Category Archives: Bad Laws

SSA? SOL!

Or: When Security Isn’t.

I recently got an email from the good folks at the Social Security Administration (SSA). They have added a feature that requires you to type in a Security code that they text to your phone every time you want to log in to your “My Social Security” account.

SSA SOL

On the face of it, this sounds like a good thing. But it isn’t. Let me count the ways…

  1. Texts are inherently insecure. They can be read by your network operator and phone provider. Due to the sheer number of texts passing through the system, this is not such a problem when a one-off secret is transmitted via text (say to validate a new device), but requiring this every time you want to log in is ridiculous.
  2. Not everyone has free texts. In order to keep my unlimited data plan (Thanks Verizon!) I have to pay for every text I send or receive. As a result I have texts disabled and use data-based chat apps (like Signal and Threema) to text with friends and family. This means that I cannot use any text-based system.
  3. It’s a cheap solution. Texting codes is not security done right, it is security done cheap. There are better ways to do this; one is to use a code generator like Google Authenticator. Another is to use a hardware token like a Yubikey.
  4. You have no choice: “If you do not have a text-enabled cell phone or you do not wish to provide your cell phone number, you will not be able to access your my Social Security account.” Translation: Do it our way or leave. Email or voice notification would work fine… but they aren’t offered.

Only the Government could get away with something like this; any private organization that had such a “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude would soon find themselves shuttered. Some other options would be a good idea. Even the option to eschew two-factor authentication entirely is a valid choice if the user is advised of the risks.

Where’s the “Give-me-my-money-back” button?

Brexit Day

Why Britain should leave, why they probably won’t, and why it doesn’t matter.

When I were a wee lad, way back in 1973, Britain joined what was then called “The Common Market”. Over the years, it became the European Economic Community (“EEC”) and later the European Union (“EU”)

Today, Britain votes on whether we should leave.

Why Britain should leave.

I no longer live in the UK. I left in 1994, so I will not be voting. But if I was, my vote would be a firm unequivocal “NO”. Here’s why:

  • The EU is no longer an alliance of equals. It was actually founded in 1957. Britain was the 9th nation to join; when Britain joined in 1973, it consisted of France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland and Denmark. Twice, in 1963 and again in 1967, Britain tried to join. Both times, the application was vetoed by Charles De Gaulle (now there’s gratitude for you). At this point in time (mid-2016), the European Union (“EU”) is composed of twenty-eight members, including Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Greece. A union of equals results in an equal sharing of blessings and resources. An unequal union results in the net transfer of resources from the richer nations to the poorer ones.
  • It Costs Britain. Britain pays over three hundred million pounds (about half a billion dollars) a week. Other figures say this is 250M a week, due to “rebates” won by Margaret Thatcher. Either way, with or without rebates, it’s bloody huge.
  • Sovereignty? What Sovereignty? In the 1970s, Britain fought to defend her fishing grounds in the North Sea. Europe has taken those from her. British fishermen are told to stay in port while other members overfish those grounds into oblivion.
  • Britain is not Europe: The British are an insular people. They are not “European”. They have more in common with countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even the United States.
  • The game is rigged: Britain joined late, and as a result, “…we were entering a club whose rules were set long before we joined, without our involvement, and not necessarily in our favour. The terms of British membership were particularly poor.” (Source)
  • Immigration: Every time a new member joins the EU, its poorest citizens head west. Germany sends them on to France. France sends them on to England — and Britain cannot refuse them entry. And once they arrive, they are quick to maximize the opportunities afforded by a socialist system — at the taxpayer’s expense.
  • We’re already half-way there: In spite of Euro entreaties, Britain has successfully fought to keep their national currency (the pound Sterling) and their admittedly-archaic system of weights and measures (also, ironically, call the pound). And the sky has not fallen in.

Why they probably won’t

  • Fear-mongering: There is a lot of FUD being spread in the news about how the economy will collapse if Britain leaves — and there are plenty of people who are gullible enough to believe it.
  • Entrenched Interests. There are literally thousands of well-paid Government jobs that will disappear if Britain leaves the EU. One can hardly expect those folks to enthusiastically vote to leave – after all, it is impossible to make someone believe something if their paycheck depends on them not believing it.
  • Britain has changed: The British people I left behind more than twenty years ago were a bloody-minded, stubborn, independent bunch. With the large number of immigrant Europeans, “timid” Indians, and an increasingly Socialist younger generation, I’m not sure that the country has a whole has the testicular fortitude to leave.
  • It’s never been done. Even if Britain votes to leave, there is no guarantee as to how they would do it or whether they could. No country has ever successfully left the EU. There is a good chance that both the British and European Governments will do their best to disregard the clearly-stated will of the people.
  • Logistics: The day that Britain leaves the EU, millions of European Citizens living and working in the UK will suddenly be “strangers in a strange land”. And what will happen if they have children who are born in the UK? That mess will take years to fix. When all is said and done, leaving the EU will look more like an amputation than a divorce.

Why it doesn’t matter

  • Brussels marches on: Unless Britain gets mean, the European Government will probably simply ignore Britain’s entreaties to leave, or spin it out for years.
  • Europe won’t listen: Ireland voted against the Nice Treaty in 2001. Europe demanded that they voted again (in 2008) and again (in 2012) before they finally gave the “right” answer.
  • The damage is already done. Even if Britain votes to leave, even if the British Government goes to bat for the country against their own interest (dubious), and even if the European Government allows them to leave (unlikely), they are still bound by too many one-sided treaties and trade agreements for it to make any real difference.

My personal opinion is that they should never have joined in the first place.

The Smell of Desperation

I recently had occasion to rent a car at a nearby car rental establishment. I noticed something in a corner of the contract that I had never seen before:

20150807_142152

When I asked about this, I was told that this was new; they were instructed that if the customer had recently arrived by plane, they would have to charge them an airport tax, as if they had rented the car at the airport location. Since it is the state, not the rental company, that profits from these taxes, we can safely assume that this was the Government’s doing.

The logic behind this “new tax” is tenuous indeed. I had always thought that Airport taxes were charged at airport locations, and whether or not you just got off a plane was irrelevant. Apparently I was mistaken. So by this logic, if I drive to the airport and rent a car there, I should not have to pay airport taxes, since I did not just get off a plane. Somehow, I doubt that I would get out of paying that tax.

You can almost smell the State’s desperation to find some new untapped stream of revenue. I can just imagine some bright spark in Frankfort probably said something like “Hey, sometimes people fly in and rent cars elsewhere to get out of paying airport tax! We need to do something about this!“. Oh no you don’t: Last time I looked, tax avoidance was not the same as tax evasion, and it was completely legal.

So this is not an extension of an existing tax, this is a new tax – and one that the prospective purchaser can avoid paying by simply initialing “True“.

Given that this it a tax that can be easily avoided by lying, I wonder how much additional revenue it will generate?

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.

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.

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.

The problem with Net Neutrality

Why a good idea will destroy small businesses.

Like most responsible Netizens, I am in favor of Net Neutrality — the principle that ISPs should not discriminate based on content. In principle, it sounds like a good idea: you, the customer, should have access to whatever services you want, without having to pay extra for it, and without the ISP “throttling” internet traffic that competes with services that they may be offering — for an additional fee, naturally.

But there is trouble in paradise, and its name is Netflix.

The Netflix paradox.

Netflix, you see, is the biggest single source of Internet traffic in the world; it is estimated that as much as 40% if the bits flowing through the system come from that one source. And that places a load on ISPs, who have to purchase additional bandwidth and hardware to handle all of those bits wending their way from Netflix’s servers, across the public internet, to the ISP’s customers. Unlike consumers, ISPs have to pay for the “Public Internet” bandwidth they consume. The big ISPs have a solution: they do a deal with Netflix, where Netflix installs a server within the ISP’s Datacenter. This saves on bandwidth, as the movies on that server can be accessed by customers without having to go out on the public internet ad all the way back to Netflix. It saves on costs, as the ISP does not have to pay anyone for the bits that flow around within their networks.It also makes for a better experience for the customer, who is blissfully unaware that all of this is going on.

This is all well and good if you are one of the big boys — Cox, Comcast, Time Warner — as they all have deals in place with Netflix. But what if you are a small ISP? Netflix won’t talk to these little guys — not worth their time. They have to pay full-freight; as their customers sign up for Netflix, they are shifting massively more data, which pushes their bandwidth costs go up accordingly.

Their customers, however, won’t pay more just to watch Netflix. And there, as they say, is the rub.

Network Neutrality says: “Thou shalt not block or throttle Netflix”. Customers say “I want my Netflix!” And the small ISP says: “If it’s all the same to you, I would like to make a little bit of profit here, so I can feed my children? (won’t somebody please think of the children?!). Sorry, couldn’t resist.

The elephant in the room is bandwidth; most residential internet customers in this country are used to paying a flat fee for “all-you-can-eat” service. This means that those customers who are not Netflix subscribers are effectively subsidizing those who are.

The bottom line is that small ISPs are being punished by a perfect storm; on one side we have fixed-price, customers fattened on “all-you-can-eat” unlimited data. On the other is a major bandwidth hog who won’t cut them a deal. And Net neutrality means that they cannot throttle Netflix traffic or charge their customers a surcharge to make up for their real increased costs.

Residential Internet service is the only utility where most customers do not pay for what they actually use.
Water, gas, electricity, these are usually metered. But not Internet.

For them, the only fair solution is to change their pricing model from all-you-can-eat to a-la-carte, where customers pay for the bandwidth they use. And customers who have been spoiled by unlimited data won’t want that — I certainly don’t.

This is not meant to be a screed against Net Neutrality — it is a good idea, and one which I support in the main. My intention here is not to criticize the idea or derail it in any way. My intention is to draw attention to the fact that the law of unintended consequences will always bite you in the… rear.

Independence

This is the day when Americans celebrate their nation’s independence.

On this day 238 years ago, a bunch of colonists, Englishman to a man, nailed their colors to a mast.

And that was when the trouble started.

They took on one of the world’s the mightiest empires, with the largest and most-feared Navy of the day. And they knew that England would not take it lying down, and that a fight was coming. And fight they did. The war for America’s independence was long, bloody and costly in lives.

But why did they fight? For the right to be free? Curiously, no; most of the colonials were happy to be British subjects. They fought because the tyranny of Britain was finally becoming intolerable. They wanted freedom from onerous and unfair taxation, from being mercilessly squeezed for revenue like toothpaste. For freedom from unfair and unjust laws, imposed from afar by an uncaring tyrant, and levied at gunpoint.

Sounds Familiar?

And today we celebrate it by taking a day off work and eating food. Funny how many of our holidays revolve around food. And we’re all getting fat. Coincidence? I think not. But that is another story for another post.

Fathers’ Day

Things are about to get messy; hold on to your hats…

There has been a lot of blathering in the press lately about “Reproductive Rights”. Indeed there are those who believe that Reproductive Rights should be considered a basic human right. But it occurs to me that nothing has been said about the reproductive rights of men.

It’s almost as if they are not allowed to have any

  • It takes two to make a baby, but only one to get an abortion.
  • If the woman chooses to get an abortion, the man has no choice, whether he wants the baby or not.
  • If the woman chooses to have the child, the man still has no choice — though he will be expected to provide for the child for at least eighteen years.
  • Whether or not the man used birth control is irrelevant.
  • Whether or not the women used birth control, or lied about it, or forgot her pill is also irrelevant – it is still his responsibility.
  • If it subsequently turns out that he was not the father, it may still be his responsibility.
  • If a man marries a “single mother” (aka divorced mother), and they subsequently divorce, he will often required to pay for the support of children that are not his.

It is the very definition of unfairness to expect one person to have to subsidize the mistakes of another. A man should not have to raise another man’s spawn, nor should he have to suffer the ignominy of having a slut for a wife — for if this sort of behavior is not the very definition of sluttery, what is? The logical extension of this train of thought is that if a man marries a woman who already has children, and they subsequently split, he should never be required to pay for the support and upkeep of children who are not his. On hearing this, many women will howl and yowl and foam at the mouth and flop on the floor; I would remind them that they cannot have both chivalry and equality; with equal rights come equal responsibilities.

It seems to me that a little balance may need to be bought to this area of life, so here are the changes I propose:

  • Put a ring on it: Marriage is the logical framework in which to have create and raise children. No marriage, no child support — PERIOD.  You want to get pregnant outside of marriage, or don’t want to marry, that’s fine. Your body, your decision, your dime.
  • Mandatory paternity testing at birth: The birth of a baby is a wonderful thing; it is also the logical time to establish who the father is. If the husband is not the father, it is also an excellent time to find out so he can divorce her and kick her out with nothing (just as she would be inclined to do if he were had impregnated some other woman).
  • Mandatory paternity testing in child support/divorce proceedings: It is a sad thing when a marriage dissolves, and the children are usually the saddest casualties . When this happens, the husband should be required by law to support those children who are identified as his if he is to have full access to them. This is right and proper. But he should never, under any circumstances, be required to support another man’s spawn, nor should he have to foot the bill for someone else’s irresponsibility. Nor should he be forced to pay for the upkeep of children he is not allowed to see. Abuse is real, but too many women have used accusations of abuse to separating fathers from their children while still helping themselves to the contents of his bank account.

No doubt a whole lot of folks will howl and yowl at my humble suggestions — and I suspect that they will all be women. This is to be expected, since they are mostly likely be the ones to lose out on the cash-and-prizes currently on offer from what is effectively a rigged game.

The alternative is that men will continue to walk away from the institution of marriage, on the very rational pretext that there is nothing in it for them.

Remember folks, “With reproductive rights come reproductive responsibilities”

Happy Fathers’ Day