Godless and Kingsley

Hollywood, it appears, has an aversion to God. Or originality. Or both.

The Smart Money refused to have anything to do with Mel Gibson, only to find itself flummoxed by the runaway success of “The Passion of the Christ”. Since then there have been many “Christian” movies to grace our screens lately. including offerings such as Fireproof (not impressed), Courageous (Very good) and God’s not Dead (OK, but faintly nonsensical in places). Most of these were small/medium budget movies, and all made a health profit at the box office.

I recently had occasion to watch “Exodus: Gods and Kings”. This film billed itself as a fictionalized account of the Book of Exodus, but it took a lot of liberties with scriptures that are considered fundamental to three of the world’s major religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam:

  • Moses was reputedly about eighty years old when he returned to Egypt to liberate the children of Israel. The Directors chose to cast him as a young man.
  • Moses’ brother Aaron, who acts as the speaker for the reticent Moses, is not mentioned at all.
  • The producers went to great lengths to attempt to explain the plagues of Egypt as natural phenomena wherever possible
  • Moses’ repeated warnings and entreaties to Ramses — and the Pharaoh’s hardness of heart — are not mentioned at all.
  • Most of the top-billing cast were played by white Americans. Wassup wid dat?
  • When God finally showed up in person, it was in the form of a petulant, vindictive little boy, constantly sneering and plotting revenge, that I found fundamentally unbelievable and incompatible with the scriptural character of God. There is nowhere in scripture that God takes joy in killing.

I came away feeling like I had watched a big-budget historical documentary that was trying to prove the non-existence of God. I wasn’t offended in the least, I just didn’t get the impression that I had come face-to-face with the living God of the bible. Whether this is a due  to an error of the filmmakers or a fault in my theology I cannot say.

What I can say is that the producers of this film have taken a diabolical (no pun intended) liberty with the source material that seems almost like a calculated insult to the world’s three biggest faiths. The result fell between two stools, and ended up being neither accurate nor particularly enjoyable.

The best thing that I can say about this movie is that I didn’t pay a penny to see it — it was an in-flight movie. Afterwards I watched the “Shaun the Sheep” movie, wonderful chuckle-fest that was just what I needed to wipe the ghastly taste of this truly bad excuse of a biblical tale from my mind.

Affordable?

Where ObamaCare went wrong.

The Affordable Care Act — or ObamaCare, as I prefer to call it, giving credit where credit is due — is a wonderful panoply of the entertaining, the frustrating and annoying to me.

  • Entertaining, as it is quite amusing watching a bunch of politicians trying to implement socialized medicine and ending up with a curious hodge-podge of Marxism, Capitalism and Corporatism.
  • Frustrating, because I have personally experienced the costs of a piece of legislation that was so complicated that we had to pass it to find out what was in it (thanks Nancy!).
  • Annoying because I work — indirectly — in the Healthcare industry, and have seen and have had to deal with the direct knock-on effects and consequences that have resulted from the introduction of this legislation.
What they did:
  • Insurance for everybody! At some point somebody decided that Health Insurance was a fundamental Human Right, and that we should all have Health Insurance. Pity the 90% of the people on this planet have never heard this.
  • That’s an order! The Supreme Court has bought into this flummery to the degree that they ruled that it was a crime to refuse Health Insurance if it was offered to you.
  • Expand Medicaid! Free coverage for the poor! Sounds good, but who’s going to pay for this? More on that later.
  • Abolish Pre-existing conditions: Depending on who you ask, this was either one of the few good things that came out of the Affordable Care Act or an affront to Free-Market Capitalism. Until now, insurance companies could refuse to insure you if you had a pre-existing condition.
  • Abolish annual and lifetime caps. Nobody wants unlimited liability and exposure, and Insurance Companies are no exception. A Heart Transplant costs millions… and nobody wants to pay for that.
Unintended Consequences:
  • The words: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” will go down in history as one of the great presidential lies of all times, along with “Read my lips, no more taxes“, “I am not a crook“, and “I did not have sex with that woman“.
  • The first consequence of Obamacare was that premiums went up significantly. So much so that my employers dropped the HMO and PPO options that they had been offering, leaving only the High-Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) — the cheapest option for them, and the most expensive for those of us who are not young and healthy. The good news is that I now pay about 20% less for health insurance. The bad news is that I am on the hook for the first $10,000 of expenses, Since I have a dependent who has severe allergies and Asthma, I am about $6000 a year worse off than before. Thanks for the pay cut, your Obama-ness.
  • Only the largest groups get a good deal: My employers are not a large company, so they get a crappy deal from the Insurance Companies. Big organizations like Federal and State Government, Home Depot and Wal-Mart can use their size to get a better deal.
  • Doctors don’t get paid. Under HMO/PPO, the patient pays a Co-Pay. Under HDHP, the entire bill goes to the insurance company where it is “adjusted” and then gets passed on to the customer… who ignores it for several months. Medical bills are now at the back of the line to get paid after just about everything else.
  • Insurance companies won’t to answer the phone: “All of our agents are busy at the moment”, “call volume is exceptionally high at the moment”, and “We can’t come to the phone right now” all mean the same thing WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH EMPLOYEES.When even your local pharmacist is getting having their time wasted by the IVR run-around, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
What they should have done:
  • Removed or phased out the incentive that enabled employers to offer Health Insurance.
  • Added tax breaks for individuals who purchase private health insurance. or added the incentive to private buyers.
  • Favorable tax treatment to Health Care Professionals who provide free services.
  • Made *all* medical expenses tax-deductible, and abolish that stupid AGI requirement.
  • Removed all sweetheart in-network deals for Insurance companies – the original idea behind the HMO was that the insurance companies paid top dollar so that the uninsured could get free or low-cost treatment. This lasted until the Insurance companies realized that there was money left on the table that they could grab.
  • Broken the AMA-induced doctor shortage by introducing government-backed training for doctors and/or allowing Nurse Practitioners and Midwives to practice medicine in limited situations without a Doctor present.
  • Introduced menu pricing or allowed patients to negotiate prices directly, with governmental oversight in place when this is not possible.
  • Reduced our reliance on Employer-provided Health Insurance: Employer Health Insurance first became popular during the Carter years; with a wage freeze in place, employers scrambled for a way to keep their best employees, and this was one of the “perks” that they came up with. There is no definitive reason why Health insurance has to be the province of employers!
  • Divided healthcare into acute care (private) and chronic care (public) components, let the private sector handle the former and the Government handle the latter.
  • Prohibited conflict-of-interest situations like Insurance companies involving themselves in providing (cheap) medical care.
  • Required that Insurance Companies answered the phone. Not sure if there is any practical way to do this.

Of course, none of these things were going to happen, since they all result in a cost to the Government, the Health Insurance companies, or the Doctors.

And we can’t have that now, can we?

SCOTUS Screws Up

This is a long-overdue post, but I didn’t want to expound on this subject without giving it some serious thought, as it is a highly controversial subject.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Gay Marriage is now legal in every state of the Union.

Short answer: This is wrong on so many levels.

Longer answer:

  • There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that Gay Marriage is a constitutional right. You do not have the *right* to marry anyone.
  • There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any of the three branches of the Federal Government any power over marriage.
  • Marriage has always been a free exercise of religion — an area where the Federal Government is explicitly ordered to keep out.
  • Since the Federal Government has no explicit constitutional mandate to police marriage, this responsibility clearly falls to the States, which is where it was before five Supreme Court Judges (including, unsurprisingly, all three women on the court) decided to usurp that power.

Women on top

This ruling is a logical and expected consequence of giving women the vote. That sounds like a horrible, sexist thing to say, but it is nonetheless true. Two-thirds of the six men on the Supreme Court voted against this measure; had the court been all-male, the measure would have been soundly defeated 6-3. But there were also three women on the court, and that made all the difference.

This is hardly surprising; women in general overwhelmingly vote for progressive/liberal/democratic causes and candidates; they also tend to vote for legislation and social programs that benefit them at the expense of others (such as affirmative action, free birth control and other female-only benefits), as opposed to the population in general. They also, as a rule, tend to prioritize feelings over unpleasant truths. It comes as no surprise, then, that all three women on the court voted in favor of recognizing Gay Marriage, and that was enough to squeak out a 5 to 4 victory — the narrowest possible.

It’s not over till it’s over

I have noticed that whenever Liberals win a victory over the Conservatives — such as in this situation — the former instruct the latter in no uncertain terms to sit down and shut up, as the question has been settled for all time. But when the latter takes place — such as California’s Proposition 8, where the majority of Californians voted against gay marriage, or the Hobby Lobby Abortifactants ruling — the result is cry of the losers is invariably a rallying battle-cry of “This is not over! We shall fight on until victory is ours!

Well folks, this is not over. And there will be consequences.

With Marriage comes Divorce

Yes, Gay marriage is now legal in all fifty states, for good or ill. I suspect that there will be quite a lot of ill. For one thing, when you get marriage, you also get divorce. And given that gay men are generally more promiscuous than straight men, I suspect that we will be seeing a lot of those. With Divorce comes property and custody battles; with the added wrinkle that identifying the “mother” or the “father” is impossible in this case, which will make the jobs of the family courts far more difficult than the current “man-bad-woman-good” model currently allows. Still, given that gays are generally more affluent than straights, the divorce lawyers must be rubbing their hands together in delightful anticipation of the windfall that is to come.

The Beatings will continue until morale improves

With marriage also comes a higher level of domestic violence, and studies have shown that lifetime Domestic Violence statistics among homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals (7.1% for men, 20% for women). Gay men report 21% Domestic Violence, Lesbians report an incredible 35% — and that was before they were allowed to marry. Given that Domestic Violence is less prevalent outside of marriage on the premise that either partner can walk away at any time, one can only assume that once marriage enters the picture, things will get worse.

Unholy Matrimony

While it is true that Homosexuals now have the right to marry, it has not yet been decided whether they can force a given minister, church or denomination to marry them. And if the primary goal of gay marriage proponents is social acceptance, that is going to be a major sticking point. The US Constitution States that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof“. If marriage within the church is an exercise of religion (Hint: it is), this means that Congress cannot compel a church to marry anybody.

In the real world, ministers can, and do, refuse to marry heterosexual couples — for a variety of reasons — every doo-dah-ding-dong-day. And many will flatly refuse to marry homosexuals, claiming (rightly) that the Bible does not have a single positive thing to say about homosexuality. That is their prerogative — both legally and morally.

And even those churches that choose to marry homosexuals (Which is the bride? Which is the groom?) may find their pews emptying as folks leave in disgust — particularly the older ones, whose tithes and offerings keep the doors open and the preacher in paid employment. Hopefully the happy couple have enough rich friends who will step in and take up the slack.

Disagreement is not Homophobia

There are some who will read this and label me as some sort of bible-thumping homophobe. You are welcome to your opinion, as I am welcome to mine. We can agree to disagree. But you understand this: disagreement is not hatred or fear. To my gay readers out there, live your lives as you see fit; the Constitution guarantees you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do what you want to do with whom you want to do it, as long as nobody gets hurt it is no concern of mine. If you need specific legal rights — survivorship, beneficiary, custody, etc — you can have them in a Civil Union. I have no problem with that.

But when you mess with Marriage, you mess with God. And He has an annoying habit of having the last word.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

When facts meet feelings

Everythiing Men can say to Women without offending themOr: Panic in the Henhouse

About a month ago, Sir Tim Hunt, 71-year-old Biochemist who won the Nobel prize in 2001, said something that made women’s heads explode.

“Let me tell you about the trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”

Naturally this did not go down well with the Henhouse. When pressed for an explanation, he added:

“It is terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them. If they burst into tears it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth. Science is about nothing except getting at the truth and anything that gets in the way of that, in my experience, diminishes the science.”

When the yammering and the demands for his head subsided, he resigned from his post at the faculty of life sciences at University College London.

Some of the commentary is fascinating. The Henhouse mobilized with hashtags at the ready and Weaponized nagging fully engaged.

Here’s what we know:

  • All three parts of the original statement are demonstrably true, though obviously not for everyone. Does this mean that all women are like this? Of course not. Was he saying that women should not be in STEM? Absolutely not. Was he saying that women were the problem? Not at all. All he was doing was drawing attention to problems that most have us have encountered at one time or another.
  • The post that he resigned was an honorary one; his real job is in London Research Institute (Cancer Research UK). All of that complaining changed nothing.
  • His main job appears to be finding cures for cancer. Strangely, there are folks out there who would have him removed from this worthy pursuit for the heinous crime of being politically incorrect.
  • He is 71 years old, even if he was fired from his main job, it would be no great loss, as he is probably not far off from retirement.

This reminds me of a post that I saw about a year ago, in which a female CEO put up a post entitled “I Don’t Want to Hire Women“, in which she stated something similar:

“I have had women cry in team meetings, come to my office to ask me if I still like them and create melodrama over the side of the office their desk was being placed. I am simply incapable of verbalizing enough appreciation to female employees to satiate their need for it for at least a week’s worth of work… (but) when I have something to say to one of the men, I just say it! I don’t think it through – I simply spit it out, we have a brief discussion and we move on. They even frequently thank me for the feedback! Not so fast with my female staff…”

And yet nobody called for her head on a platter. Nobody asked for her resignation. I wonder why…

Returning to Sir Tim one last time, I particularly liked one of the headlines: Nobel Scientist Says Women Take Things Personally; Women Take It Personally

I could not have put it better.

Oh Rick!

This story came across my desk: Two words on my wedding night ruined my marriage, honeymoon.

To summarize:

  • The heroine was previously in an “intense” relationship with “Rick”. After it ends  badly, one assumes – she swears off intimacy (i.e., “sex”).
  • She meets “Tom”, and decides “no premarital sex”. Tom agrees (like he has a choice in the matter).
  • Fast-forward to their wedding night, at a hotel before flying out to their honeymoon. while “getting to know each other”, she blurts out “Oh Rick!”
  • Tom stops what he is doing, calls his parents and tells them that the marriage is over. He then calls her parents and asks then who “Rick” was.
  • He gets dressed and leaves for their “honeymoon”, taking her passport with him, presumably so she cannot follow him.
  • She then writes to an agony aunt as the aggrieved party.

This is a classic example of how women lie to themselves and each other. She did not “make a mistake”, she lied to her husband about her sexual past.

The fact that Tom did not know who Rick was shows that this was clearly a lie of omission. You don’t like it when that hot guy forgets to tell you that he’s married? This is no different. Why is it that a man who lies is a rat, but when a woman does it, it is somehow OK?

It is amazing to me how many women buy into the “I’ll-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too-and-what-he-doesn’t-know-won’t-hurt-him” meme, only to find the truth hitting them in the face at the most embarrassing possible time. Fortunately this time the truth came out before the man was trapped in a marriage with a woman who decided that a “very intense relationship with” with hot guy Rick somehow “didn’t count”. And women wonder why men are walking away from marriage.

Ladies, your sexual past is important to us. You don’t get to decide what is and is not important to us. You just don’t.

While it was wrong for him to take her passport, it is understandable – but that is relatively minor and is not germane to this story; funny how many people latched onto that one. It’s almost like they needed something to pin on him to cast him as the villain of the piece.

As far as I am concerned, justice has been served. She was ready and willing to start her marriage based on a lie. A lie of omission, to be sure, but a lie nonetheless.

It has been fun watching all the girlies circling the wagons and protecting the sistahood though…

When Inequality meets Injustice

Just stumbled across this story (original source). The short version: Couple has sex on the beach, in front of families. Folks get offended, they get arrested, and both end up in jail.

He gets two and a half years.
She gets time served and is released.

My thoughts:

  • It takes two to tango, but only one gets to pay the piper. They both did precisely the same thing. Wassup wid dat? He was given the heavier sentence because of a previous drug-related conviction which was served in full. To me, this is just not right; this was not a second drug offense, this was an unrelated charge.
  • Two and a half years? Some killers and rapists get lighter sentences than that.
  • “Witnesses testified that a 3-year-old girl saw them” Chances are that a three-year-old won’t won’t understand what they are seeing anyway, and if they did, it would be a lot like watching a couple of animals mating at the zoo. This is sad, but kids see worse things on prime-time TV every single day.
  • He was 40, she was 21. That dude has some serious mojo if he can pull a bird half his age and close the deal on the spot. Whatever vitamins he is taking, I want some o’dat.

I’ll end with a particularly bone-headed quote, from Assistant State Attorney Anthony Dafonseca: “If you think about 2:30 in the afternoon on a crowded beach. It takes a certain type of person to do that in front of children a few feet away,”

Er… no. it takes a certain type of couple.

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.

Why 40 doesn’t suck (if you’re a man)

A friend sped me to a post called “40 reasons 40 doesn’t suck“, ostensibly written by a professional writer/journalist. I say “ostensibly”, because I cannot remember the last time I saw such a load of tosh trying to pass itself off as serious journalism. Her “40 reasons” included such pabulum as knee socks, cussing, crying, complaining about the cold, and calling husband “perverted” for daring to want what he wants. And to top it all off, her list of “40” things ends with #32, and she somehow manages to pass this innumeracy off as a good thing.

I have no personal axe to grind here — she’s written some good stuff – but this particular one looks like it was written to a headline and a deadline and it came across as the ramblings of a crotchety old man. Still, her blog, her rules… which is probably why her post did not invite commentary. Strange, that.

But it got me to thinking… does 40 really suck? I have to say “no”. Partly because I was a late developer, but mostly because I am a man.

By and large, women bloom early and fade early; Mother Nature blesses them with the gift of attraction (aka Fertility) at about the age of sixteen, but Father Time takes it away again about twelve years later, which explains the crowd of late-twenties-early-thirties women who are surprised that Mister Exciting is no longer returning their texts. So for a woman, 40 is the death knell of physical attraction that stops men in their tracks and makes them cross the room to introduce themselves, to the annoyance if many harpies-in-training. And if you are offended by this, don’t worry dear, you’re one of the rare exceptions. Honest.

Men, on the other hand, tend to bloom later. The jocks bloom in their twenties, and the geeks – like yours truly – bloom in their thirties. So for them, 40 is the sweet spot in the middle of “The Zone” (for women, this occurs at about age 22-24). You can argue about this if you want, but this is not the place for it – I have blogged about it before.

So here are my reasons that 40 doesn’t suck… if you’re a man.

  1. You finally get some dress sense. When you’re a kid, you can wear any old rubbish and get away with it. As you get older, you realize that style is timeless. Unlike the ladies, you can make do with a handful of outfits and don’t need enough accessories to fill a small warehouse.
  2. You stop caring what others think. You have grown out of needing approval, and doing what you want. Congratulations on finally becoming a grown-up. For some reason, women find this somewhat winsome.
  3. You know who you are: By 40, you should know what you want to do with your life, and you don’t need anyone else to give you direction, validation or encouragement.
  4. You’ve got money. One would hope that by the age of 40 you have a little money put by for your old age. For some reason, women find this exceedingly attractive.
  5. You begin to understand masculinity and the laws of attraction. You begin to realize why you fared so badly with the fairer sex in your younger years; some of your behavior was cringe-worthy.
  6. You realize that time is on your side. A single man at 40 who is in good shape can easily date a girl in her twenties. A single woman at 40 has far fewer options and will find it difficult to catch the eye of any men under 50. I have seen this happen several times.
  7. You have all the power. As you mature, you get wisdom, which allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff more easily – and there is a *lot* of chaff out there. Twelve years of incredible power over men can go to a woman’s head – and often does.
  8. You don’t need 40 reasons for anything. You only need one. Because you want to.

Full disclosure: 40 is a vanishingly small smudge in my rear-view mirror. And I’ve still got my foot to the floor.

Disrespect

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 another man’s child. 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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 179 other followers