Damned if you do…

Or: Action, meet consequence

Stumbled across an interesting story: Here and here:

TL;DR. Some male members of Congress have policies in place that prohibit them from being alone with female staffers. They say that it is to eliminate the appearance of impropriety, and to defend their reputations against accusations of impropriety or sexual harassment. Naturally the “Equality mob”, who, by definition, are never satisfied, are up in arms about this; they say that this “reduces women’s access to advancement opportunities and is discriminatory”.

Cut the crap, ladies.

Let’s face facts; a man’s reputation can be easily shattered by even a hint of impropriety. One accusation is enough to put a cloud over a man’s career that never goes away. We live in a world where sexual harassment is taken seriously, but the same system that protects women can be abused by unscrupulous ones, and a man’s career can be derailed or permanently besmirched without a shred of hard evidence.

So what is a man to do? If he allows himself to be alone with a woman, he opens himself to accusations of sexual harassment; if he doesn’t he opens himself to accusations of sexual discrimination. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. As for me, I err on the side of caution; in my work life, I will not allow myself to be alone with a woman behind closed doors. So you can see which side of the debate I am on.

Lincoln once said “He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help“, so in that spirit, let me propose a solution. These congress-critters should amend this policy so that, In the interests of transparency and integrity, they are not alone with *any* person. Male or female. Problem solved.

There. Fixed that for you. No need to thank me.


Most of the annoyances in life boil down to some level of disrespect. I see it everywhere.

  • People fiddling with their phones while you are talking to them. I recently had a conversation with a young man who spent the first ten minutes of the conversation texting with his girlfriend, until a colleague called him out on his behavior.
  • Folks who show up twenty minutes late for church then walk to the front, distracting everyone. That’s what the back four rows are for! You wouldn’t show up late for work, or to the game, so obviously God isn’t as important.If it were down to me, I would have them lock the doors when the service begins, but thank God it isn’t.
  • Folks who think that it is OK to inflict their crying babies and badly behaved children on others. No, they’re not “cute”, they are annoying.
  • People who use expressions like “it takes a village” to defend the above misbehavior without knowing what it actually means. It only works if you are OK with strangers disciplining your kid. Otherwise, it is your problem.
  • People crossing a street or a parking lot without looking around for oncoming traffic.

Am I overreacting? Have I missed something? Comment! And in the meantime, get off my lawn!

End Paternity Fraud

It is estimated that as many as two million men in this nation are unwittingly raising a child who is not his. What’s worse, if the mother can keep that fact under wraps for three years, her husband will be on the hook for child support for somebody else’s child — even if she leaves him and moves in with the child’s biological father.

Don’t expect any sympathy form the courts; they are not interested in justice. When faced with a situation like this, they will think of the child first, the mother second, and throw the man — any man — under the bus. If the real father cannot be found — or chooses not to be identified — the poor schlub who married her will be required to pay the bill, whether he is the father or not. And if he can’t pay, perhaps because he can’t find work or has lost his job, the court will guestimate what his income should be, calculate child support accordingly, and put him in jail if he cannot pay it.

As it happens, paternity fraud is not a crime in any state of the union. And if a man suspects paternity fraud by his cheating wife, she can refuse to divulge the true identity of the father of her child that he is expected to support, and there is no way he can force the issue without her permission. How can it be that an unemployed father can be compelled to pay child support, but the mother can refuse to provide proof of paternity in support of that same child support?

It gets worse: in France, paternity testing is banned. Apparently the courts don’t even care whether or not you are the father – all they care about is whether you can pay.

This needs to change.

The first thing that must be done is to establish paternity at birth. It’s not hard; just make paternity testing a compulsory requirement before the father’s name goes on the birth certificate — and if the child isn’t his, there should be legal remedies available, up to and including termination of the marriage in his favor. If hospitals can routinely perform circumcisions on newborn baby boys, a simple blood test should not be an issue.

Naturally, women will kick and scream at this one. Expect active hostility from the distaff side of the aisle; like moderate Muslims who feign outrage against terrorism while covertly admiring jihadists, women will agree that paternity fraud is wrong, while fighting to keep things just the way they are; they currently benefit from the current “Mama’s-baby-Papa’s-maybe” system, and want the legal protection that they currently enjoy against any indiscretion that they may commit in future to to continue. Apparently their loyalty to “team woman” can trump even sacred vows made before witnesses. And then they will doubtless complain about how men don’t want to marry.

There is a reason that all major world religions rail against adultery, even while Hollywood is busily glorifying it in any way that they can. But every man has a right to know that the children that he is sacrificing his blood and treasure for are actually his, and not the product of an indiscretion – and if they aren’t, he deserves to know that his wife is the dictionary definition of a lying slut.

The second change that is required is that paternity should be proved in all child-support cases. No man should never have to pay child support for another man’s child. No paternity test? No dollars.

The second change that is required is an end to no-fault divorce where children are concerned. It is wrong for a man to walk out on his wife and children. Deadbeat dads are a definite problem. But more and more women are abandoning their marriages, then plundering their joint assets in the name of “fairness”. When a marriage breaks up and children are involved, somebody’s got some ‘splaining to do.

In conclusion, in future elections, make candidates aware if this issue and as what they intend to do about it. Ask incumbents what they have done about it. And vote accordingly.

Going back to the well

Saw this story a few weeks ago.

TL: DR: Back in the nineties, a two people made a baby. He was unemployed and she divorced him in short order. No child support was awarded because he had no money.

Fast-forward twenty years, and he is a multimillionaire… and she suddenly wants £2 Million for child support.

This is not exactly news: She tried this before and was shot in flames down a few years ago, but she’s obviously not letting that slow her down.

At this point, she has only received permission to apply for child support, so there is not much of a story here. But the fact that she has even received permission to take this matter to court is alarming.

There is a tendency in divorce family courts to put women and children first, mostly at the expense of men. This made sense when women could not vote, own property, divorce their husbands without cause or survive and thrive after divorce. But those are no longer problems, yet we still expect men to live up to their side of an ancient bargain that no longer exists.

But women who walk out on their husbands have already made that decision. They have chosen freedom over marital obligation.

If a woman decides to blow up her marriage and walk out on her husband, that is her choice. But that choice came with consequences.When she left him she knew that life would be hard, and she knew that he would not be able to help her. For her to then change her mind yet again and claim child support because he has money is effectively saying:”I don’t want you, but I sure would like some of your money“.

A wife takes a man for better or for worse. A mistress takes a man for better.

It sounds to me like she is trying to get the best of both worlds.

Run Randall Run!

It has just come to my attention that Rand Paul has announced his bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

Long-time readers of this blog will know that I have long supported his father, Libertarian Ron Paul, in his previous attempts to attain the highest office in the land, while being painfully aware that his chance of being elected were low. So I have greeted this news with much optimism.

The Republican party has lost much of its unity over the past eight years. Whomever wins the nomination will have to unite a mixture of TradCons, NeoCons and RiNOs and Socialist-Lite factions within the party. A lifelong Libertarian, Rand Paul is about taking the party back to the roots of Republicanism: Small government, low taxes, non-interference, anti-socialism, free-market, personal liberty with responsibility.

This will annoy a lot of people; from the hard left who believe that Government should be all things to all people all the time (Obamacare, anyone?), to moderate conservatives, who would like the government to pay for their pet boondoggle. Bot those on the far right will be threatened too, as their dreams of Empire will be thwarted by any president who takes the Constitutional Limitations of his job seriously,.

I wish you luck, Sir.


I am a creature of many passions, two of which are playing games and writing. So last year I decided to combine those two passions and write a book about a game that I enjoyed playing. And so the Assassins’ Creed: Pirates Game Guide was born.

I originally released it in two versions: a free version and a paid version with ten extra pages of personal research and information that was not available anywhere else. I figured that if folks liked the free version that they would pay a few dollars for the paid version.

I was wrong.

The free version got hundreds of downloads, but in spite of my lowering the price from $4.99 to $2.99, there were only a handful of sales. The market has spoken. Or more specifically, the freeloaders have made their point. I made a mistake, one that I will not make again.

As a result, I am reducing the free version to a “preview” version that features only the first twenty-five pages of the book.

This will doubtless upset some people; you may thank the huge number of freeloaders who do not value the many hours of work I have put into writing and publishing this book.

Don’t blame me, blame the freeloaders.

Solomon II Elevator Speech

An Oldie but a Goodie.

The Elevator speech by Solomon II. An imaginary speech that Solomon II would have made to his younger self.

The original site is down and has been for some years. But this is so good that I thought that it was worth repeating:

“There are no good women, and there are no bad women. There are just women. Women do what they want when they want and justify their actions later. That’s why it’s important to find a woman of character who is naturally inclined to do the things which are wholesome, respectful, productive, and conducive to rearing the offspring produced by your potential union.

“A woman’s character is of utmost importance. A woman’s past actions matter. In fact, her past matters more than anything else because it reveals the character she developed during her impressionable years. A woman may change what she does, but she can’t change who she is or repair her reputation. Like hot or cold water eventually comes back to room temperature when no external forces are present, so a woman returns to her base character level when no external forces are present. If you choose to be a woman’s external force in order to exact a temperature change within her, don’t be surprised when she reverts to her room temperature character the moment you’re not around.

“What defines a woman of good character varies from man to man. Know which character traits are important to you. Study to learn the signs of these traits, and study harder to learn how manipulative women mimic these traits when they are not in possession of them. Judge harshly and without apology. Recognize flaws within yourself and actively work to right them, but never let a woman convince you to consider your own personal flaws as a valid reason to overlook hers.

“Recognize, protect, and celebrate a woman of good character, for she is exceedingly rare. Recognize, expose, and shame a woman of low character for she is a parasite driven by consumption and will kill her host. Above all, know that a woman of character and a woman of risible morals are often indistinguishable at first glance. Only the erudite man committed to attaining the knowledge and skills to determine one from the other stands a chance of reaching his full potential.”

An ancient cure for a modern problem

Great-(x30)-Grandma knew it all along.

Thousand-year-old onion and garlic eye remedy kills MRSA

TL;DR: Scientists in England discovered a 9th-century “eye salve” (which includes garlic, onion or leeks, wine and cow bile) which apparently kills methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Who knew?!

And no, it wasn’t an April Fool’s joke.

Goodbye Old Friend

One of our favorite German restaurants is closing today.


We happened to stop in today for lunch, only to find that the place was bare, and the menu was limited, but the food was good.

According to our waitress, the removal of troops from Fort Knox was a blow from which they could not recover.

Goodbye Caroline’s Alpine Haus, you will be missed.

Choices, Changes and Consequences

I don’t normally comment on a book without reading it, but one of my founding values is to “never reward incompetence with your purchasing dollars” — and the lessons drawn from this one made it too good to pass up.

The story began here, and was featured in the New York Post. This led me to a book review in the Washington Post (I was tickled at the title: She took a year off from her marriage to sleep with strangers. What could go wrong?) which summarizes thusly:

  • After eighteen years of marriage, she’s bored, suddenly decides that she wants a baby
  • Her husband doesn’t, and never has.
  • He does what any self-respecting dude would do when his wife gets “baby-rabies”, and gets a vasectomy.
  • She goes off and has sex with twelve strangers over the next twelve months — two of whom were women.
  • At the end of her “year off”, their marriage falls apart (surprise!).
  • Then she writes a book about it.

Lesson 1: Women change, men don’t

Let’s start by looking for the genesis of this debacle.

Over time, Rinaldi decided a baby would add purpose to their lives, but Scott wouldn’t change his mind. “I wanted a child, but only with him,” she explains. “He didn’t want a child but wanted to keep me.” When Scott opted for a vasectomy, she demanded an open marriage.

Let’s read the salient bits out loud, shall we? She decided… he wouldn’t. “I wanted”… he didn’t. He opted… She demanded. Seeing a pattern here?

Here’s how I think it played out.: When they married, neither of them wanted children. Twelve years later, her biological clock goes BOOM! and suddenly she changes her mind and wants a baby. But that’s OK, because it’s always a lady’s prerogative to change her mind. He’s expected to go along with it, because happy wife and all that, but for some strange reason he doesn’t (consistency being a masculine virtue). But in her mind it’s his fault. Because.

But wait! There’s more! Evidently he knew or suspected that she was not above getting “accidentally” pregnant in order to get her own way regardless of his feelings, because he had a vasectomy (the bad, bad man is bad, bad, bad!) and there go her nascent dreams of mommyhood. But Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, so out come the “demands” and off she goes on her “voyage of discovery”.

He supports her (like he has a choice in the matter?), but at the end of her “year off”, their marriage collapses under the strain.

Lesson 2: It’s different for girls

The biological truth is that a high number of partners is not generally good for women. It has been proven that the more partners a woman has before marriage, the less attractive she is to men and the higher the chance of divorce. One reason for this is that sexuality and emotions are more tightly integrated in women than in men, who are far more capable of separating their sexuality from their emotions. Double standard? No, two completely different standards.

Lesson 3: Sauce for the goose?

What amazes me about this is not what she did; men and women do stupid stuff for the flimsiest of reasons all the time. No, what surprises me is that instead of hanging her head in shame, she wrote a book about her stupidity and loudly trumpeted it from the rooftops.

Imagine if the situation was reversed, and it was the husband who had a mid-life crisis instead of her. Then when he couldn’t get what he wanted, decided to “take a year of to explore himself”, presumably with a dozen women who were younger and hotter than her. Somehow I don’t think that publishers would be lining up to offer him a book deal. No, men and women (but mostly women) would be lining up to call him out on his behavior and smite him with locusts and frogs.

Does that sound like equality to you?

Lesson 4: Women can rationalize anything

It is comical listening to a person trying to rationalize a mistake, but women seem to be past masters at it. I have yet to hear a woman admit that the failure of their marriage was her fault; it was either a mutual decision, or she was the long-suffering heroine and some man was the villain of the piece. But at the end of this particular day, when all is said and done, it was she who blew up a good marriage because she was bored. They will both have to live with the consequences. And I suspect — nay, hope — that she will be the one bears the brunt of those consequences.

Because, as Oprah was wont to say: “Karma’s a she-dog”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers