose to devote themselves, even temporarily, to families, which “allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government.” According to Hirshman, women that choose to do so are hurting all women.

Worse, the behavior tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler. Princeton President Shirley Tilghman described the elite colleges’ self-image perfectly when she told her freshmen last year that they would be the nation’s leaders, and she clearly did not have trophy wives in mind. Why should society spend resources educating women with only a 50-percent return rate on their stated goals?

Well, it is frustrating when the entire world does not cooperate with your efforts to reconstruct the American family into your vision of a feminist utopia, isn’t it Linda? Better to have government force compliance, no? Especially when women are not cooperating because their priorities are not, like Hirshman’s, based on hate and anger, but rather love and family.

And, remember ladies, your interest in your family is just a “regime” within the patriarchal construct of “family.” Your love of your children is not an internal response, but rather something imposed on you from the outside and by the patriarchy.

We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated, even by people who never get their weddings in the Times. This last is called the “regime effect,” and it means that even if women don’t quit their jobs for their families, they think they should and feel guilty about not doing it. That regime effect created the mystique around The Feminine Mystique, too.

I find it doubtful that the women who stay at home to raise their own off-spring find it bad for them. But, missing in Linda’s coldhearted assessment and recommendations for extending genderism into the home is consideration of the children. Parents love their children and that love and desire for their children to succeed in the world is the primary reason they make sacrifices, yes even career sacrifices, in order to raise them.

Sorry Linda, but I’m afraid that you will not be able to convince many people to cease doing what you find so deplorable. They find it natural, while your deconstructionist aims are anything but.

Hirshman should be more widely read though. Not because she provides a prescription for a healthy lifestyle, but because she reveals the motivation behind so much of the destructive social policy that underlies laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The real agenda in such laws is to "deconstruct" and then “reconstruct” the American family, by encouraging women to view their husbands and male partners as both alien and part of a conspiracy of female sublimation through violence, while attacking men with the blunt instrument of the justice system. Oppressive government, it seems, is always the answer.

With so many women behaving so, well, domestic, Hirshman must be cheering now that Congress has officially reauthorized VAWA - the genderists’ chief weapon for attacking the family “regime.” Some minor progress was made by groups representing the interests of fathers and men, who were successful in getting a few words expressing gender neutrality into a law expressly made for the graduates of Women Studies programs. But, the VAWA infrastructure is still an instrument of Hirshman’s war.

And, men and fathers will continue to feel the oppression of hateful people like Hirshman for the choices that women make.

There's more! Click to read

Housing Costs High Because State Wants Them High

There are few things sillier than watching Washington State politicians complain about a problem they created. Usually, in their capacious ignorance, they are not even aware that the simple solution is for them stop causing the problem in the first place ....

The most recent example is the reaction of Washington State politicians to a report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition stating that a single person earning the state’s minimum wage of $7.35 and hour cannot afford to rent a one bedroom apartment.

As if that finding is news. When I was in my 20’s, I was earning more than the minimum wage and could not afford a one bedroom apartment. The solution, of course, was to have roommates. So, what’s the big deal? Have we decided that our state’s young adults are too fragile to have roommates?

At any rate, the reason Washington State has high housing costs is very simple: the citizens of King County choose this for both themselves and the rest of the state. Housing costs are function of supply and demand. (As are all prices, although Washington State politicians don't seem to realize this). King County voters generally elect people like Nickels, Sims, and even Gregoire as a proxy governor for the entire state. These politicians enact policies and laws that severely restrict housing SUPPLY.

In part, they do this because they are too wrapped up in their silly ideologies to realize the impact these policies have. Nickels’ “urban villages” concept does nothing to increase housing supply, but rather only restricts it because those that would build these kookie villages are not convinced they can sell. Sims and Gregoire are equally guilty of environmental fanaticism that ultimately reduces the available space for housing developments, while raising their costs due to layers and layers of silly regulations.

They also deliberately do some things to keep housing prices high. They are smart enough to realize that many of their emotionally based policies raise the cost of housing. But, they like high housing prices and rents because it gives them a large “victim” group they can promise to help – “oh, we need to help people that are victims of expensive housing.”

Here’s the proof from Gregoire:

Gov. Christine Gregoire noted that the state's most recent budget allocates almost $100 million to support nonprofit housing development statewide.

Seattle politicians love the high housing costs. They raise property tax revenue and also give the Silly Council a chance to add levies to fund public housing. The city recently opened lavish new public housing developments in South Seattle, such as Othello Station (hey, if Nickels can’t get developers to build his “urban villages” for a profit, by golly, he’ll have the taxpayers do it). Nickels might want to take a tour of Tijuana next time he is traveling about wasting our money promoting his "Kyoto or Die" plan, where low income housing is built much less expensively.

In the next legislative session, expect calls for raising the minimum wage. That won’t solve anything, of course, but it will reduce employment. Don’t expect a practical solution, such as getting obtuse government out of the way of private developers and individuals increasing the housing supply and thus reducing its cost.

Instead, expect idiotic statemenst like this from Gregoire:

"Unfortunately, cuts to federal programs are making it very difficult for our state to make real progress on this critical issue."

Are people really stupid enough to believe that?

There's more! Click to read

Mexico's Chances: Better than Slim, Part 1

A recent editorial by Denise Dresser in Mexico City’s predominant newspaper, The Reforma, is remarkable not just for its subject matter, but because it was printed at all.

To deal with the latter first, it was not that long ago that all media in Mexico was tightly controlled. For more than seventy years, Mexico lived under a single all-powerful political party – the PRI. During most of those seventy years, any newspaper that dared publish anything critical of the established order in Mexico, much less an editorial, would quickly be out of business. While there were always a few privately owned newspapers, by law, they were “licensed” by the state and, worse, had only one choice of paper supplier – the government.

Not any longer. Mexico’s government still maintains artificial restrictions on some media, such as television networks and broadcasting. But, the print media has exploded with people looking critically at many aspects of Mexico’s government, economy, society, and history. Yes, many, if not most, newspapers and their reporters are influenced by their largest advertisers as well as politicians. These days, however, most popular papers and journalists are not.

Despite the changes, old habits die hard, so it is rare to read someone who can cut through the byzantine circular logic that Mexico inherited from its Spanish conquerers. Dresser’s clear and honest appraisal of Mexican politics - coming from inside the heart of Mexico - is thus all the more astounding. Her first paragraph, in fact, might have put The Reforma out of business only 20 years ago:

In Spanish:
Hay que temerle a los griegos cuando traen regalos, escribió Virgilio sobre el caballo de Troya. Y hay que temerle a los diputados cuando aprueban iniciativas tramposas, como lo hicieron la semana pasada. Porque las reformas a la Ley de Telecomunicaciones y la Ley de Radio y Televisión son una cortina de humo. Un espejismo modernizador. Un intento reprobable para ofrecer gato por liebre. Un esfuerzo reformista para asegurar que casi todo quede igual.

My quick translation:
You should have fear when Greeks come bearing gifts, wrote Virgil about Troy. And, you should have fear of the deputies (members of the Mexican Congress) when they approve corrupt initiatives, as they did this past week. Because the reforms to the Telecommunications Law and the Law of Radio and Television are a smoke screen. A grand modern mirror. A reprehensible attempt to offer “gato por liebre” (which means, an attempt to trick you into believing a rabbit is a cat). A reformist effort that assures that almost everything will remain the same.

Wow!

Dresser focuses on a particular subject that might seem esoteric, but it provides perhaps the clearest perspective available on Mexico’s political and economic power structure.

Some Background

Mexico ostensibly opened its telecommunications industry to competition in the late-1990s, a few years after privatizing its once state owned telephone monopoly, Telmex.

Telmex, however, was purchased from the government by a politically connected Mexican businessman named Carlos Slim. Slim was a close confidant of former President Carlos Salinas. There is little doubt that the privatization process was corrupted, Slim got away with a sweat-heart deal, and as a result he is now the wealthiest man in Latin American. Afterall, Salinas himself won the presidency amid wide-spread election fraud. (And you thought King County elections were bad!).

Slim’s influence only grew from there. Mexico’s plan to introduce telecom competition, which it was eager to do in order to gain entry into the WTO, was at odds with Slim’s plans for Telmex. So, from the very beginning of telecom market liberalization, Slim has added to the corruption of several layers of government in order to buy protection from competition for his Telmex jewel. In particular, Slim made the telecom regulator, COFETEL, for all intents and purposes, into a wholly owned subsidiary of Telmex.

Slim and his Telmex empire have since gotten their way on every regulatory ruling conceivable. Competing carriers pay outrageous sums to complete telephone calls on Telmex’s network. Those that do not comply with Telmex’s wishes are refused the opportunity to connect their network to Telmex, thus making their business plans completely unviable. Telmex owns and operates local, LD, and cellular networks that give each other sweetheart deals denied to competitors. Worse, Telmex has paid for regulators to literally declare exciting new technologies, such as Voice over the Internet, illegal. In the process, every American venture into the Mexican market - including those by AT&T, MCI, and Verizon - has gone bankrupt, while Telmex has maintained the highest profit margins in telecom in the world.

While you might think, "ah, American companies get what the dish," you are missing the point entirely. Slim's power has the effect of keeping prices to the Meixcan public high. It also has the effect of slowing down investment in new, more efficient, and more powerful technologies. Carlos Slim is no capitalist. He is more akin to the landlord of a country-sized hacienda.

There is no clearer example of the punishment he doles out to the weakest and poorest Mexican consumer than that of international long distance. Telmex charges a surcharge for international telephone calls originated in the US and landing in Mexico. Guess who makes most of those calls? You got it – poor Mexican immigrants living in the US. Now, regardless of your opinion of these “immigrants,” many if not most of whom are illegally in the US, I think we can all agree that a multi-billionaire lining his pockets with the ill-gotten money of poor people is reprehensible and disgusting.

You see, there is no logical reason for the price of a telephone call from the US to Mexico to be as high as it is, even though it is much lower than it was 5 years ago. With the advent of voice over the Internet (VoIP), hundreds of small carriers set up shop to carry voice calls from the US into Mexico over the Internet, and then terminate those calls with one of the few competing telecom providers allowed to operate in Mexico (how telecommunications licenses are awarded in Mexico is another story of oligarchic power and corruption that I’ll save for another day). This arbitrage of Telmex’s artificial “surcharge” on calls from the US began to drive down prices. Lower priced calling to Mexico made keeping in touch with the family back home much more affordable for the average Mexican day laborer.

Seeing millions of dollars in revenue from the sky evaporate, Slim took action. First, he had COFETEL declare repeatedly that all such voice over the Internet calls were illegal. There was never any rationale provided, just that it was illegal. Well, the Mexican legal system is fuzzy enough that few of these small international long distance operators felt genuinely threatened.

So, Slim played his ultimate trump card. He refused to allow competing companies to connect to Telmex unless they stopped landing voice over the Internet calls originating in the US.

This strategy is now paying dividends. Fewer and fewer calls from the US to Mexico can be carried outside Telmex’s system. Naturally, the price is starting to rise. Who is paying that price? The illegal Mexican immigrant working double shifts as a dishwasher in your favorite restaurant. The Mexican immigrant that stands outside Home Depot everyday, hoping that he can get work digging ditches to plant your shrubs. The Mexican that is willing to crawl under your house to install itchy fiberglass insulation for a couple of dollars per hour, and thinks he finally has it made. All pay these high prices unnecessarily.

A multi-billionaire pulling out all the stops to ensure that a poor dishwasher pays top peso to call home. And, back in Mexico, Slim ensures that his fellow citizens use technology permanently behind their northern neighbors. While US consumers can purchase all-you-can-eat local-plus-long distance plans from innovative companies such as Vonage for $25 per month, Mexicans have few options for telephone service other than a Telmex line. That line costs a Mexican household $25 dollars and only includes 100 local calls per month without additional charge, and no long distance minutes.

This obscure sector of an industry that few think about very often illustrates how the powerful oligarchy of Mexico has always, still does, and unfortunately, might always control and manipulate their country for their own benefit at the expense of the vast majority of the population.

Mexico wanted to join the WTO in order to gain export opportunities, many that benefited Slim’s other business interests. In the mid and late 1990s, Mexican officials were excited about the opportunity to talk about the modernization and consumer benefits that telecommunications competition had to offer. Indeed, while Mexico still lags far behind the developed world, even far behind many developing countries, much progress was made in this area inspite of Telmex.

But, not too much. Not so much that Slim would be hurt financially. And, not so much that costs could be lowered enough that companies operating in Mexico could hire more of the perpetually poor. Competition, it turned out, was an opportunity for a little more of the riches to be distributed to the few wealthy families who control Mexico, while providing new sources of corrupt money for government officials. Some tiny improvement for the poor and the middle-class, and one giant leap forward for the oligarchy.

More than Slim

The recent "reform" to the telecommunications law, according to Dresser (if you doubt her credentials, read a News Hour interview here), was yet another example of how the existing power structure of Mexico can corrupt a process to further its selfish aims. What was a chance to remove the ability of Carlos Slim (and some others, such as the family that owns Televisa) to manipulate the Mexican economy to his benefit at the expense of everyone else, literally became a “protection for the wealthy” plan, bought and paid for by the protected.

Meanwhile, Mexicans continue to pour across the US border, seeking jobs that an artificially constrained economy cannot provide at home.

Yes, Mexican legislation for the benefit of the few is depressing, just as it is in the US. When a law passes the legislature practically unanimously in either country, we have reason to be suspicious that something is amiss.

But, the very fact that Denise Dresser is able to criticize the forces of the status quo is a drastic change from the past. That, combined with the external pressure of the WTO, among others, provides hope.

Perhaps the chances for change in Mexico are more than Slim. Perhaps Mexico is more than Slim.

More on Carlos Slim here.

More on Mexico, Dresser’s article, and Carlos Slim in Part 2 of this post.

There's more! Click to read

Australia Seeing the Light

Australia may be on the path to rewriting their federal Family Law Act to state that judges in family court must consider giving divorcing parents equal time with their children.

Where is the Washington State legislator on this issue? Not within a million miles.

There's more! Click to read

Think Outside the Ideological Box

Looks like some in the feminist camp (clearly not the genderist camp, though) just had a light bulb turn on. Meghan Daum of the LA Times asks:

Most people now accept that women, especially teenagers, often make decisions regarding abortion based on educational and career goals and whether the father of the unborn child is someone they want to hang around with for the next few decades. The "choice" in this equation is not only a matter of whether to carry an individual fetus to term but a question of what kind of life the woman wishes to lead.

But what about the kind of life men want to lead?

In other words, if women can choose abortion, why can’t men? Abortion for men would not require the woman to actually end the pregnancy if she does not want to. Instead, it would allow the man to absolve himself of any financial responsibility for the child while also requiring him to legally forfeit any right to involvement in the child’s life. In other words, if he aborts, the child is no longer his. The woman can do whatever she wants.

This, coming out of the pen of Daum, must drive genderists crazy, as Daum freely admits. This sort of thinking, as she recognizes, also drives right wing moralists crazy too. But, the ability to see outside the ideological box was apparently set in motion by the fact that Alito once wrote an opinion stating that men have a right know when a woman plans to abort a child they both made.

But, both sides really should look at this idea in more debth. First, although even Daum in her moment of enlightenment would not admit it, women feel much more at ease about having a child without a husband when they know they can force the biological father to pay child support for 18 years. When you don’t have to be financially responsible, you are much less likely to be responsible about where you take your pants off. That is just an obvious fact. Conservatives should recognize that if they want women to take a more moralistic approach to sex, and abstain until they have a husband, they should not alleviate the pain of having a fatherless child.

Meanwhile, liberal misandrists in the genderist camp should also recognize that sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend, at least on some issues. In the case of abortion, men can be your friends (you can continue hating them too!). Abortion rights for women are gradually being whittled away. Bush would like his legacy to be a Supreme Court that overturns Roe. We all know this is a fact, one of the few “facts” that genderists get right.

Clearly, it’s not enough any longer to have loud and angry genderists protesting. Americans are tired of it and the incessant whining and claims of victimhood have diminishing marginal returns. So, the base of support for abortion needs to be expanded. Genderists cannot find more support among women than they have already and, in fact, women are gradually starting to see that the genderists view of the world is not exactly conducive to a happy life (and especially not to motherhood). Well, unless your idea of a happy life is to be miserable. So, in light of this, why not get some men on board?

If either side could get past knee jerk politics and realize that abortion rights for men would further their ultimate goal, they could see that this is an idea whose time has come.

There's more! Click to read

Well, I Guess This Proves I'm Libertarian

This is an interesting test. Unsurprisingly, I came out as a libertarian. Notice how Republicans and Democrats butt right up against the totalitarian zone.

Take the test yourself .... .and look at the last page of the graphical output. That graphic shows Democratic and Republican voters on the four cuadrant graph. The area for libertarians is basically purple - equal numbers of red and blue in this area.

That demonstrates for me what I have been saying all along. There is a major opportunity for a third party, as large numbers of voters do not have their primary political positions (or combination of positions) represented within either of the major parties.

You are a Social Liberal (63% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (68% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

There's more! Click to read

Psuedo-Befuddlement Over Crisis in Education of Boys

The Everett Herald did the analysis that the Washington State education bureaucracy should have been doing with its own data. The Herald compared the scores of boys and girls on the WASL. It will be of no surprise to most visitors to this blog that boys are doing much, much worse than girls in Washington's public schools.

Of course, the reason the state never did this analysis, or at any rate never publicized it, is because they simply did not want to. .They have spent more than a decade medicating large number of boys with powerful stimulants to treat them for ADHD. ADHD is just another way of saying “acts like boys.” Being a boy is now a disease.

Moreover, with “girl power” initiatives in public schools, “gender normalization” programs, and the feminization of educational materials, public school administrators and teachers in the State of Washington have literally been teaching boys to self-loath. In reality, all of these programs are designed to wring the so-called “patriarchy” out of little boys and, if all else fails, hold them back so they can't exercise their patriarchal power in the future.

As the genderists say, ""Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Patrimony has got to go." There may be no way to eliminate a patriarchy ghost that does not exist, but boys are in the process of being eliminated from college campuses.

It’s enough to make one sick to read the disingenuous quotes from state Legislators in the Herald article.

Sen. Paull Shin, D-Mukilteo, said the size of the gap between boys and girls "came to me as a total surprise, and I'd like to see why (it exists)."

… yeah, right. What planet have you been on, Senator Shin? This education gap has been well known since Christina Hoff Sommers authored her book, The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men.

But, never fear, because another legislator is going to make sure we couch this genuine crisis in the PC terms of multi-culturalism. State Senator Dave Schmidt:

"How much of it is cultural? How much of it is biological? And how much of it is leadership in the individual school district and school?" Schmidt asked. "In some ways, it's premature to do anything now because there's so many different variables."

Even more important, Legislators are now gearing up to throw money at a problem THEY CREATED!

All this pseudo-befuddlement from the State's lawmakers is tiring, if not downright insulting. The change that should occur is in the politically correct and genderist bureaucracy of Washington’s public education system. Stop beating boys down just for being boys. Stop holding them back from educational opportunity while calling that “girl power.” Reverse the feminization of public school materials and give the boys what they need – action oriented reading materials. Stop the animosity towards recess and let the boys get outside and run some of the energy off. Stop telling the boys that they are going to grow up to be wife-beaters and rapists. And, stop drugging them!

Our state's boys should not have to suffer through "gender normalization" and social engineering experiments conducted by public school administrators and bureaucracy who have a gender political axe to grind.

There has never been a better argument for school vouchers so that parents can get their sons out of public schools and into an environment that supports them and treats them with respect instead of loathing.

There's more! Click to read

Breaking the Propaganda

The recent PBS “documentary” entitled Breaking the Silence has created quite a brouhaha. Various men and fathers rights groups have rightfully raised concern over how such a biased and one-sided documentary could be broadcast on a tax supported public network, particularly without any counterbalancing perspective.

In a very small nutshell (which is about all this documentary deserves), Breaking the Silence uses a small number of extreme cases within the family court systems of a few localities to suggest that all family courts are biased against mothers and woefully insensitive to the needs of children. Using cinematic license, the documentary presents these isolated cases as if they are the norm, rather than the exception. And, of course, avoids the issue of how fathers are routinely maltreated in family courts.

Worse, Breaking the Silence presents statistics and other information as if it were fact, but provides no evidence and cites no research in their support. For example, the documentary states unambiguously that the majority of fathers fighting for joint custody of their children are actually “abusers.” This, on its face, is untrue. Unless, that is, one were to stretch the definition of abuse to include a man loving his children against the wishes of their mother.

One of the producers of Breaking the Silence, Dominique Lasseur, has defended himself and his misguided documentary extensively. Within his defense, one can see the clear signs of ideology driven advocacy, even though he would like us all to believe otherwise. Lasseur uses many of the tricks used by gender feminists (or, genderists, as we call them now) to corner people into suspending disbelief. For example, Lasseur says, “Domestic violence is notoriously difficult to report on because of the emotional nature of the issues involved.” So, according to him, his reporting on the topic should not be criticized. He should only be commended for his bravery, regardless of the misinformation and propaganda presented in his documentary.

Lasseur does not stop there:

“Our open mindedness did not include the opportunity for fathers who had a destructive political agenda to be represented in the piece. We spoke with members of fathers' rights organizations and did extensive research on their views. We made the decision not to interview them on camera because they would not have provided any balance and fairness to the piece.”

That quote pretty much sums of the attitude, indeed the totalitarian-like restriction, of Producer Lasseur towards any thought that counters his ideological and political viewpoint. A father who believes that he has a right to at least joint custody of his children is deemed to have a "destructive" point of view.

Interestingly, Glenn Sacks revealed that one of the mothers in Breaking the Silence was actually convicted of child abuse in a criminal court. But including her side of a concocted story without even mentioning her past conviction is not destructive? Obviously, Lasseur was screening for message as opposed to facts. And, that message is the victimhood and anti-patriarchal (whatever the patriarchy is, which we are still trying to figure out) message of contemporary genderists.

But, the many complaints to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS are not falling on deaf ears. Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman, has made his position on the documentary quite clear:

My assessment, as a viewer and as a journalist, is that this was a flawed presentation by PBS. I have no doubt that this subject merited serious exposure and that these problems exist and are hard to get at journalistically. But it seemed to me that PBS and CPTV were their own worst enemy and diminished the impact and usefulness of the examination of a real issue by what did, indeed, come across as a one-sided, advocacy program.

I'm not saying that there is necessarily another side to tragic cases where a child is abused and handed over to the abuser. But this is a broad issue, often complex, hotly debated and contested, with dueling statistics pouring out of both sides. Yet, there was no recognition of opposing views on this program. There was a complete absence of some of the fundamental journalistic conventions that, in fact, make a story more powerful and convincing because they, at a minimum, acknowledge that there is another side.

This presentation made no concession to the viewer and to the legitimate questions one would have or expect. Not only were no fathers heard from to state their side of the individual stories presented, there was no explanation (with one exception) as to whether the producers even tried to get their views, or if the fathers were asked but declined, or, as we now know from Lasseur's statement, that there was a decision not to give air time to critics or groups holding opposing views.

The one exception was a disclaimer printed on the screen, but with no voice attached, after the filmed portion of the program ended, that a father of one young woman, who continues to seek custody of his daughter in the court, declined to be interviewed.

The studies that one presumes back up the statistics stated on the program are not cited. Research that Lasseur uses to back up the program in his response to critics is not cited in the film; nor are the statistics cited by critics.

It is not clear when several of the interviews with mothers and children took place, nor how old the cases are. In a few interviews, references are made to the mid-1990s. Some of the talking heads that make lengthy and numerous appearances as explainers on the program are scantily identified with a sub-title. Lundy Bancroft, who plays a major and informative role as explainer, is only identified as an "Abuse Intervention Specialist." Richard Ducote, also a major explainer, is identified only once in a sub-title as an "attorney," and if you blink you'll miss it.

It seemed to me that what was badly missing in this presentation was a reporter, or skilled presenter, who could provide at least some of the context and controversy surrounding this issue, explain the cast of characters, and deal with the basic questions of fairness and balance that come quickly to mind. Even in Port's very positive review, he writes: "Some facts are in order here. We're talking about a big but very narrow problem. Custody is not disputed in court in the overwhelming majority of divorces, as many as nine in 10 cases settle amicably, according to studies. In uncontested custody, mothers win out over fathers, taking custody about 2-1, although this is partly because some fathers see trying to win custody as futile.

It was refreshing to read Getler’s letter. Finally, someone is calling BS on at least one example of genderist propaganda and their myth making machine. That machine is well oiled by billions of federal dollars streaming to them as a result of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The tactic of stating opinion as fact, misusing statistics or using invalid statistics, applying statistics that come from one universe to a different universe for which they are not applicable, and dramatically and emotionally baiting viewers, are all in widespread practice by genderists.

In the short term, PBS must work on its credibility by ending all airings of Breaking the Silence and admitting its mistakes. Or, PBS could produce a documentary giving the father’s side of how they are treated in family court. Preferably, they could, and probably should, do both.

For the long term, in order to get some sanity back into to the highly politicized topic of relationships between the sexes, and temper the government’s involvement in attempting to social engineer the American family, it would be good if the misdeeds of Breaking the Silence became a tipping point for a larger movement in our society. It is well past time that the tide turned and the extreme and hateful nature of genderism be pushed back to the fringe where it belongs, as opposed to literally writing public policy, as it has done since the Clinton administration.

This group of Women Studies graduates, quick to blame every social ill on the phantom called “the patriarchy,” has met no resistance for thirty years. The producers of Breaking the Silence are transparent in their confusion, because finally the voices of men and fathers have become organized enough to be heard. Talking about "silence"! It may just be that the silence of men and fathers has finally been broken by this documentary.

Now that we have seen the genderist vision of a legal system that operates differently for men than it does for women, and we see the results, it’s high time that resistance to their strange ideology became a full fledged political movement.

There's more! Click to read

Westneat and Seattle Totalitarianism

Danny Westneat complains of others spinning Cpl. Jeffrey Starr’s letter home to his girlfriend, while he spins it himself.

This is so typical of the mindset of Seattle.
People will decry something like the Patriot Act, because it stomps on our civil liberties. But, at the same time, they will promote a whole variety of laws that limit those very same freedoms. Mayor Nickels’ obsession with strip clubs, driven in large part by his alignment with Seattle’s hegemonic feminism (dressed in right wing moralist virtue in this case), is a case in point.

Westneat can’t spin Jeffrey Star’s letter by accusing others of spinning it only because he thinks the point he wants to make is more righteous than the point others want to make. Well, he can’t do it without transparently being a hypocrite.

Similarly, politicians can’t pick and choose among which civil rights and freedoms to limit because they think their reasons for limiting our freedom are “righteous enough.” Every inch of rationalization for freedom taken by government, regardless of the reason, opens a miles wide opportunity based on precedent for more restriction.

There's more! Click to read