Die Die Seattle PI

Hopefully, the so-called “arbitration” between the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI will result in the death of the Seattle PI.

There really is no reason for the PI to exist. The Seattle Times is already left of center and redundant to the Seattle PI most of the time. From the tone of its editorials and all of its columnists, the Seattle Times would like to be even more to the left except that the Blethens are smart enough to want to remain at least slightly differentiated from the Seattle PI. Worse, when the Seattle Times makes an effort to look slightly conservative on some issues, it mistakes government control and oppression for conservatism. And, the Seattle Borg eat it up.

If the Seattle PI were out of the way, the Seattle Times could go ahead and occupy all of the space it wants on the left. There would be nothing holding it back. Actually, this would probably make it a better newspaper. People are always at their best when they are being genuine, as opposed to self-censured or attempting to be something they are not. The Seattle Times could stop resisting its liberal urges and focus more on being an interesting newspaper.

Now, this does not mean that I would necessarily be more interested in reading the Seattle Times after this transformation to its natural state. When I do happen upon one on a table in Starbucks, however, I would feel like I am reading a newspaper that represents itself more honestly.

And, I definitely would not miss the PI. Why bother reading two newspapers from the same city that have almost identical political positions? The PI’s departure will not create a void within the debate of ideas. In fact, it might free up some advertiser demand for alternative newspapers to the Seattle Times. The current crop of alternatives, which includes the Seattle Weekly and The Stranger, don't add much diversity. Well, the Stranger occasionally provides a modicum of diverse thought, but hardly often enough. We could use another weekly that stretches itself outside the current minimalist approach to political debate we currently see in Seattle.

We might even get lucky and see a newspaper with a decidedly conservative or even libertarian bent enter the market. Instead of being stuck in the mud and known as the "City of the Borg," Seattle might actually wake up and think outside the politically correct box.

There's more! Click to read

Don't Let Them Do It

David Broder of the Seattle Times says that a plan to circumvent the republican (not the party, but the form of government) design of our federal government is a bad idea. I could not agree more, even though my reasons are quite different from his.

Some states are considering a conspiratorial pact to hand their electoral votes over to the presidential candidate that receives the most votes nationally. (Remember, Gore won more votes nationally than Bush, but Bush won the electoral college). the Broder is primarily concerned with maintaining the two party duopoly of extremism we currently suffer. He apparently has his doubts about whether the state’s conspiracy will protect the ugly political system that oppresses us, even though many of proponents are party protectionists who want to eliminate the threat of a third party.

A third party with any chance of influencing the political landscape already has more than enough working against it. The only way one could develop would be if enough people get fed up with the extremism of the two current parties. If that sort of discontent does develop, the last thing our government should be doing is protecting political parties.

While both sides present themselves as different, in too many respects, they are hardly distinguishable. Both are happy to grow the federal government to astronomical proportions. They both, in their own way, are social re-constructionists. They share an obsession with control and have little respect for individual liberty or the Constitution.

Ironically, both are now conspiring to trick their way around the Constitution again. Letting them get away with it would be a bad idea. Our Founders were wise beyond anything that you can find in politics today. They were people that rose to the top during a time of massive struggle between old Europe feudalism and the longing of the human spirit for freedom and opportunity. These men were hardly perfect (and those imperfections seem to be about all that historians care to focus on lately), but they were heads and shoulders above the likes of anything the current political class has to offer.

The Founders created our federal government in the form of a republic for sound reasons that are as valid today, perhaps more valid, than they were at the late 18th century. Small states need a counter-balance to the influence of large states. Widely dispersed rural and small town populations need a voice that can be heard in addition to that of large cities. New Yorkers and Seattleites alike need to be reminded that even though national and regional media are centered on these large metropolitan areas, their reality is not shared by everyone.

I put my faith in the idealism of the Founders’ design. Many things have changed since we broke free from British rule and the shackles of feudalistic Europe. We did not start out perfect. But, while you read and hear about how Thomas Jefferson was an elitist white man from a Southern state that owned slaves, keep in mind that the ideals he helped instill in the design of our federal government were the basis for change. Yes, he owned slaves and shame on him. He also said that all men are created equal, which was an idea that eventually won.

Anyone promoting a system that allows a small number of states to throw the Constitutional form of electing a President is also promoting political ossification and perhaps even fascism. Powerful ideals and hard won wisdom prove their worth over long spans of time. We should not let instant gratification or disgruntled losers of elections get in their way.

There's more! Click to read

Urban Density is Risky Business

The Seattle Silly Council and Mayor Nickels just approved allowing buildings constructed downtown to go higher. They want more people to live in the city.

Meanwhile, they continue to block what they call “big box” retailers from locating in the city. No Walmarts or K-marts, for example.

So, where are these people going to shop? Are they all going to be willing to pay prices required to maintain small stores in high rent districts?

Probably not. So, there will be a lot of people driving out of the city to go shopping at reasonable prices. So much for all their talk of reducing the dependence of people on cars.

Aware that they may not be able to control the type of people that move downtown, they also are working on a plan to keep some of the people that reliably vote for them. They cannot be sure, after all, that some of the unreliable voters out the suburbs will be accidentally enticed into moving downtown.

So, downtown condo developers will be required to pay somewhere between $10 and $19 per square foot to the city in order to support the construction of low-income housing downtown. Next, we will hear that the Silly Council wants to ensure that this low income housing has good views of the Sound and the mountains.

There's more! Click to read

Old Habits, Reincarnated

Is there just something about the word "monorail" that causes people to want to act in secrecy?

Most of the Board and the employees left in the monorail organization have changed, yet they are still operating in secrecy.

There is nothing wrong with stretching the monorail tax out so that taxpayers are hit with paying off the debt equally. Just tell us how much we need to pay off first.

In fact, there is another good reason to keep the monorail tax going (at a lower rate and only to pay off the cost of this debacle). It will make the Seattle Silly Council gun shy about adding even more MVET for a silly project like replacing the Viaduct with an expensive tunnel that adds no new traffic capacity.

There's more! Click to read

Bio-rail?

State funding for biodiesel was always a questionable endeavor, but it just lost all credibility.

There's more! Click to read

Just Say No to Bogus ADD/ADHD

A federal expert advisory panel to the FDA recently recommended that black-box warning labels be put on many of the drugs perscribed for the newly fashionable condition of ADD/ADHD. To the surprise of the FDA, the panel actually went further than its original scope in the evaluation of ADD/ADHD medications. This was probably met with horror by Shire Pharmacueticals, which sells Adderall, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals, maker of Ritalin. But, they did not go far enough.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) defines ADD/ADHD as follows:

The principal characteristics of ADHD are inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.

Sound like a boy you know? Or, like just about every boy you know?

If your answer is yes, this expansive definition is probably the reason that, according to the expert adisory panel, nearly 10% of America's 10 year old boys are on one ADD/ADHD drugs, usually either Adderall or Ritilan.

"On the surface, it is hard to believe," said Curt Furberg, professor of public health sciences at North Carolina's Wake Forest University Medical School, who voted for the black-box warning. "What is also interesting is this condition is not really recognized in other countries -- you wonder what we are treating. I am sure there are patients who need these drugs, but it is not 10 percent of all 10-year-old boys."

Yes, it is hard to believe. Adderall, Ritillan, and other drugs like them are power stimulants. The poor boys that have been perscibed these drugs are caught in the cross-current of two powerful forces. The first is the feminization of the public school system, whereby the natural exuberance of 10 year old boys is expected to be modified in order to make them behave like 10 year girls. Ironically, these types of stimulants do cause boys to focus, because stimulants cause all people to focus more, sometimes to obsession.

The second force is that of the pharmacuetical industry. Drug ompanies, like all other companies, are constantly seeking new markets. Once ADD/ADHD was identified as a possible syndrome in children, Notaris found a home for Ritilan, which now generates over $500 million dollars in sales. Shire saw the same opporunity for Adderral, and began heavy TV advertising which successfully convinced many people that the distractions of modern living are actually a disease that needs to be treated with meds.

Shire and Novartis have been so succesfull in marketing their drugs that public school teachers routinely demand that children in their classes by put on one of these drugs. For them, the drugs are a quick fix to the often rambunctious behavior of little boys.

Well, yeah, cocaine also makes a user focus more than normal. I experimented with that drug a few times long ago and found it made me very intensely focused on whatever I was doing (or whoever I was talking to). It also made me grind my teeth and act like a jerk. Because they are powerful stimulants, the effects of drugs like Ritillan and Adderall are much the same. And, just like with cocaine, when you come down off the "high," you begin craving more.

Now, the rooster is coming back to the nest. Canada has revoked Shire's clearance to sell Adderall based on a study showing that the drug sometimes causes sudden death, heart ploblems, and strokes. Since Adderall is a powerful stimulant, it's hardly surprising that it would have these side effects.

While it seems obvious that these drugs are dangerous, one has to wonder why they are so freely perscribed to so many people diagnosed with a questionable problem that doctors do not even recognize in most of the rest of the world. A new panel should looks specifically into why 10% of adolescent boys in the US are perscribed this crap.

What needs to be studied is the underlying reason that so many perfectly healthy boys are being forced onto a "On the surface, it is hard to believe," said Curt Furberg, professor of public health sciences at North Carolina's Wake Forest University Medical School, who voted for the black-box warning. "What is also interesting is this condition is not really recognized in other countries -- you wonder what we are treating. I am sure there are patients who need these drugs, but it is not 10 percent of all 10-year-old boysmedication

While we continue to play with the futures of so many young men, Canada has got smart and pulled Adderall from the shelves. Nobody seems concerned about the long term physiological and psychological affects of these drugs. Someone should be asking.

It is ironic that the federal government spends so much money trying to convince kids to "just say no," but then turns its head the other way when such powerful drugs are being given to so many young kids, especially boys, under the guise of a medical condition.

There's more! Click to read

See That Vagina Roar

Vagina warrior Susan Paynter says, “We are women, hear us roar.”

Paynter has herself .... worked up into a frenzy over the prospect of Mike McGavitt defeating Maria Cantwell in November. The single, childless, and cold-as-ice Cantwell is the hero of every man-hating gender-obsessed feminist in the state.

Paynter claims McGavitt’s feet will be held to the fire over his position on abortion. Not only will wrinkled old feminists have a fire reignited in their belly, according to Paynter, but so will the “men who love them.”

One wonders whether the control fantasies of these bitter women meet with reality when their meek husbands and boyfriends saunter into private voting booths. I suppose that in many cases, women like Paynter actually insist on filling out the mail-in ballot forms of their spouses in order to ensure that those poor guys are voting the party line (is this the motivation for all mail-in voting?). Nevertheless, passive aggressive Washington men are probably pretty good at sneaking around the edges and getting their protest votes in when they really want to.

But, even assuming Paynter and her aging sisters actually cast the ballots of their spouses, she is forgetting about a fundamental change in the population census data over the past couple of decades. No Democrat is elected or re-elected in Washington without winning a solid majority of King County voters. That fact butts up against another - nearly 50% of men in the county in their 30’s are not married. A solid chunk of these men never plan to enter this potentially disastrous contract. They are wising up.

With the National Center for Men garnering incredible headlines and fretting commentary for its lawsuit attempting to gain reproductive rights for men, the non-existence of their reproductive rights and gender punitive nature of current law are no longer shunned topics in the news. More wising up.

Sure, some single issue environmental extremists will vote for Cantwell anyway. Not all though. After spending so much of its political capital on gender feminist causes, the state’s Democrats run the risk of loosing enough of these male votes in King County to toss Cantwell out of the cozy Senate dining room.

And, what of that feminine “roar”? Feminist controlled organizations in the state have been running at full tilt for years. Their money supplies have probably been maxed out for a while. Editorial comments in the region’s mainstream news media could not be any more biased toward self-censured political correctism, and some of that media, like Paynter’s Seattle PI, are in their death throes.

It’s hard to imagine an audibly distinct roar rising from the whinny feminist cacophony.

There's more! Click to read

Squeezing Rocks for Water

In the politically charged and irrational world of “child support” collection, the state of Washington leads the pack .... or trails the pack, depending on your point of view. If you care about the practice of genderist ideology, you choose the former. If you are looking for results, it’s clearly the latter.

The National Center for Men lawsuit seeking some balance for men in reproductive choice prompted me to investigate some of the effects of men being forced into legal fatherhood that they do not want. The natural place to look was the Washington Department of Social and Health Services. There you will find a resource page for the Division of Child Support (DCS).

DCS has become the police force, judge, and jury behind the state’s anti-father, but pro-unlimited-choice-for-women policies. It has also become a source of revenues for the state – not because it increases collections of child support, but because it collects federal matching dollars for child support run through its system that would have been paid anyway.

To promote itself, DCS likes to focus on so-called “Deadbeat Dads.” There is nothing like a bogeyman for a government agency to distract you with, no matter how bogus. So, naturally, you can find a public humiliation list of “most wanted” on their web site. Of course, the list of most wanted does not contain a single woman, even though women required to pay child support are statistically less likely to pay up than men. (Yes, even in Washington, there are women that are required to pay child support.) Screening the list to ensure that no women are posted promotes the Deadbeat Dad mythology that justifies the existence of DCS while avoiding the angst of gender feminist ideologists.

But, look a little closer at this list and you have to wonder why even a division of state government that exists primarily for political purposes and to garner revenue from the federal government would so blatantly search for money where none can be found.

For example, take the case of Alvin E. Rushin. According to DCS, old Alvin owes $83,233.20 in unpaid child support. This is for a single child that is already 20 years old, according to the site. That’s a pretty big lump sum by most any standard, but especially in Alvin’s case. His profession: Handyman.

Now, I know some people make a good living working as a handyman. Many of these guys are very skilled and the large number of women in the state who find themselves single because men are scared of the politization of marriage are willing to pay top dollar to have a guy come over and fix some things around the house (some men are too). But, for the most part, “handyman” is a catch-all term that applies to unskilled labor, particularly when used by a state agency.

It’s probable that Alvin has not made more than $83,233.20 in his entire life. So, why is the state chasing after him? If they do catch him, all they can do is jail him, which will end up costing taxpayers even more than his daughter already received in state assistance.

In fact, peruse the entire page of “most wanted” and there are few men posted that can be defined as anything more than “dead broke dads,” as Glenn Sacks likes to say. Even DCS is unable to drum up much to tout in the way of their “success.” They keep a list of their collection “success” on their web site. The last success: April of 2000, 6 years ago.

Some fundamental re-thinking of DCS’s mission is long overdue. There are probably more constructive ways to garner federal dollars than through DCS, an agency primarily focused on harrassing male citizens of the state, a large majority of them poor. But, with orthodox and ossified ideology so firmly in control of the state, there is little hope of change.

Author's note: I do not have children and do not have to pay child support. (Sometimes, the two circumstances do not go together). DCS is a curiosity of government run in opposition to reason.

There's more! Click to read

Go to Court if you Must, but Your Vote is More Powerful

The National Center for Men is attempting to expose some of the logical inconsistencies of current abortion law (women have all the rights, men only have responsibilities) through a court challenge. Read about it here.

Fine, go ahead and point out the obvious. Again. But, these sorts of issues will not be settled through court challenges. Courts do what is currently politically correct while following loosely within the bounds of statutes and Constitutions. Meanwhile, the important issues of our time for men and fathers (and children too) get lost.

These issues include: Giving men some rights regarding when and how they become a father (in other words, at least some of the so-called "rights" that women currently have in abundance), unfettered access to their children, and teaching society that fatherhood and "child support" should not be confused and are not interchangeable. These issues need to reach the political realm with a much more effective message than "abortion for men." Otherwise, the message is lost on nitwit columnists such as Nicole Brodeur of the Seattle Times, who confuses the motives of South Dakota's abortion ban effort with the court challenge undertaken by the National Center for Men.

Since it is impossible to reason with the current crop of politicians, who were elected either pretending to be chivalrous Republicans or victim focused Democrats, real progress will require a real male voting block. Yes, a majority of men vote for Republicans, but most have no idea what VAWA is, how non-existent their rights are when it comes to accidental pregnancy, or how their most basic rights to parent their own children have been demolished by the gender feminist state.

A small but organized group of men within the Republican Party could hold it accountable to the male vote it takes for granted. If not, men should abandon the GOP in droves. Similarly, male dominated unions, which are major backers of Democrats, should begin to ask their party why they have spent so much political capital on gender politics while doing so little for the average working man or women. Hell, even women union members should support their unions pushing Democrats back to the basics. And, if that doesn't work, perhaps its time for a third party, as Alan Greenspan recently suggested in a speech. These are the only scenarios that will get balance back to issues such as reproductive rights.

The real message behind the National Center for Men lawsuit, and the one that needs to forcefully make its way into the political realm is simple: All kids need fathers. Sure some kids do OK without them, but they are the exceptions, not the norm. (I'd be willing to bet that there is no correlation between the success of fatherless children and payment of child support - but nobody wants to do that study because it would be too politically incorrect while also threatening the huge industry that has developed around child support collections). On average, children do best on practically every objective measure when their father is actively involved in their lives.

Because children need fathers, when a women becomes pregnant, and the father of the unborn does not want the baby, society has a compelling interest in giving him a say in what ultimately happens. If the mother will not choose abortion, and the man will not choose to be a father, no amount of "child support" payment will address or compensate for the lack of a father in the child's life.

While saying that abortion rights is about the human rights of women, people like Kim Gandy, President of NOW, will then turn around and say that men should not be able to opt out of financial responsibility for an unintended pregnancy because its "all about the the children."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

Really? Rights of the child? Suddenly Gandy cares about the rights of children? Obviously only when hiding behind children becomes convenient as a method of deflecting a rational discussion.

But, since Gandy mentioned them, here are some rights children should have: They have a right to a loving, caring father. A child has a right to grow up in an environment that statistically gives him or her the best opportunities in life, which means growing up in a household with a father present. They have the right to masculine protection from the evils in the world. They have the right to see male and female as complementary sides of the human race as opposed to the two sides of a viscious battle. Children have the right to see the truth about men - that they are generally good. They have the right to know that evil comes in all sexes and genders.

Of course, people like Gandy believe that lesbian households are the best environment for children. Second to lesbains in preference, in Gandy's view, are single mother households with financial support from both an excluded father and the government. But, any scholar aware of the statistics can tell you about reality. So, if we really care about the rights of the child, we should not be so wilfully encouraging single mother households and then fooling ourselves into believing that "child support" should only be seen in financial terms and can replace the love and protection of a father.

Giving a man the chance to opt out of an unwanted pregnancy brings some clarity to the situation at a critical moment for both parties to the conception. When the father opts out, the mother has a choice to make - do it on her own or put the baby up for adoption. Or, for a short while longer in some states, get an abortion. Similarly, if a woman decides to go forward with a pregnancy, the man in the equation would be forced to make a stark choice. He will have to either irrevocably decline to participate the child's life or forever accept his responsibility to that child. Few men, after facing such a choice, would be under the misperception that they can simply float in and out of the child's life, and in and out of financial responsibility, whenever he feels like it.

In most cases when the father wants to opt out, adoption is best for the child. (Comparing the general welfare and future success of adopted children to those of single mothers is another study you will never see, but we all know what the results would be). Financial-only "child support" only creates an incentive for the mother to make a sub-optimal choice.

Or, if you don't like the idea of accidental fathers opting out of unwanted pregancies, consider what is probably an even more powerful option. We should make it clear within both federal and state law that the State will hardily stand behind the right of a father to be significantly involved in the life of his child, whether born out of wedlock or not. (I can see the feminists reading this now and going apoplectic over cases of rape, but that's just a red herring. Few people believe that a rapist should ever have any rights in this regard).

In other words, ladies, if you have that child, the father will have a clear and unambiguous right to be a parent to that child, just as you have now, whether you like it or not. This means that you will need to have a relationship with the father on some level, if only for logistics, maybe for the rest of your life. This means you can not be a Move Away Mom, at least not without permission. It means the values and concerns of another person will hold sway over the upbringing of your child. So, you'd have to think twice about what it is you really want to do and how much freedom you are willing to give up in order to receive that "child support" payment.

The refusal of orthodox feminists - make no mistake that they are the women in charge of the cult - to consider even this last possibility is the reason that they receive so little support from men like me on issues such as abortion, even though I would prefer that the government stay out of the matter. Most people care about fairness, and it's become increasingly obvious that labeling men with no parental rights "Deadbeat Dads" is unfair.

While the South Dakota effort to ban abortion at first seemed ominous to me, perhaps it is about the only thing that stands a chance of forcing a reasonable discussion on the issue of father's rights. Hell, I'd settle for getting the topic on the radar screen. SD may indeed put Hillary Rodham into the White House, and for a while, things will probably get even worse. But, Supreme Court decisions last, and the Court is on equal standing to the President within the balance of powers of the three branches of government. Unless the balance of power regime of government is overthrown, a Hillary presidency would be able to do little about making abortion available in every state.

In order to do something about the immiment overthrow of Roe, abortion activists will need the support of average guys like me. But, like most people, guys like me don't get active in support of the rights of others unless we have some rights too.

There's more! Click to read

Forget the Viaduct, Remember I-5

The only good thing to come out of the ridiculous pseudo-debate over the Alaskan Way Viaduct is that now our big fat methane producing Mayor of Nipples is almost completely out of the picture. On one issue after another, this guy has been a complete kook. Only a town as silly as Seattle could have voted to keep him around.

When he wasn’t supporting a complete albatross of a project like the monorail .... he was out traveling around the globe on our nickel acting like a global warming super hero. When he’s not talking about his “urban villages” fantasy (a la Hillary Rodham’s “it takes a village” to raise our children, so fathers really aren’t needed), he’s writing strategic plans to virtually eliminate fathers from every family in town (he’s already half way there folks).

And, of course, then there is the Tunnel of Love he is so passionate about. Instead of repairing the failing structure that supposedly separates the city from it’s waterfront, Mayor Nipples wants to recreate Boston’s “Big Dig,” which is virtually guaranteed to have cost overruns of 400 to 500%.

But, now even the tax-and-spend state legislature (which just increased that state’s budget by 15%) is getting fed up with the Mayor’s silly antics. He’s shown himself to be so irresponsible, that even those with a limited claim to a grasp on reality are telling him what’s what. And, what ain’t, as in the Tunnel of Love ain’t gonna be built.

Getting the big fat Mayor out of the picture is great (and amazing since he takes up so much space it's hard to move him out of the frame), but now we hear that the Seattle Silly Council will play a greater role in putting Viaduct proposals before voters. You can be sure that they are working diligently to try to do the old bait-and-switch with the monorail tax. So, don’t expect the MVET to go away any time soon.

Finally, this leaves us with a column by Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times that actually makes some sense. He is suggesting that we should consider the proposal from the People’s Waterfront Coallition for a third option that nobody talks about at all – tear down the Viaduct and do not replace it with anything.

That’s something I’ve been thinking but afraid to say since this debate started. Obviously, just tearing down the Viaduct and "wait and see" if we can tolerate the congestion - as Danny boy proposes - is no solution either. But more can be done in areas that make much more sense than perserving a major highway along the water.

The distance from I-5 to any point downtown is really not all that great. The biggest transportation problem with downtown Seattle is that it does not have enough entrances to and exits from I-5. Some idiot transportation planner seems to have deliberately created a traffic flow that requires you to drive in a large circle twice just to get to I-5 from any point downtown. One can sense the animosity toward the automobile in the traffic planning of that city, but it could be cleared up easily and with little expense.

The other thing that would need to happen, of course, is that I-5 needs to have double the capacity that it currently has from SeaTac all the way to Northgate, if not further north. I-5 sure is not going to go away, so it is the one highway that we can all agree to expand. We could make it wider in some areas; we could tear down the stupid Conference Center that some idiot planner put over the highway for God only knows what reason; and we could build a second story for portions of the highway. We could even do some tunneling to make the GWSH happy.

It would be expensive, but because I-5 is such an important highway, money would come flowing in from many different sources, including the state and the federal government. Hell, we could even put in some toll sections for those drivers that want to move faster during rush hour. (I'd regularly pay $5 to get through the worst of rush hour traffic in my car).

Forget about the Viaduct. Who travels from Ballard to West Seattle anyway? Let’s just make I-5 easier to get to, easier to get off, and make it bigger, wider, and taller. Maybe even deeper. Oh yeah – and get rid of the stupid HOV lanes, which do nothing to reduce traffic congestion or fuel consumption.

The People's Waterfront Coalition sounds a little like a Freemont-type organization and I suspect it is. But, hey, even socialists come up with half of a good idea every once in a while. The rest of us can come up with the other half, can't we?

There's more! Click to read

Funny How These Things Work

Do you think this "lecture" and this article in the PI have any relationship to each other? In other words, might the article have been coordinated with the Steinem visit to Seattle?

Now that the gender feminist victim cult ... has sucked the government dry through hateful programs such as VAWA III, they are out looking to increase corporate funding using the extortion methods of Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition psuedo charity.

The PI article is filled with gender feminist domestic violence mythology. For example, a study bought and paid for by a group interested in maximizing funding - The Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence - supposedly found the following:

In a study published last fall, 21 percent of the 1,200 U.S. workers surveyed had been victims of domestic violence. The Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, which commissioned the study, also found that 44 percent of employees experienced the impact of domestic violence in their workplace in some way.

Well, really now. As I've said before, these people can find domestic violence in their morning coffee. Obviously, these numbers are about as reliable as the "1 in 3" women have been raped statistic.

What's really interesting, though, is that there do not appear to be any references in the quoted parts of the study that relate to the sex of the victims. There is a good chance that hidden in the data are an equal number of men who feel like they are abused at home for spending too much time in the office. But, with a slight twist of keyboard, the PI reporter ignores that and goes on to paint women who work as the only victims of the family tension and stress that often results in a home where both spouses work full time. That's easy to do with the Seattle crowd, which has more than its fair share of women subscribing to gender feminist victim ideology (often without knowing the extent to which this support alienates their sons and husbands).

Plenty of these women are working and as an article in Slate recently pointed out, most married feminists are generally miserable and unhappy with their lives. If you are an unmarried woman think yourself "progressive," not to worry, you are part of your own victim group, and apparently even more miserable than anyone ever knew. Politicians and groups such as the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence know an opportunity to cash in when they see it. Working long hours and spending time away from your home and family sucks regardles of your sex, so since this is a fairly recent requirement of many women while men take it for granted, why not work to convince these women the stress that results is their husband's fault?

And, the victimization of these married and working women discussed, well, it seems to redefine what the average person thinks of as domestic abuse: Women in the workplace with husbands who want to spend more time with them and, gawd, saying so! Um, excuse me, but hasn't that been the complaint that women have had about hard working men for eons? If you have your doubts about that, watch few episodes of Oprah to learn something about the emotional exploitation of women who have time to watch television in the afternoon.

This is more gender feminist, "we want it both ways" nonsense. It is hard to take an advocacy group seriously when some of it's members behave in a cult-like fashion while being responsible for such mis-information. Just as the Islamic world is finding that tolerance, much less sympathy, for their religion is on a rapid decline in the West, the gender feminist crowd is also loosing it's credibility among ordinary Americans.

But, the point of the PI article is not the content or any of the misinformation. The point is to get the message out to the area's mega-corporations just in time to allow Gloria Steinem to use the guilt and coercion method of making herself and her sisterhood of disaffected women rich.

Gentlemen, get out your checkbooks.

There's more! Click to read

Tell Us What We Can Do

It seems even Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times has figured out that Seattle's version of government controlled exclussively by Democrats is obsessed with managing every little feature of our lives.

Westneat noted that the Four Seasons Hotel, known for its exclusivity, had no problem with locating near a couple of strip bars. Yet, Mayor Nickels seems more obsessed with limiting our ability to pay to see a pair of bouncing boobs than even the most fervent bible thumping conservative. It shows yet again that orthodox feminism (to which Mayor Nickels subscribes with enthusiasm) has much in common with evangelical "morals" based politics. (In fact, I expect that Hillary Rodham will use this strong connection as the basis for her presidential campaign.)

A few days earlier, a Seattle PI reporter put together a pretty good list of the many silly things that you can’t do in Seattle. Of course, the Mayor’s strip bar obsession made the list. So did the city’s laws about sitting down on the sidewalk.

Geez. When people in these two newspapers start to complain about being over-controlled (control freak behavior is a telltale sign of orthodox liberalism), you know things are getting bad.

So, I have a suggestion to the Seattle Silly Council and our big fat methane producing environmental super-hero-of-a-Mayor: Let’s formally and fundamentally change the way government goes about defining what we can and can’t do.

Traditionally, democracies keep a set of laws describing the things that we cannot do. Under this format, it is assumed that government has no place in all of the other areas of our lives that don't make this "can't do" list. But now that so many things people do in the privacy of their homes, in private and public venues of their choice, or within the public space of the city are outlawed, perhaps its time to flip the old system on its head. It would be a shorter list and more efficient to simply create the Aegis State and declare that nothing at all is allowed unless government specifically says that that is. Then Mayor Nipples and the Seattle Silly Council can start working on the short list of exceptions to the "can't do" presumption.

In other words, government would be about telling us the few things we can do instead of all the things we can’t.

Hey, it's just another step along the path to creating utopia.

There's more! Click to read