Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Sir Percy

21
Main / We don't notice it coming.
May 28, 2006, 09:35 PM
In this transparent, democraticisivating age, where everyone has his/her/its say, we don't notice the water heating up around our small froggy bodies. Feminism crept in this way. Socialism does the same. Part and parcel of the same issue. Its someone else's fault and Governments should pay us out of someone else's pockets. Problem is, it only us that have pockets.

I reprint this here, not to incence our friend Gonzo, but to show that all is not well in that bastion of freedom, the once Great Britain.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2200150,00.html

Britain's northern 'soviets' swell on Brown handoutsDAVID SMITH AND CLAIRE NEWELL
Regions receive higher levels of public spending than former communist countries

THE growth in public spending in northern areas of Britain is so rampant that it is resulting in the "sovietisation" of swathes of the country, new figures show.

Gordon Brown, the chancellor, has pushed up national public spending beyond the levels of former communist countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The dependence on the public sector of the north of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has grown so sharply over the past year that many areas are now significantly more reliant on public spending than countries such as Sweden, known for the bloated size of its welfare state.

The new figures, compiled by analysts at the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) and to be released in a report tomorrow, show that between 2001-02 and 2005-06, public spending grew from 38.9% to 43% of gross domestic product.

The national increase over the past year, from 42% to 43%, disguises the fact that in southern regions dependence on the state has barely risen, while in northern areas it has jumped sharply.

The reliance on the public sector varies between regions, from just 33.4% in London to 71.3% in Northern Ireland. The public spending share in Northern Ireland has risen from 65.2% to its present level in four years; Wales has gone up from 56.3% to 62.4%; the northeast from 56.4% to 61.5%; Scotland from 50% to 54.9% and the northwest from 47.8% to 52.6%.

"In some regions high public spending is a reaction to the problems of economic deprivation," said Professor Doug McWilliams, head of the CEBR. "But what is noteworthy is that the public spending share has risen much faster than can be explained by this."

The "sovietisation" of parts of Britain as a result of Brown's huge increases in public spending looks even more dramatic when the figures are adjusted for comparison with other countries. On this basis, public spending is equivalent to 76.2% of the size of the Northern Ireland economy this year, 66.2% in Wales, 64.9% in the northeast, 57.7% in Scotland and 56.1% in the northwest.

This compares with 56.1% in high-spending Sweden, 54.1% in France, 51.9% in former communist Hungary, 51.5% in Denmark, 46% in Germany, 42.6% in the Czech Republic, 41.2% in Poland and 36.3% in Slovakia.

Sir Digby Jones, director- general of the CBI, the employers' organisation, said that he was increasingly concerned about the "crowding out" of the private sector by a rapidly expanding public sector. "I'm very, very worried about this," he said. "The private sector is responsible for around 62% of GDP in China -- a communist, totalitarian regime."
In the northeast of "the fifth largest economy in the world" there is a mirror image, he pointed out, with the public sector responsible for nearly 62% of GDP.

Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics, said the differences were due to the weakness of the private sector in large parts of the UK.

"What really varies is the scale of the private sector economy," he said. "In the southeast, the east and London, the scale of the private sector is very much greater.

"All of this raises the question of whether public spending is a good or a bad thing. Thirty or 40 years ago regional planners would have said that the thing to do to close the north-south divide would be to shift public spending north. The thing that makes economies grow is the vibrancy and success of the private sector."

John Adams, director of research at the Institute for Public Policy Research North, agreed that the figures reflected big economic differences between the regions.

"It's right that the national exchequer should transfer money to poorer people and that you have some kind of system that protects the poorest people," he said. "But the ideal situation is that all the areas of the country have a healthy economy and healthy employment."

Many northerners argue that they deserve a greater share of government money.

"The north has historically been behind the south," said Eleanor Marsden, a teacher from Hull. "If the north is getting more money than the south, it is because there are severe areas of deprivation in the north that as a country we have been very slow in addressing. Some places in the north haven't been touched since the war and that's something that really isn't acceptable."

Barry Peek, an engineer from Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, disagreed. "These days I'm not sure there is such a strong north-south divide. House prices have risen everywhere, including the north," he said.
"I'm not sure that the north is as deserving as it used to be -- and pumping money in isn't necessarily the best way to achieve things."

OFFICIAL: YOU'RE NOT WORKING HARDER, IT JUST FEELS THAT WAY.

BRITAIN'S stressed-out generation, the millions who believe they are working harder and longer than ever, have got the wrong end of the stick. Official figures show that working hours are falling, not rising, and that the average working week is shorter than it has ever been, writes David Smith.

The statistics show that average working hours are declining for both men and women. The average working week for all people in full-time jobs has dropped nearly two hours in the past 10 years.

The government's Labour Force Survey shows the average working week for all full-timers, including paid overtime, has dropped from 38.8 hours in 1996 to 37.1 hours in the first three months of this year.

The male average working week has come down from 40.9 to 38.9 hours and the female average from 34.7 to 34 hours.

The Department of Trade and Industry, in a recent report, noted there had been "a gradual downward trend in working hours for a long time, but this appears to have accelerated as a result of the working time directive". The European Union directive, introduced in 1998, but with exemptions for certain staff, has cut the number of people working more than 48 hours a week by a fifth.

Working hours have dropped sharply over time. In the middle of the 19th century, the average industrial worker put in as many as 3,500 hours a year -- double the present annual average for full-time workers -- with 60 or 70-hour working weeks common.

Politicians have regularly argued that Britain needs a better work-life balance. Last week, David Cameron, the Tory leader, addressed this theme when he said in a speech that there was more to life than money
22
Main / Men's cruelty to men.
May 27, 2006, 08:37 PM
www.ebaumsworld.com

Here you will find a video of an interview on Dutch TV. The interviewer is trying to talk to a man and his wife infront of an audience. The man had an accidental castration whilst undergoing surgery. A tragic happening. The interviewr's response to the man's now high voice is an absolute disgrace. Who needs feminists.
23
Main / F4J resurgence.
May 27, 2006, 08:57 AM
Picked up from Dads on the Air. SP

Guardian Unlimited (UK)
May 25, 2006 12:37 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_oconnor/2006/05/bye_bye_batman_hello_wonder_wo.html

Bye bye Batman, hello wonder women

Father 4 Justice has changed. Gone are the superhero suits, replaced by a new coalition of all those affected by family law injustice, mothers included.

Dave Hill's perceptive post http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dave_hill/2006/05/return_of_f4j.html observed the reinvention of the controversial pressure group, Fathers 4 Justice, which returned in dramatic fashion last Saturday when activists, including a mother, stormed the set of the National Lottery in front of ten million viewers.

I smiled when I saw it as he had identified the subtle but clear tactical shift in the re-positioning of F4J. After I disbanded the group in January after the alleged plot to kidnap the prime minister's son (nice piece of New Labour spin) I had a clear plan as to how things would develop.

I would work on my new libertarian project Agents For Change and the myriad of splinter groups would fill the void and carry on the work we had started. At least, that was the plan. However very recently it became clear that the issue had gone off the boil and that the advances we had made were going to unravel. There was a general consensus that something needed to happen, that we needed to act, but that we needed to reposition the group to advance the cause.

There was intense criticism of me when we disbanded. One camp, who always said I should go pretty much even before I'd got started, then slammed me for quitting. Another camp thought they had lost all hope and the lights had gone out. They were adrift at sea and the life raft they were clinging to was about to be upturned.

However this was our Dunkirk moment. If we had carried on we would have been annihilated. With infiltration of the organisation from journalists and police rife, a welter of hatchet jobs (at least one knife amnesty in my back) and then the fabulously bizarre baby Leo kidnap plot, only a fool with a penchant for ritual disembowelment would have persevered.

So, five months later, what's changed? Whatever your views on F4J we did effect climate change. In fact the rather premature obituaries we received saluted the work we did in creating awareness. Even Gordon Brown yesterday spoke of a fathers' revolution.

Indeed, the fruits of our labours are visible this week. On Monday the Guardian reported about the court welfare services plans for early interventions in contact disputes. Yesterday the Times reported the imminent opening up of the family courts albeit with oxymoronic conditions attached.

The difference between F4J and other campaigns is that unlike animal rights, the environment, etc, this is an issue that touches every person, every parent and every family.

The trick now is to broaden our franchise and move the debate up onto the next level. Not just the vital debate about fatherhood but to extend the debate about the secret family courts to include women's groups and all those affected by family law injustice, the Sally Clarkes, the Angela Cannings, etc.

We propose a new coalition under a Make Poverty History type banner, only this time under one which calls for open family courts so justice can not only be done, but be seen to be done because it is the sinister cloak of secrecy that is the single biggest obstacle to reform.

And yes, the message of F4J has changed. It isn't just about big, ugly hairy blokes like me, but about mothers and families, about children losing not just their fathers, but half their families, losing an emotional arm and a leg. Families bankrupted by the adversarial napalm scalding conflict that is the family courts.

There is a cost to returning to the battlefield. It is my belief, based on compelling evidence, that there are infiltrators within the "movement" whose role is to act as agent provocateurs. The best way of paralysing a movement is to keep people infighting and we have taken steps to counter this.

But this is to be expected. On Saturday we made our dramatic return. There will be no more superhero suits or climbing of landmarks. Our new campaign will not fight power with power, but fight power with ridicule, satire and subversion.

With Father's Day less than a month away and the trial of Guy Harrison in July, there exists a runway for a new dynamic campaign that will finish off the work we started three years ago. In just five days we have been catapulted from the grave to the headlines, our resurgence should carry us forward from our Dunkirk to the equal parenting movement's equivalent of the Normandy landings on the steps of the family courts later this year.

Late next year we hope Hollywood's contribution to the cause with the film based on my experiences of the family courts will bring an extra dimension and add further weight to the campaign.

Are we feeling lucky this time around?

You bet we are, but this time around it will be a family affair.
24
Main / Now 'they' will want one !!!!
May 25, 2006, 05:46 AM
NewScientist.com - NEWSFLASH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artificial penile tissue allows rabbits to mate normally

In a "landmark development" researchers have grown penile tissue that has allowed rabbits with damaged sexual organs to successfully mate. The urologists say that the procedure might one day help treat men with severe penile dysfunction.

The technique involves a new method of tissue-engineering which enabled the team to use the animals' own cells to build the spongy tissue structure that makes up the bulk of the organ.

The breakthrough is the latest achievement of Anthony Atala and colleagues at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine in North Carolina, US - the same team that hit the headlines in April with the first bio-engineered human bladders which were successfully implanted into patients.

Use the link below to read the full story on NewScientist.com/news:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9221
 
Science and technology news and features updated daily at http://www.newscientist.com

Subscribe to New Scientist magazine and get 4 FREE ISSUES at:
http://www.newscientist.com/subscribe.ns?promcode=nflash
25
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/05/23/has-matriarchy-made-the-sexes-equal/
Has Matriarchy Made The Sexes Equal?
May 23, 2006
Vox Populi
By Carey Roberts

A number of years ago someone came up with the idea that Patriarchy was the cause of untold misery and hardship of women. So why not let the ladies run the show for awhile and see if they can clean up the mess?
That idea began to take root, and on January 20, 1993, the Matriarchy came into power. That's the day the Rodham-Clinton co-presidency checked into the White House.

After thirteen years of social engineering designed to advance the feminist agenda, we can ask, Are we now closer to the long-awaited gender utopia?

To answer that question, we might first note that despite its widely-publicized shortcomings, the Patriarchy had at least a few redeeming features. Women have long enjoyed special consideration by chivalrous lawmakers. For example, women were exempted from the military draft and spared from the most hazardous occupations.

Because of their longer life spans, females were favored by government programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The eligibility criteria for welfare programs such as Medicaid gave preference to custodial parents, another nod to mothers.

Such multi-billion dollar programs, we might note, were largely conceived, enacted, and paid for by those linear-thinking patriarchs.
Like socialism, Matriarchy avers to be an enlightened and egalitarian form of social order. Let's probe that claim.

We'll start with abortion. When feminists pushed to legalize the procedure, did they envision that fathers and pregnant women would be equal in their decision-making? Hardly. The feminists' harsh refrain was "our bodies, ourselves."

When Carol Gilligan and her comrades pushed for the 1994 Gender Equity in Education Act - a law that cast the spotlight on the needs of schoolgirls -- did they mention that boys had always lagged on tests of reading achievement? Not to my recollection.

When president Bill Clinton named hard-Left feminist Norma Cantu as director of the Department of Education civil rights office, she became obsessed about the under-representation of girls in college sports programs. But did she ever worry about the under-representation of boys on dean's lists and honor societies? Not on your life!

When Hillary Clinton lobbied behind the scenes for the Violence against Women Act, did she ever muse about the well-known fact that men, too, are often victims of domestic violence? Nope.

And when the former First Lady advocated for women's health, did she ever comment on the odd fact that men were dying 6 years earlier than women? Well, I guess I missed that speech.

Not to pile on HRC too much, but when she stumps for her Paycheck Fairness Act, does she ever mention the glass ceiling that keeps men from working fewer hours, accepting less stressful jobs, and retiring at an earlier age, as their wives often do? Ditto on that one.

When the Lavender Ladies lobbied to stiffen penalties for non-payment of child support, did they ever address the problem of custodial moms who blocked their ex's from seeing their own kids? Answer in the negative.
When feminists speak about child custody, do they espouse the rhetoric of equality and fairness? Not in New York, at least, where last month feminists lobbied ferociously against a bill that would have allowed an equal presumption of joint custody.

So despite all the feminist hoopla about gender equality, it is difficult to find even a single example where reality measures up to rhetoric.
Alexis de Tocqueville was a political thinker who charted the early stirrings of socialism in the years following the French Revolution. Tocqueville sagely noted, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

In 1831 Tocqueville journeyed to the United States to study our nascent democracy. Noting similar socialistic yearnings in America, he made this prescient observation:

"There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things-their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.

Weak men and disorderly women - an apt description of how things stand in America, circa 2006.
26
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16683028&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=566835&rfi=6

Cabbie cleared in 'rape' that never was
Phil Helsel, Register Staff
05/24/2006

WEST HAVEN -- When a 15-year-old girl ran up to a cop May 8, screaming and claiming that a taxi driver had tried to rape her, the officer assumed the worst and police arrested the cabbie later that day.
But it turns out the girl made up the story to get out of paying the cab fare, police said, and all charges were dropped Tuesday against driver Oluyemi Otunba-Payne, a Nigerian immigrant and father of two who lives in Hamden.

"I was crying in the courthouse," said Otunba-Payne, 48, who has lived in the United States for 25 years. "I'm just happy this is all over."

Otunba-Payne was arrested after the girl, who was not identified by police, tried to run out of his cab at West Spring Street May 8. He caught her and held her jacket and a curling iron to make sure she would return with the money, his attorney said, but the girl instead approached a police officer claiming that Otunba-Payne tried to rape her.

He was charged with one count each of attempted first-degree sexual assault, third-degree robbery, third-degree sexual assault, second-degree unlawful restraint and risk of injury to a minor.

But detectives uncovered the truth after finding inconsistencies in the girl's story, police spokesman Officer Angelo Moscato said, and they recommended in Superior Court in Milford that the charges be dropped.

None of the girl's allegations -- that Otunba-Payne offered to waive the fare in exchange for a sex act and then tried to rape her in the back seat of his Metro Taxi cab before she managed to escape -- turned out to be true, police said. The case is still under investigation, Moscato said, and the girl could be arrested herself for making a false report. (SP. Pigs might fly too)

"The reason she ran off was she didn't want to pay the cab fare," Moscato said. "But on the other side, here's an officer and you see someone running, screaming. ... We have to act quickly, because (what if) we have someone who is a predator out there?"

Otunba-Payne said that while he knew the allegations were false and that he would eventually be vindicated, news of the arrest has been hard on his two teenage children and his family. He said most of his friends and acquaintances kept an open mind, but not all.

"A told a couple of people (of his innocence) and they just ignore you because they assume you're guilty," Otunba-Payne said. "These were people I go to church with every Sunday."

Otunba-Payne's attorney, Tara Knight of New Haven, called the phony report "a real horror story" and said Otunba-Payne faced up to 20 years in prison on the attempted first-degree sexual assault charge alone. She said the girl's fare that day was about $20.

While many reported rapes are legitimate, this is not the first time an alleged victim has been caught fabricating a sexual assault in Connecticut. (SP. Good to see a reporter actually drawing attention to this instead of being like the real victim's 'friends' and ignoring it)

In 2002, a woman whom police did not identify made up a story about being attacked by two men at the University of Connecticut, and police said at the time that she made the details similar to a legitimate assault that had happened a month earlier.

Last year, a city woman admitted to concocting a story about being raped, in a convoluted plan to repair her marriage, police said. The woman was arrested for filing a false report in July after she admitted that the brazen home invasion and rape was made up in a desperate bid to get her husband to come to her aid and repair the rifts in their relationship.

Assistant State's Attorney Kevin Lawlor said he agreed that Ontuba-Payne's case should be thrown out.

"It's as much a part of our job to clear people who have been wrongly accused as it is to aggressively prosecute people," he said.

Otunba-Payne said that the experience of being accused of an attempted rape he didn't commit will not keep him off the road. He's driven a cab for 10 years, he said, and one bad fare isn't going to change that.

"That is not going to stop me from doing what I love," he said. "I love driving a cab."
________________________________________
Phil Helsel can be reached at 876-3028 or at [email protected]
27
Main / Frightening Lawyers Fartless
May 24, 2006, 11:00 PM
It was a New Zealander that first conquored Mt Everest. Looks like they are showing the way again. More POWER to these great MRAs. Make the personal, political.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3677809a11,00.html

Fathers' group scares lawyers
24 May 2006

By KIM THOMAS

Christchurch Family Court lawyers are feeling stressed and afraid as a radical father's rights group promises to up the ante in its protest campaign against them.

A pamphlet was distributed around Christchurch's eastern suburbs this week informing residents they had "seriously nasty neighbours" in the form of Family Court staff and lawyers living nearby. The Press understands some lawyers who work in the court also received abusive phone calls.

The Fathers' Coalition, which distributed the Christchurch leaflet, told The Press that distribution of the pamphlet was the first action in a campaign against the Family Court and its staff in the city.

Men's groups in several North Island cities have picketed out-side the houses of Family Court judges, lawyers and psy-chologists in the past few months.

Canterbury District Law Society president John Brandts-Giesen said many lawyers working in family law were naturally fearful they would be targeted as part of the group's smear campaign.
Brandts-Giesen said the lawyers, and staff working within the Family Court, were just doing their jobs and did not deserve to be harassed in their private life.

Everyone involved in Family Court proceedings had the right to legal representation and lawyers tried to act in the best interests of their clients, he said.

Taking action against those who were trying to do the best for their clients was not going to achieve change but would instead force lawyers to become less approachable for their clients.

Some Family Court lawyers might consider getting unlisted home phone numbers if the Fathers' Coalition started staking out people's homes or made phone calls of protest to them.

Fathers' Coalition national spokesman Kerry Bevin said the pamphlet drop in Christchurch was part of an ongoing national campaign aimed at a "hit list" of people felt to have treated fathers unfairly.

"We know what we are doing is provocative but we are not going to back down."

Bevin said the Fathers' Coalition was "not a bunch of nutters" but rather a passionate group of men trying to draw attention to unfairness in the Family Court system.

Bevin said it was no excuse for Family Court staff, lawyers or judges to say they were just doing their jobs because they always had the option of quitting or trying to make changes in favour of fathers and children.
28
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_on_re_us/dna_exoneration

MARATHON, Fla. - A Cuban man wrongly accused of a 1982 rape was arrested by immigration officers Tuesday, hours after a judge dismissed his sexual assault conviction based on DNA evidence.

Orlando Bosquete, 52, was headed to a detention center where he was to be charged with violating immigration law, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez said.

He will have the chance to present his case to a judge, who will decide whether he can be deported, Gonzalez said. She declined to discuss specifics of the charge.

The arrest came after Circuit Judge Richard G. Payne said DNA evidence proves Bosquete was not the man who sexually assaulted a Key West woman in 1982.

Before Tuesday's arrest, Bosquete expressed frustration at his extended incarceration but said he was glad he was proved innocent of the rape.
"It is very important to me to forgive because I have to start a new life," he said.

His lawyers had argued for supervised release, a move supported by prosecutors and the judge.

Bosquete came to the United States in the 1980 Mariel boatlift, in which more than 125,000 Cubans fled the communist island.

He was granted temporary legal status in 1981 while he pursued residency, his lawyers said. The Immigration and Customs agency would not confirm that.

Bosquete, who escaped from prison twice, is being represented by the Innocence Project, a nonprofit group based in New York. His lawyers said the immigration confusion comes from charges that he pleaded guilty to under aliases he used while an escaped convict.

Bosquete was arrested shortly after the 1982 assault when the victim,  sitting in a police car, identified him from 20 feet away as her attacker.

(SP. Now what 'victim' is that?????. The 'Accuser' would be factual reporting but these newspaper people just cannot help themselves can they. Was there even a rape???)

State Attorney Mark Kohl said his office acted immediately when it got confirmation that the DNA was not Bosquete's.

"I'm saddened that he had this horrible situation happen to him, and it's our job to make sure this doesn't happen to anybody else," Kohl said.
Bosquete escaped in 1985 and wasn't re-arrested until 10 years later. He escaped again three months later and was at large for a year.

Prosecutors in Palm Beach County dismissed his 1985 escape charge on Monday, and Bosquete has served the sentence he got for his second getaway, officials said.
29
Main / hahahaha...Hahahahahaha
May 22, 2006, 03:54 AM
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

:D

That's it.

Did that put a smile on ya face?
:D
30
Main / The Feminist Standard, now the Rule.
May 22, 2006, 12:51 AM
The edges of wedges are always thin. Small changes make for large consequences. Here is the state of play in Oz. Now MPs, our representatives in our so-called democracy, can lie through their teeth with impunity. Feminists in the University womyn's research departments must be overjoyed that such old fashioned male, patriachally oppressive 'stuff' like Truth, have been finally garrotted to death. You know my views on liars. Roll up and watch our representatives pull the wire around the throat.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19078279-1702,00.html

No jail for MPs caught lying
By Nikki Todd
May 09, 2006

QUEENSLAND MPs will no longer face the prospect of jail for comments made in state Parliament.

Legislation, introduced by Attorney-General Linda Lavarch, follows the case of former minister Gordon Nuttall who was relegated to the backbenches last year after accusations he lied to a parliamentary estimates committee about overseas-trained doctors when he was health minister.

The Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) found Mr Nuttall might have been in contempt of Parliament when he denied knowledge of problems with foreign doctors during the estimates hearing. It also found Mr Nuttall could potentially have faced criminal charges, but the Parliament decided against taking further action in a special sitting on December 9.

Ms Lavarch said the legislation clarified (SP. Is that what its called now)a 300-year Westminster position that MPs were protected from prosecution when speaking in Parliament. "There is nothing untoward here at all," Ms Lavarch said.

"It is just common sense, it strengthens our democracy, (SP. !!!!!! Well bugger me. The old Soviets didn't even use this one) it ensures that MPs can speak freely (SP. Euphemism for lying. Brought to you through Parliamentary  Privilege, not quite straight from the mouth of the Princess of Lies) without fear of being arrested by police.

"The Parliament can deal with matters that it believes are in contempt of Parliament."

But Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said the legislation - which he criticised for being "cowardly" because it was introduced on the same day as the federal Budget and Beaconsfield miners' rescue - represented the end of true democracy.

"It is the birth of legalised lying," Mr Springborg said.

"As a result of this legislation ministers will be able to sit before committees and legally lie through their teeth when asked basic questions about the state Budget without fear of prosecution."

Meanwhile, a Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) investigation into a complaint by Mr Nuttall has cleared the CMC of any wrongdoing in his case.

Mr Nuttall called for a review of the body in February, after labelling the CMC's handling of his case a "disgrace".

The PCMC report found the watchdog's actions "were appropriate in all the circumstances" but recommended it outline its reasons for adopting its preferred legal stance when dealing with complex and conflicting legal opinions in the future.

Truth tried hard.
Was Tried. Hard.
Derided, Derrida-ed, denied existence;
Perjured, Falsely accused,
she struggled
as she was garrotted.

Died hard.
31
As we have few women on this board, I thought to bring a voice from elsewhere. This was on Teri Stoddard's blog. http://mensnewsdaily.com/category/blogettes/teri-stoddard/

Quote
I received an email tonight from Diane Sears of BSI-International and author of IN SEARCH OF FATHERHOOD® - TRANSCENDING BOUNDARIES. She was describing the Spring 2006 In Search Of Fatherhood - "Getting To A Place Of Compassion." I was touched by her words and I'd like to pass some of them on to you:

GETTING TO A PLACE OF COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING
We really need to get to a place of compassion and understanding for Men, especially Men who are Fathers. We really need to get to a place where we clearly understand that men and women need to and are supposed to trust each other, respect each other, work together as a team and, if circumstances warrant, be willing to walk through fire for one another - and for their children.

No one in our society should ever be made to feel that they do not matter or that what they have to offer is not important. It is in no one's best interest. Yet, Men, in one-on-one conversations and in Internet online discussion groups, express feelings of worthlessness and isolation. We cannot afford to have Men - especially Men who are Fathers -- living and walking among us who feel isolated and devalued -- that they have nothing to contribute and that they are without options.

So, how do we move from a place where Men - and especially Men who are Fathers - feel isolated and devalued - to a place of compassion and understanding? Women have a key role to play in moving our families . . . our communities . . . and our world to a place of compassion and understanding for Men and Fathers. How? Acknowledging and recognizing a man's humanity is the first step toward moving to a place of compassion and understanding.

Recognizing a man's humanity means that we do not buy into the stereotypical characterizations of men that we observe on television and in films. It means that women and men must understand that "differences" do exist between the sexes and that these "differences" do not make one gender inferior or superior to the other. The fact that men communicate differently is and should be regarded as a "plus" and not a "negative". Perhaps there is a need for both sexes to understand their unique communication styles.

Women can and must play a key role in moving our families and our communities to a place of compassion and understanding - a place where Men are allowed to be fathers to their children and act as the family's liaison with the world that exists outside of the family's environment. Women must understand that men are not their enemy. And men must understand that women are not their enemy. While Mothers are grooming their daughters to be financially and intellectually independent individuals, Mothers must also show their daughters how to be supportive of the men in their lives. Women and Mothers must show the next generation of wives and mothers - in word and deed - that it is critical that a wife learns to work with and not against her husband.

At the same time, Mothers must also understand the unique emotional and intellectual needs of their sons. Mothers must also understand that they are their son's first female role model. The manner in which a Mother shapes the mind and soul of her son has a direct bearing on whether or not he will he become a compassionate, responsible and loving husband and father when he reaches adulthood. And, in turn, we must move Women and Mothers into the Fatherhood Equation to facilitate a wholistic approach to positively shaping the minds and souls of our children - the next generation of husbands, fathers, wives and mothers.

This "getting to a place of compassion and understanding" for men and a "coming together" of men and women and moving Women and Mothers into the Fatherhood Equation is essential to the survival and growth of our families, our communities and our society.
32
Main / Canadian Guy Gets the Message Across
May 15, 2006, 11:49 PM
The billboard was not enough!

Protester ties up traffic throughout island
On sign beside Jacques Cartier Bridge. Man claims daughter unlawfully taken from him
 
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=b637ca52-57c2-4e8a-b181-c30212d4a0ef&k=18318
ANNE SUTHERLAND, The Gazette
Published: Thursday, May 11, 2006

Traffic throughout the island was snarled yesterday and commuters were held hostage while police officers tried to talk down a distraught man who was perched on a billboard beside the Jacques Cartier Bridge.

Mario Morin, who stood on the platform in front of a car dealer poster, pointed to a photo of his daughter and claimed she had been unlawfully taken from him.

Wearing an orange reflective vest, cargo pants and funky sunglasses, Morin waved to motorists, threw wooden planks down on firefighters trying to set up an inflatable mattress and generally played the fool 30 metres above the ground.

Longueuil police spokesperson Jean-Pierre Gignac said the force received several calls about 1 a.m. yesterday that there was a man on the billboard.

During the day, several lanes of southbound traffic were closed so the intervention squad could have access to the man by shouting at him from the bridge surface adjacent to the billboard.

In the afternoon, two tractor trailers were parked in the lane closest to the billboard to shield Morin from view of motorists.

An electronic sign on the bridge asked drivers not to honk to encourage the protester.

Gignac said negotiators were having a hard time establishing a dialogue with the protester.

Morin had a homemade banner with F 4 J painted on the sheet, but the group Fathers 4 Justice took no responsibility for his attention-getting stunt.

On Tuesday night, Morin attended a meeting of Fathers 4 Justice, an international group that fights for fathers' rights in child custody cases. He was escorted out when he became too emotional and distraught.
Fathers 4 Justice has used the same bridge stunt to bring attention to its cause, most notably on May 23, 2005, and again on Sept. 19, 2005, when members closed the Jacques Cartier Bridge by climbing the superstructure.

Andy Srougi, who scaled the bridge last September, faces criminal charges for public mischief, conspiracy and preventing an officer from doing his job.

As the spokesperson for Fathers 4 Justice, Srougi said Morin's behaviour yesterday was not condoned by the group.

[email protected]
33
Main / Taking the Fight to the Enemy
May 15, 2006, 11:19 PM
Make the Personal, Political. Now where have I heard that. Oh, yes. Me.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3662471a11,00.html
Fathers vow to continue family court protests
09 May 2006

A fathers' rights group is vowing to "up the ante" in its protests against alleged injustices in the Family Court.

For the last two months, members of the Union of Fathers have been picketing the homes of judges and lawyers in Auckland, Tauranga and Hamilton.

About 50 protesters demonstrated outside the High Court in Auckland yesterday calling for more open justice and accountability from judges.

Chief Family Court judge Peter Boshier said the protests had "all the hallmarks of personal vendetta" and vowed the court would not give in to pressure.

"The protests seem to me to be aimed at intimidating and endeavouring to secure a decision from judges that the men's groups prefer and I think any sort of action designed to do this is wrong and it's very, very serious," he told National Radio today.

He said he would expect police to take action if necessary.

However, protest organiser Jim Bagnall said seven years of lobbying parliament and picketing courts had received little media coverage and failed to give the group "any traction".

The protests were not designed to intimidate, but to "highlight injustice". He said the Family Court was biased against men, and the standards of evidence were too low, which allowed lies to be put forward and alienated fathers from their children.

"We have tried to put acceptable pressure on the courts by demonstrating outside the courts for seven years but we have not got any traction," he told National Radio.

"So now we've decided to up the ante and make it more personal."
However, other fathers' advocates said the vitriolic protests could prove counterproductive.

Alan Harvey from the Wellington branch of Union of Fathers said while he understood the "frustration" of the protesters, he did not believe they were supported by the majority of members.

"I don't think they add to the debate we should be having about the role Family Court plays in society and the length of time it takes for resolution of matters in the court," he told the state broadcaster.
34
Main / Blue Lady Down.
May 15, 2006, 10:26 PM
I am curiously distressed. Here is an article noting the first UK female military death on active duty for God knows how long. The response further down complains about it's manner of reporting and goes right over the top in its criticism.

Why distressed? Americans will be astonished at the low British count even considering the modest British component in Iraq. In Oz we have just lost our first, a man, - who seems to have died accidentally. We got our knickers in a twist because of a coffin cock-up. It is always distressing when soldiers are killed. I am sure Sgt. Beene, who faces this possibilty daily, would agree. But also for the treatment by the press and the knee-jerk reaction of some MRAs.

I can see the point of the man-forgotten, woman-song and dance aspect. But this is a notable first and therefore got some prominence. The vitriol in the response is distressing. If MRAs are to be taken seriously, we must rise above some things and make arguements much more cogent - and not disrepect those whose lives are lost doing their duty.

Distressed? Maybe it was because I still have some identification. I was an Air Trafficker in the RAF in a previous life. I was even at Shawbury for a while. I had some pretty good girl-controllers working for me.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2171443,00.html

'She was one of the RAF's finest: courageous, upbeat and unselfish'

BY MICHAEL EVANS, DEFENCE EDITOR

Commander pays tribute to first British woman soldier to die in combat in Iraq

THE first British woman to be killed in the line of duty in Iraq was named yesterday as a 32-year-old flight lieutenant who died when a rocket-propelled grenade hit her helicopter in Iraq at the weekend.
Flight Lieutenant Sarah Mulvihill, who joined the RAF in 1997, would normally have been deskbound, helping to plan missions, providing support for helicopter crews and co-ordinating flights.

But she was in the helicopter to brief Wing Commander John Coxen, 46, who was newly arrived in Basra to take over as commander of the Joint Helicopter Command. Wing Commander Coxen was also killed.
Military sources thought that the helicopter may have been landing on one of the helipads in central Basra when it was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.

Flight Lieutenant Mulvihill is the first servicewoman to die from hostile fire in any British military operation since the 1980s. when an undercover agent is believed to have died in Northern Ireland.

The killing of Flight Lieutenant Mulvihill and the four others on board the Lynx helicopter brought the total number of British fatalities in Iraq to 109.

Her husband, Lee, a sergeant in the RAF and an air traffic controller based at the air traffic control centre at West Drayton, said: "Sarah was my best friend and my most beloved wife. Her loss has greatly affected and impacted on more people than anyone can comprehend."

Her parents, Terry and Sue Poole, who live in Herne Bay, said they did not wish to speak in public about their "devastating" loss. They were on holiday in Spain when the news broke. They flew back and went to stay with their son, Jason, who lives in Dover, according to neighbours.
One neighbour said: "Sarah was in the cadets when she was younger and this was all she ever wanted to do."

The Ministry of Defence said that the fatal flight was a "familiarisation" trip to help the wing commander to understand the layout of the Basra area.
Flight Lieutenant Mulvihill was the ideal officer to give him the guided tour. She had served as a flight operations officer in Basra for three months and knew the risks, the dangers, the lessons and the tactics learnt by the helicopter pilots when flying low over the city.

It was her second tour of duty in Iraq in three years.

The other three killed when the Lynx Mark 7 was shot down were identified yesterday as the pilot, Lieutenant- Commander Darren Chapman, 40, commanding officer of 847 Naval Air Squadron; the co- pilot, Captain David Dobson, 27, a member of the Army Air Corps who was attached to 847 Squadron and Marine Paul Collins, 21, an air door gunner.

Friends of Flight Lieutenant Mulvihill, who knew her as Sarah-Jayne, described her as "sociable, bubbly and always the life and soul of the party".

She was born in Canterbury and joined the RAF as an airwoman in May 1997 but was quickly spotted as a potential officer. She was selected for initial officer training in October 2001 and was commissioned into the air traffic control branch. Two years later she was posted to RAF Shawbury, in Shropshire, where she was trained as a flight operations officer, the role she was fulfilling in Basra.

http://fredxblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/male-soldiers-not-worthy-for-public.html
Male Soldiers Not Worthy For Public Sympathy

Commander pays tribute to first British woman soldier to die in combat in Iraq

The above article outlines a British soldier that was killed in Iraq.

Now, her death, as all deaths in wartime, is a tragic loss.

However, what gets me is that out of the 100+ British men that have died in Iraq, none of them are given quite the same considerations as the 1 British female that died. (SP. Yes they have. Many have had glowing tributes)

And get this:

"Flight Lieutenant Sarah Mulvihill, who joined the RAF in 1997, would normally have been deskbound, helping to plan missions, providing support for helicopter crews and co-ordinating flights. But she was in the helicopter to brief Wing Commander John Coxen, 46, who was newly arrived in Basra to take over as commander of the Joint Helicopter Command. Wing Commander Coxen was also killed."

See how the male soldier is marginalized by the piece, occurring as a mere footnote at the end of the section. (SP. I didn't see it as a footnote nor marginalisation.)

Also, it seems that the female solider was not meant to be in any danger, no, she was meant to be deskbound.

Deskbound!

Whilst all the men are required to face possible death at every turn, women are most certainly not. (SP. No. Not all soldiers are front-line, 'facing death at every turn'. Many are in just the same job as this woman, and others in jobs even further removed from action)

And yet, when the British, and indeed, the hundreds of US male soldiers die in Iraq, it is seen as yet another statistic; a mere '50 here' or '30 there' soldiers being blown up or shot at. (SP. he says mere 100s od US soldiers, when it is now over 2000. He talks it down himself)

Yet when it's a woman, we never hear such flippant remarks.

Also, look at the subordination of the men that were killed:

"The other three killed when the Lynx Mark 7 was shot down were identified yesterday as the pilot, Lieutenant- Commander Darren Chapman, 40, commanding officer of 847 Naval Air Squadron; the co- pilot, Captain David Dobson, 27, a member of the Army Air Corps who was attached to 847 Squadron and Marine Paul Collins, 21, an air door gunner."

Yes it seems the article had to mention these men as a matter of formality, as though they should be noted but by no means elaborated on.

Men, it seems, are just not worthy of attention.

Another line follows:

"Flight Lieutenant Mulvihill is the first servicewoman to die from hostile fire in any British military operation since the 1980s, when an undercover agent is believed to have died in Northern Ireland."

The above makes out that this 1 female death is outrageous, and that no woman should ever die in wartime conflict. (SP. It doesn't state it as an outrage at all)

What is most outrageous to me is that so few women compared to men have died in such circumstances.

And it is not just this article, there are many others, constantly referring to men as mere numbers and statistics, distancing the reader from them significantly, yet women are to be perceived as individuals and more newsworthy, inviting the reader to view them as precious and more important than men.

Even in the televised news reports, there are a number of condolences and a whole host of people shaking their heads about how tragic that a woman has died.

Yet when was such consideration ever given to men?

It seems that society think it is normal and to be expected when men die.

And that is most unsettling.

In short: any loss is unwanted and terrible, but when the feminist led media subordinate a man's life as insignificant or less important compared to a woman's, that just makes me furious.

And it should make you too!
POSTED BY FREDXBLOG AT 9:52 AM
35
Main / Destroying the Enemy
May 15, 2006, 08:35 PM
A great piece of swordswomanship. Illana Mercer fillets with no mercy.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50171

Mackinnon the man-eater
Posted: May 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The baleful influence of feminist Catharine Mackinnon on American and Canadian jurisprudence cannot be underestimated. With relatively few obstacles from the dreaded patriarchy, Mackinnon, professor of law at the University of Michigan, "teacher, writer and activist," has been transforming law since the 1980s.

If "the pale, patriarchal, penis people" have failed to hinder Mackinnon's successes, neither has her cold, inflexible and fundamentally unscholarly mind - the mind of a propagandist and a casuist, in Camille Paglia's estimation - or her inability to write. The blurbs bedecking Mackinnon's new book, "Women's Lives, Men's Laws," promise "the deepest and best feminist writing around" and writing that is "fresh, concise and incisive."

Mackinnon, however, is a poor writer and an obscurantist, capable of turning phrases like, "Who that needs this equality can get it?" and, "The rules of everyday life, in this sense, are that law which is not one, the law for women where there is no law."

In addition to her stylistic and syntactic tics, there's a plain crazy component to Mackinnon's writing - a preoccupation with snuff films, for instance. That urban myths and other ineptitudes have escaped editorial vigilance is unsurprising in feminized, affirmative-action driven America.

As Mackinnon sees it, first-wave feminists strove for equality under the law, demanding only that existing law be applied to women. Due to their "assimilationist" approach, Mackinnon dubs them "domesticated feminists." Because "[n]o woman had a voice in the design of the legal institutions that rule the social order," Mackinnon, in opposition to these Aunt Toms, concludes that the law itself is invariably flawed. If to be a woman is to be part of a group that has been and still is institutionally abused, remedies must transform the law, not merely apply it equally.

Women Mackinnon views as a besieged class of helots, men as members of a ruling elite that refuses to let go of patriarchal privilege and power. The former must fight to unseat the latter. And fight Mackinnon does - she hasn't stopped fighting since her first major legal victories in the 1980s. Unfortunately, she fights just like a woman: underhandedly, her weapon of choice being the civil law with its lower burden of proof.

It was bad enough when under anti-discrimination law employers lost control over their businesses. Worse was in store: Mackinnon's radical paradigm of sexual harassment allowed the prohibition of naturally licit, previously protected speech, based upon no more than a complainant's vague, subjective feelings of unease. Sexual harassment had been redefined so that women could sue an employer for creating a "hostile work environment," rather than because they had been pressured for sexual favors or experienced physical aggression.

With this twist, the Mackinnonites had sundered the already excessively broad tort standard, which applied to an intentional infliction of emotional distress. The presumption of innocence, or traditional defenses such as a lack of intent to harm, or absence of harm, or even the presence of consent, were no longer impediments to initiating charges in civil suits - and increasingly in criminal cases.

Mackinnon's legal conquests thus spelt the defeat of "neutral principles of constitutional law." Sexual-harassment kangaroo courts are her unique contribution to obliterating the Rights of Englishmen in companies and across campuses. But then, in Mackinnon's world - now ours - accused men are symbols of a larger sickness, for which they must pay by forfeiting their rights. Indeed, individual liberties have no place in her polemic. She has no use for such anachronisms, especially not for carriers of the Y chromosome. To the illiberal Mackinnon, individual rights are but an excrescence of the patriarchy.

To say the puritanical Mackinnon has sex on her mind is an understatement. When it comes to prostitution and pornography, she is a woman possessed, offering up lengthy and lurid descriptions thereof. Again, she demands these activities be evaluated in the context of the sexual subordination of women by men. A classical liberal might argue that third parties have no place in voluntary sexual transactions between consenting adults. But choice and agency are missing from Mackinnon's understanding of women. In effect, Mother Mackinnon is saying that women don't know their minds. At her mercy, they would be infantilized, becoming wards of the state, incapable of rendering consent. The paternalism Mackinnon proposes is predicated on the sort of state intervention incommensurate with a free society - for which she is unapologetic.

If Mackinnon is not about a free society, neither is she about first principles. While she rightly disdains the postmodern take on truth, she is equally contemptuous of neutrality, objectivity and equality before the law. Ultimately, her theory of justice is not metaphysical, but mercenarily political.

It's also self-contradictory. Implied in her deployment of the law to transform women's daily lives is a belief in change - reality isn't immutable. Yet she treats the patriarchy as though it were cast in concrete. How is it possible to change women's lives unilaterally without altering men's lives as well?

I don't expect men's circumstances to move Mackinnon. But is there no significance to the fact that women continue to live longer than men, that many more men commit suicide, that men are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to get another job, and that they are more likely to suffer lethal industrial accidents?

Is it of no experiential importance that of the 2,350 soldiers who've died so far in Iraq and the 18,000 who've been wounded, most are men? Not in Mackinnon's static and stony universe. Here she is up to her clavicles in self-contradiction, a condition the Greek philosophers deemed "less than human, less than coherent, less than sane." But then, they were of the patriarchy.

More pointedly, Mackinnon's theoretical castles-in-the-sky have mocked out of meaning genuine human suffering. As a one-time AIDS counselor in South Africa, the writer might be in a position to offer a measure of just what a "Mad Hatter" Mackinnon is. Does she know that in one of the more peaceful and prosperous places in Africa a woman - toddlers and babies included - is raped every few minutes? Such trammels of despair are rare in distaff America. Yet there is nothing in Mackinnon's disquisition to demonstrate even remotely she understands the difference between the liberated, sexually overbearing, self-adoring "Girls Gone Wild" of North America and the victims of, say, the sex-slave trade in Thailand, Mauritania and India. Or victims of tribal justice in Pakistan, where village councilors mete out rape to women on the losing side of a dispute.

The strength of ideas rests on their relationship to reality. Mackinnon's unrealistic fulminations against a phantom patriarchy exist in the arid arena of pure thought. There are places where Catharine Mackinnon might pursue her metier more productively. Decamping to Darfur is one option - her work will have relevance there.

Ilana Mercer is the author of "Broad Sides: One Woman's Clash With A Corrupt Culture." She is also an analyst and blogger-at-large for Free-Market News Network. To learn more about her work, and to contribute to Barely A Blog, visit IlanaMercer.com.
36
Main / A friend, there when he's needed.
May 15, 2006, 02:06 AM
I would like to tip m'helmut to a great Knight. Gonz is unlikely to spread his own word further than his blog, humble man that he is  :D  so I have lifted his latest tale and put it here so that wider coverage - if that is possible - is given. Here is a someone who has felt the full warmth of Gonz's friendship. And several others who have felt the cold, calculating ice of his wrath. This is what MRA is about. Practical, helpful, taking charge when the courage of other's fail. Some fantasic lessons here.

Gonz, you are a MAN.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/category/bullseye/gonzos-bar-go-go-grill/

Always nice when the good guys win.
May 14, 2006
Gonzo's Bar & Go-Go Grill

Okay, he's not COMPLETELY out of the woods yet. But close.

Wednesday night I get a call from a man who's been through the program with his ex-wife. The usual story, most guys are familiar with it. Comes home, wife gone, kids gone, divorce papers follow. Fast forward, crushing child support, visitation denied, no communication about the kids, new boyfriend trying to be new dad. New boyfriend out, series of live-ins...
Well, let's go back to the call. He had got the kids for a visit, and goes to take them home at the appointed time - and notices squad cars at the house, and her and the latest BF being led out to the paddy-wagon. He pulls past, tells the kids to hush, and asks a cop parked down the block "What's up here" whereupon he's told tersely "Drug Bust." Seems her and Mister Wonderful got nailed making a sale to undercover narcotics officers.

So he takes the kids home, wondering what to do, and her sister calls. He lets it run through to the answering machine, and she's all concerned (A woman who NEVER has anything but bile for him) about when she can come over and get "The Kids." He calls me. I say, "Get your ass over here. Now. With the kids, and the divorce decree." He gets there, and I look through the file for his lawyer, and have him call - he gets the emergency number - and calls again. By this time, I have the ruggies ensconced in front of the TV, eating Pizza. (SP. Just love this bit. Sentimental old git that I am. Good old 'Uncle' Gonz)

After listening to him stammer, I take the phone and gently explain that his client is a moron, and needs legal advice, and needs it now. I explain the situation, that sissy will be on a manhunt for the kids, and what to do.
20 minutes later, the attorney is there. 10 minutes after that we have a sheriff there, and the attorney is waving the decree in his face, explaining "Joint" custody, and demanding that if big sister raises hell, that she will be clapped in irons. Before too long, he tells my buddy he can go home - and do not answer the phone, or the door. Call this sheriff - he hands him his card.

A pow-wow ensues. It is determined that tomorrow morning him, his kids, and the attorney will meet for an meeting. By that afternoon they have an emergency hearing.

A little background is in order. My pal has been getting dicked about by the ex for nigh on to four years. This is the third time she's been busted for dope, and each time he's been a moron about it, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. In fact, his own MOTHER has conspired here by bailing out the ex in the past, and letting her take the kids back. It's a common phenomena for even female relatives to side against their own flesh and blood and with the sisterhood - they look at the ex possibly losing the kids, and say "What if it were me" and then stab their relatives in the back in the name of keeping feminine privilege. This time, Bail is $150k and some change.  His mother couldn't even morgatge her house for a hundred grand.

It will be no suprise to learn, then, when he goes home, his mother is on the phone raising Cain with him about being off work, having the kids out of school, and needing to let his ex-sister in law take them. The usual canard, "You're a man. What do you know about raising kids?" He calls me at work. I say "Bugger your mother. Take the kids to the park, and be at court on time."

There's the delay of a day to give her attorney time to respond. Well, her atorney doesn't show; I guess with all the assets seized and no way to pay him, he's not that interested. There's a bespeckled, bull-dyke, legal aid attorney there instead. And, I might add, a reporter from the local paper. Seems that "Someone" tipped him off that this woman was in jail for dealing, and assaulting a police officer, and actually thought she'd be getting her kids back - while she was still locked up and couldn't make bail. I wish him luck as I head to work.

Well, I went out of town friday. He took the kids out of town for their usual visitation on Friday. I get up to an email in my box: The hearing went fine, he has custody, and a restraining order against her sister, who I guess showed up and started a row. Since the jail has no provision for visitation, she can only see the kids on prescheduled days, with him and a supervisor there, for 20 minutes - at her expense, IF she can pay for it (And it's $200 a pop.)

She is going to be in for a long time. She was in the middle of a two year probation for the last bust, and is going away to serve that sentence while she is being charged and tried. ("Someone" also called the probation department, to get probation revoked.  Imagine that.) There is no bail. There will be no plea. She's looking at years in the slammer for a major felony; even with parole, the oldest one will be almost in High School by the time she gets out.

More backstory - when they got divorced, he was running a thriving landscaping lawn care company. She took half the assets - a truck, two expensive mos=wers, and others - and sold them for pennies on the dollar. He asked - begged - pleaded with her not to do this. She laughed at him, and put the screws to him on support. He didn't have the equipment, and had to fold his business to pay it. Imputed income. You pay the support imputed to a $50,000 a year income from a owned business with a $37,000 factory income.

Someone has seen the light. He just got in this AM with a message from the attorney that arrangements have been made to go over tomorrow and get the kid's things. And he writes the following:

I was almost feeling sorry for her, and then she looked at me and said "Please don't do this to me. Please please don't do this to me. Don't take my kids from me." I almost snapped. How many times did I beg her the same thing with almost the same words. How many times has she never cut me the slightest break? It felt good, watching her get dragged away in chains and I almost wish the kids had seen it. No. Not this time. I'm not cutting her the least bit of slack. This is only the beginning. I am going to land on her with both feet and not let her up. You were right. Selling drugs out of the house with my kids there is unforgiveable. Using drugs around my kids, driving them around while stoned out of her mind, all unforgiveable. Keep reminding me of this.

Yeah. Sometimes the good guys win. My buddy is in for a tightrope walk. To keep his kids, as the better parent, he's going to have to be a plu-perfect son of a bitch. He's got his hands tied at a certain point - on the one hand he has to be the bad guy, and make sure she never has custody to ruin these kids again, but he can't be such a bad guy he takes their mother away, and is just like her. He has to let her do that herself, if it is indeed to happen. But he is under no obligation to so much as kick one pebble from her path to redemption. My advice? Let her feel the full weight of consequence for her actions, and be content. Live well, and with profound indifference thereafter.

It strikes me as profoundly ironic - today is Mother's Day. I know a lot of good mothers. I wish them the joy of this day, my own included.
This woman is spending her Mother's Day in a jail cell, knowing that soon it's off for prison, and she is a mother in name only, now. How it must torture her - and how richly she deserves it. Not because of the drugs. The drugs were a vehicle for poetic justice. But because she worked hard these past for years to deprive her children of their father at every turn, out of petty, vindictive, spitefulness. She deserves this misery. She has brought it on herself. She is NOT a good mother. Robbing one's children of their father makes one a very bad mother, indeed.
37
Main / PAS. Governor Proclaims a Day.
May 13, 2006, 11:33 PM
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
        Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
        Comes silent, flooding in, the Main.

Hark. Do I hear a crashing wave bearing down, swooshing through the gullies, sweeping femo-branches and femi-weeds in its path? Give this Governor a vote, folks. Thanks Kathleen.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/kathleenparker/2006/05/12/197118.html

Parental alienation gets a day
May 12, 2006
by Kathleen Parker

Proclamations generally have the same riveting power as supermarket ribbon-cuttings, but a recent one in Maine is being celebrated as a small victory for children and noncustodial parents wounded by divorce.
The proclamation, signed by Gov. John E. Baldacci, recognized April 25 as "Parental Alienation Awareness Day."

If you don't know what "parental alienation" is, you probably haven't had the pleasure of a divorce with children. Veterans of those wars know without a governor's seal exactly what it means - agony for a noncustodial parent and emotional problems for children alienated from one parent.

Baldacci's proclamation is noteworthy in the age of divorce because it officially recognizes Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) as a psychological condition that can have lasting consequences for children torn between battling parents in high-conflict divorces.

Given the operative words "high-conflict," one can imagine that not everyone is applauding. Although PAS would seem to affirm common sense, it is a deeply divisive and controversial idea embraced by fathers' groups and often abhorred by mothers in divorce cases.

Fathers who feel disenfranchised when courts award custody of their children to the mother during divorce have used PAS successfully to pressure judges to allow greater access to their children. One can hardly blame men for trying to be fathers.

But critics claim that abusive fathers sometimes use PAS to force access where none should be granted. Mothers claim in such cases that they're trying to protect their children, not alienate them.

This latter argument became the centerpiece last fall of a controversial PBS documentary about abused women and children, "Breaking the Silence," that fathers' groups attacked as unbalanced and unfair.
No fathers were interviewed, and the cases reviewed tended to be extreme and sensational.

Several women interviewed, for instance, said that they lost custody of their children to abusive fathers (confirmed by the children themselves) when fathers used PAS to "prove" that the women were systematically teaching their children to hate their fathers.

Glenn Sacks, a radio show host and columnist, called the film a "direct assault on fatherhood," and organized a protest on his Web site. Others - many of whom I know and respect as fellow toilers in trying to advance fatherhood - joined in.

Sacks' campaign had an effect, and PBS ombudsman Michael Getler wrote a lengthy response agreeing that the show was unbalanced.

The focus on PAS as a tool of questionable value - no medical or psychological group recognizes PAS as a scientifically proven "syndrome" - makes the Maine proclamation a timely development for those who believe in its value in equalizing custody.

PAS was first identified in 1985 by psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gardner, himself a lightning rod among those who debate these issues. For years an expert witness in custody cases, Gardner (who committed a brutal suicide in 2003) has been variously hailed as hero or villain, depending on which way the court leaned.

To fathers, he was a godsend - an advocate for protecting children from the emotional fallout of divorce and the potentially lasting damage from over-identifying with one parent while hating the other. Given that children are part of both parents, hating one parent is tantamount to hating half of oneself. Can't be good for you.

To mothers, some of whom surely were trying to protect their children, Gardner is something else. Through the years, many tried to discredit him for his self-published library and the lack of peer review for his articles. Some called his work "junk science."

But Gardner's theory has gained traction in recent years. Today, there are some 133 peer-reviewed articles about PAS and more than 65 legal citations.

While I'm in no position to argue for or against the scientific integrity of PAS, anybody old enough to drink coffee knows that embittered divorcees can and do manipulate their children. Not just women, but men, too. But because mothers more often are awarded custody of children, they more often draft their children to share their bitterness.

The biggest losers in such cases, of course, are neither the mothers nor the fathers, but the children, who deserve to have unfettered access to both parents, assuming there's no abuse, without having to tote the adults' emotional baggage.

Whether parental alienation meets the scientific standards of a "syndrome" is a battle researchers can wage among themselves. The underlying message, meanwhile, is that there needs to be a presumption of shared custody following divorce, again, assuming no abuse. Life is alienating enough without the help of one's own parents.

(Kathleen Parker is a popular syndicated columnist and director of the School of Written Expression at the Buckley School of Public Speaking and Persuasion in Camden, South Carolina.)
38
Main / Women never lie.
May 13, 2006, 12:54 AM
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/05/12/my-victimization-by-an-internet-con-artist/

Funny, peculiar, tale of almost woe. There are people around even loonier than my steed's sometime acquaintance, the ass in the botton paddock.
39
Main / Web Media 'misplacing' stories
May 13, 2006, 12:17 AM
On page 4 of the Weekend Australian today (this is the Premier newspaper in Oz and the 'big' read at the weekend) under the heading 'Nation', is a story about a man falsely accused of sexual harassment at work. "Four year Hell over false sex claim" is the headline.

Search as I may on the Australian's website, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,,2702,00.html
amongst all sorts of stories of abo rock art, greenpeace shedding staff, the budget response, many, many wierd and odd and international, could I find it to post here? No chance.

The man lost virtually everything including his job, his wife attempted suicide, he spent $40,000 Aud on defending himself before finally being exonerated, and the false accuser walks away with a smile on her face. He is reported as saying, "The Commission does not investigate. It simply accepts the claim and you have to disprove it." This is the same Human Rights and Equal Opportinity Commission headed up by Pru Goward - the subject of other topics.

So, an important story, but not put on the website. Hmmmmm. Maybe it will appear when they get around to it. Meanwhile we can read all about Tasmanian Tigers (extinct) in abo rock art and Greenpeace financial concerns..
40
Main / Yet another 'Empowered' Woman
May 09, 2006, 11:36 PM
Another empowered, liberated, independant woman fucking her way to fame.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060509/NEWS01/605100306

Woman, 34, charged with raping boy, 13

Patrick Flanigan
Staff writer

(May 9, 2006) -- A 34-year-old Rochester woman was arraigned today on charges of rape of a 13-year-old boy, at knifepoint.

Marylin Rosario of 176 Sherman St. was arrested yesterday and charged with first-degree rape and first-degree robbery. Officers were called to the victim's residence on Plymouth Avenue about 5:50 p.m., said Officer Kate Springer.

The victim told police a woman coaxed her way into his residence by telling him she was an employee of the Health Department and wanted to talk about sexually transmitted diseases, Springer said.

Once inside, the boy reportedly said, the woman produced a knife and raped him.

According to police reports, she also took cash.
[email protected]