Category Archives: Opinion

Anatomy of a Train Wreck

*Warning* Along with a fountain of tears, this video contains copious foul language.

Let’s break this cryfest down, shall we?

  • 0:25 “I am nothing without my following“. Math tip: Nothing plus one hundred thousand followers on Social Media equals… nothing.
  • 0:43 “You are ruining my life because I make all of my money online” Plain English translation: “I found a nice little earner flashing my bits on Social Media for cash and prizes. But now the party is over, I had no plan and no backup. And it’s your fault
  • 0:55 “The 90%ers, the people that work 9 to 5, that is not me. I am in LA to not be like that” = I’m better than you.
  • 1:00 “I have worked soooo hard…” …shaking my bits on social media for cash and prizes.
  • 1:15 “People come after me for no reason and it hurts“. They all had a reason, you just don’t know what that reason is. Perhaps the Internet is not the place for you.
  • 1:20 “This is my life” = I have no life.
  • 2:15 “Nobody loves me. I only have three friends in the world who have not backstabbed me…yet.
  • 2:35 “I have no skills, and $20,000 in debt from college…” So what did you learn at college? Why was it not useful?
  • 3:05: “I used to work at McDonald’s before I did YouTube, Instagram, before I had 100,000 followers, before I had everything in my life, I was a loser…” So people who work at McDonald’s are losers, and people who place their value in the number of followers on Social Media have everything. Riiiight…
  • 3:09 “I have no job qualifications. I could never work a normal job. I am worthless. I bring nothing to the table. I am not work material. I will never be work material. So stop reporting me…” BOOM. There it is.

 


Dear Jessy,

I have no beef with you. I don’t even have an Instagram account. I am not laughing at you, but I am not about to give you sympathy either.

By your own admission, you have no value outside of flashing your bits on Social Media for fun and profit, and good luck to you if you can make a living doing that. But deep down, you must know that the youth and beauty that brings in clicks, eyeballs, and dollars only lasts for so long. The party will not last forever. It never does. And when it does, you will have about fifty years to think about it. So start making yourself useful.

The fact that you have no skills outside of Instagram is telling. But you don’t have a hater problem, and you don’t have an Instagram problem. You have a *you* problem.


Epilogue: she finally got her channel back

What about all the other folks who got banned?

Advertisements

Of Girls and Cars

Corvettes, Cadillacs, Classics and Clunkers – Ten ways that women are like cars.

The Italians have a proverb: “Women are the cars, men are the drivers“. Every man of consequence knows that there is much truth in this statement, but whenever a man compares women with cars, there is always some woman who gets all bent out of shape at the analogy. They usually say something like “OhMyGod! women are soooo much more important than cars!“. They may have a point; most men put more effort into buying a car than choosing a wife, but that doesn’t mean that the analogy is without merit. Any road up, I thought I would take this opportunity to contribute a few thoughts on the matter.

  1. Men are the buyers. A great man once said that women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. Think about the new-car showroom. In the front are the bright shiny sleek and svelte sports cars (usually dressed in red), And towards the back are the the less showy, less desirable, more reliable and more affordable family cars. Personally, I have never much liked SUVs, they are large gas-guzzlers, Maybe they are the fat chicks. I suppose the comparison goes only so far. Women love to dress up and present themselves to be chosen, but when it comes to commitment, it is the men who make the purchasing decision.
  2. They are all the same…sort of: Cars come in all different shapes and sizes; they use different fuels and different technologies.  Even though cars are all different they all operate in pretty much the same way, from opening the door, starting the vehicle, steering, accelerating and braking. In the same way, women are running the same basic firmware, and are subject to the same temptations, pressures, and fears. And every one of them thinks that she is the exception.
  3. New is *far* more valuable than used. New cars command a far higher price than used ones. Beauty is mostly youth; young women can command astronomical levels of attention, affection and commitment from men far more easily than their older sistren, who often have to fight just to get noticed. This is why older women are so quick to make snarky comments about younger women; they’re jealous.
  4. The price is always negotiable. All women like to pretend that they are marriage material, but most are not; the most well-used of specimens still wants to believe that she will get to wear the white dress on the big day. A wise buyer will never pay full price for a used car.
  5. Exotic/high-maintenance or affordable/reliable? Like cars, women require a certain amount of maintenance, expense, effort and investment. The opportunity cost of a wife can easily run into six figures. Like exotic supercars, the most desirable ones are temperamental and require high-maintenance, and only the best of men can afford them.
  6. Heavy Depreciation: Female beauty depreciates heavily with age, misuse and abuse. Driving a car off the dealer lot requires a huge expenditure for something that loses a huge chunk of its value in a relatively short time. As a general rule, women have about twelve years of peak attractiveness, which explains the stampede to the altar as the big three-oh looms.
  7. Classics are rare… Like cars, some women appreciate into classics, but 99% depreciate into junkers and clunkers and end up on the scrapheap. There are, of course, exceptions — but they are rare, and statistically speaking, she’s probably not one of ’em.
  8. …but clunkers are common: These days, most are ex-rentals, well-used and oft-abused. And some have some “Junk in the trunk”. This is why quality men are encouraged to avoid single mothers like the proverbial plague (“once you have bred, you are of no use to me“), and single mothers often have to resort to shaming tactics (“it takes a real man to get with a single mom“) to get commitment that most of them do not deserve. Feminine beauty has a short shelf-life; remember: “The looks that drive men wild at sixteen are gone at thirty“.
  9. Show me the HoFax! The best cars have had one driver from new. But it is far, far easier these days for a girl to ruin herself, and then hide the evidence (see Proverbs 30: 20), and these days, it that is the rule rather then the exception. So she will never tell you how many STDs she has had, how many abortions she has had, how many men she has slept with… and even if she does, the answer will never be trust worthy, because it is in her interest to lie. So a good rule of thumb is “every girl is a ho until she has proven otherwise” Gently used are ok, but check the CarFax, and ignore the salesman’s lies. And for heaven’s sake, stay away from the ex-rental that has a history of having been driven by a different random maniac every weekend.
  10. Routine maintenance is essential. Both need to be driven hard and serviced regularly. With proper maintenance, they will hold up well and give you years of trouble-free service.

Full disclosure: I am the proud owner of a lovely little runner. Drove her off the factory floor, brand-spanking-new. I have been the only driver. Got a lot of miles on her, but they are all mine, and the upholstery is shaped to the exact contours of my bum. There are a few squeaks and rattles, but she handles well and knows all the corners. That’s what a classic looks like. I’m going to keep this one till the wheels fall off.

The Analogy Stands

Misreading Incomprehension

Someone recently bought this fascinating piece to my attention:

Commentary: ‘Be careful using the Bible’

Having read it, I am of the impression that a better title might be “I misunderstood the bible. therefore it can’t be trusted“. As is so often the case with opinion pieces, there was no provision for commentary, so I will add my commentary here…

The Bible continues to be used to oppose women’s work outside the home and female ordination.

And modern feminism pushes those aims as praiseworthy. Choose this day whom you will serve. There is absolutely nothing wrong with women working outside the home, but in a traditional marriage with children, children need their mothers most in the first few years, which means that a working woman who also wants to be a mother has some hard choices to make. For many women, the experience of holding their newborn simplifies that choice. If a woman chooses to hand her children off to someone else and go to work, good luck to her, but there are an awful lot of working mothers out there who wish that they didn’t have to.

As far as female ordination is concerned, I have seen female preachers who obviously have an anointing on them. What I object to is when women are placed in a position of authority over men. “Women are grown, men are made“; and a woman, no matter how well-meaning, cannot teach a man how to be a man. Doubly so for feminists,who want to “reconstruct” men according to their whim — which usually results in weak, “nice” feminized men, with whom that few women want to pair-bond.

In studying the Bible, it is necessary to realize that often God is cited as supporting whatever values are normative at that time in history. Those are “timely” standards — standards valued for a time — but not necessarily “timeless” standards that are applicable for all time and all circumstances.

It is true that much of the bible’s teaching is cultural. while much is sacred. The danger is that we may use our opinions and feelings — or worse, the culture — to decide which is which.

Remember that the Bible affirms Abraham having sexual relations with Hagar, Sarah’s maid, in order to produce his first son, Ishmael

The bible does no such thing. it *informed* us of the event. It also makes it clear that this was Sarah’s idea, not God’s — and her impatience resulted in the Middle East becoming the charnel-house it is today.

Remember King Solomon’s legendary 1,000 wives and concubines. Today we would call Abraham’s and Solomon’s sexual actions adultery, and not condone such actions for the behavior of others.

Once again, the learned Reverend is letting his feelings get in the way. The bible does not glorify Solomon’s myriad wives, it simply informs. Many of those marriages were political alliances — David’s first wife, Michal, was Saul’s daughter. Many others would have been gifts from other kings and chieftains. And Solomon himself owes his existence to one of the most infamous adulteries in recorded history. The bible warns repeatedly against intermarrying with foreign women. Also remember that in those days, there was a chronic man shortage – men died working or fighting, and women who lost their husbands were often left destitute. This is why a younger brother was required by law to marry his older brother’s childless widow and give her children so that she would have a future — conduct that would be considered unacceptable today.

Remember that, in ancient Israel, eating shellfish and wearing clothing of two different fabrics at the same time were called “abominations.” Walking too many paces on the Sabbath was considered sinful. And, it was permissible to make slaves of captured enemies. So much of what was considered sinful or acceptable was simply the norms or standards that were practiced by the majority of the people, but condemned today.

There were reasons for those practices. The bible calls eating pork “unclean”. Today, we call it “trichinosis”. Whatever you choose to call it, it wasn’t good for you.

Sadly, that practice has not changed. As a child, I was not allowed to have playing cards in our house. Dancing and even going to the movies were frowned upon, and drinking alcoholic beverages was not allowed. I was told that Jesus and his disciples drank only grape juice!

And millions of parents tell their children about Santa. So you were misled. How sad. And now you are returning the favor by mis-leading us?

That brings us to a question sharply dividing the Christian community in our time: How are we to think about and act toward the LGBTQ community? We know that the majority of Americans do not oppose homosexual relations, yet others believe that while every person is a child of God, homosexual behavior is a choice and is sinful, and marriage is only to be affirmed when between a man and a woman. A key question for me is: Is that position simply an expression of ancient and current cultural norms, or is that the timeless moral position, sanctioned by God?

Ah… now we get to the meat of the matter. I was wondering how long it would be before homosexuality reared its head. One of my favorite verses in the bible is “everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial”, so let’s start with that.

Likewise, most scientists and psychologists of today believe that same-gender orientation is not a matter of choice.

Science isn’t about what you “believe”, it is what you can prove. Science based on “belief” — consensus — looks a lot like religion. In related news, And psychologists are currently trying to convince us that masculinity is a disease. So I would not place much stock in what “scientists and psychologists believe”.

Let’s go a bit deeper into the issue of morality. How do we distinguish between values that are “timely” — those that are affirmed as norms by the majority of people at one time in history, but are changed or updated in another generation because of new understandings, and the values that are “timeless” and applicable in all situations and at all times in history? What is an eternal value? Here is where the Bible, taken as a whole and seen in its depths, can guide us.

What you do is read the text with an open mind. What you don’t do is go running to your feelings and feminist doctrine in search of a solution.

Why oppose slavery and segregation? Because they are hurtful. Why do the Ten Commandments forbid murder, stealing, lying, adultery and coveting? Because they are hurtful. On the other hand, what is hurtful about playing cards, dancing or having a glass of wine with a meal?

Tell that to someone who has had to live with the consequences of gambling and alcoholism. The bible also says “do not do anything that causes your brother to stumble.”. Oh, and you just proved my previous point. The difference between what is sacred and what is cultural is often obvious. The real problem comes when you run into something you don’t like, which is what we are seeing here.

If a person is born with a same-gender orientation, why must they be prohibited from having an intimate relationship with another person, forced into isolation and loneliness, just because many people unfairly oppose that? The fact that some Christians do not approve does not make such a relationship hurtful.

“Born with”? I call shenanigans. A predisposition towards homosexual behavior cannot, by definition, be biologically derived, since reproduction only happens as a result of a heterosexual coupling. A small number of people are born with hormonal imbalances that may predispose them to same-sex attraction, but they are rare, anomalous, and worthy of special treatment. What we should not be doing is allowing a tiny minority of edge-cases to forcibly steer the culture. In my opinion, the vast majority are created behaviorally.

Why not have the same moral standards for same-gender relationships as for heterosexual relationships: no promiscuity, no coercion, no insensitivity. Instead, seek commitment, faithfulness, mutual sensitivity, caring and support. Who does that hurt? Instead, it treats all people as persons of equal worth, as children of God, and encouraged to enjoy mutually affirming, intimate, helpful relationships with others.

No reasonable person believes that God hates gays. But there is no evidence that he made them. However, it must be said that there is nowhere in the bible where homosexuality is affirmed or seen as morally praiseworthy (unlike, for instance, prostitution), or is described as anything less than a sin, If you choose to live that life, that’s your choice. I am not mad with you, but you don’t answer to me.

To “love your neighbor” is to do the helpful thing and to avoid doing the hurtful thing, even when cultural conditioning makes that uncomfortable. Helping, not hurting, looks and sounds like Jesus to me.

Be careful when you put words into the mouth of Jesus, who said such feel-good gems as “God made male and female… therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife” (Matthew 19:4). The same Jesus who said “Let the dead bury their dead” and “You will always have the poor“, and ran the officially licensed traders out of t he temple with a whip. . does that sound like “fluffy hippie boyfriend Jesus” to you?

Bottom line: There is a big difference between tolerance and affirmation; telling people that God loves them is praiseworthy. Telling people that God approves of something without any supporting evidence may not be “helping” them.

Half Time?

I recently watched the State of the Union address. I am not going to review it here, but it made me think about how far we have come as a nation in the past two years.

  • The economy is doing markedly better by every metric that matters.
  • Unemployment is at historic all-time lows, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  • We have not become embroiled in any new foreign wars.
  • ISIS has been reduced to a fraction of its former size and influence.
  • We have new trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, China and other nations.
  • We no longer negotiate with terrorists, which is as is should be.
  • We have withdrawn from the idiotic Paris Climate Accords, which would have placed us at a grave disadvantage on us and  would have handed a competitive advantage to developing nations like India and China.
  • The tax cut bill has left us all slightly better off. For some obscure reason, the Democrats are incensed at this.
  • Thousands of jobs that were fleeing the country have returned, and foreign business are moving here.
  • Businesses are hiring, as is evidenced by the “Now Hiring” signs that are popping up everywhere.
  • He fulfilled the twenty-year-old promise to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Almost three years ago, I forecasted that Donald Trump would win the election. After two years in office, I can think of only two election promises that he hasn’t kept:

  1. The repeal of Obamacare. This is partly thanks to John McCain, and partly due to the fact that that Congress could not come up with a  better substitute. This is understandable, as Prang’s Law of freebies™ states “Once someone becomes accustomed to getting something for free, it is human nature to fight tooth and nail to keep that freebie.
  2. Securing the Border (“Building the Wall”). The same Democrats who repeatedly voted for a secure border fence in the past are stubbornly refusing to fund this effort. Because Trump.

To be fair, he tried as best he could to keep both of those promise, but both of those promises require the agreement of Congress to be kept. I cannot hold that against the President.

While I may not necessarily agree with everything that the President says or tweets, the insane behavior of the left has provided us all with a level of political entertainment that we have never seen. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is a real and pernicious problem.

After watching the State of the Union address, I am sure of one thing:

This is not Half-Time; it is the end of the First Quarter

Why Jussie Smollett is a liar

I have been following this narrative for a while. Here are my initial thoughts when the story broke.

Initial Behavioral Inconsistencies

  • He claims to have fought off two attackers but does not have injuries consistent with a vicious attack. What happened?
  • He claims that the assailants said “This is MAGA country”. He subsequently denied saying this. In which universe is Chicago “MAGA Country”?
  • He claims to have fought off two attackers with tuna sandwich in one hand and a phone in the other. How did he do this?
  • He had his phone with him, but did not call the police until forty minutes later, after he got home. Why did he wait for so long to report a crime?
  • He finally called the police about twenty minutes later, after he got home. Why so long? Why didn’t he call the cops on the spot?
  • He claims that the attackers placed a “noose” around his neck, but was still “wearing” it when the police arrived. Why would he keep it on?

Meeting the police

  • Smollett claimed that he was on the phone with his manager when the attack occurred… at 2AM?
  • …but when asked for his phone, he didn’t turn it over immediately. When he finally did, some of the phone numbers had been “redacted”, ostensibly in order to protect the privacy of contacts and people who are not relevant to the attack. Why do you think that you get to decide what evidence is and is not “relevant”?

*Sigh*, first Cavanaugh, now this. Given the total lack of evidence and questionable behavior of the alleged victim, I am convinced that Jussie Smollet is a liar.

Time will tell.

Ten things that you didn’t know about Roe v Wade

Source: Pixabay

  1. “Jane Roe” was no angel: The woman in the case, Norma Corvey, had been in and out of prison and had already had two children before she was twenty. She was, in her own words “unemployable and depressed”, and when she got pregnant for the third time, she didn’t want the child.
  2. By hook or by crook: At the time, the law in Texas prohibited abortions. She was advised by friends to file a false rape accusation, which she did. The accusation was (rightly) dismissed because she didn’t report the rape to the police at the time. When that didn’t work, she tried to get an illegal abortion, only to find that the clinics near her had been closed down by law enforcement. In desperation, she found a pair of female lawyers who took the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
  3. The case was moot: Norma never had an abortion.The child who triggered the case was put up for adoption.
  4. Roe v Wade was never about “Women’s rights”: The case was heard by the Supreme Court as a privacy issue, not as an abortion issue. The case was fought primarily as a right for physicians to practice medicine freely and with a minimum of federal oversight
  5. The right to life is important: In its ruling, The Supreme Court found that the state’s duty to protect life outweighed the mother’s privacy rights at the point where the fetus was viable. In the 70s, viability was about six months. Today it is abut four. When artificial womb technology becomes available, that will effectively drop to zero, at which point viability will, at least theoretically, trump abortion.
  6. The case was not fought on the morality of abortion: One of the arguments was whether consent to sex equaled consent to parenthood. The court rightly found no such equality.
  7. The trimester model: A woman had the right to an abortion during the first trimester. During the third Trimester, the fetus was viable, and abortion would therefore be murder. the “trimester model” was dismantled in subsequent Supreme Court cases.
  8. It is Constitutional. Sort of…: In its majority finding, The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution… even though there is nothing in the constitution that deals directly with the matter. Legitimizing abortion is “a matter of privacy” is a joke, as it does not supersede the “right to life” enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
  9. Roe V Wade is a bad law: Since the case was settled, many Supreme Court justices have said that Roe v Wade was a bad decision. A prime example was none other than Ruth Bader Ginsberg https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
    Jane Roe is anti-abortion:
  10. Roe Repented: Norma Corvey subsequently regretted her actions and the landmark case which bears her name. She went on to become a pro-life advocate. Before she died, she created a website called www.endroe.org.

A digital book-burning

I recently meandered across a story called “Alex Jones will never abandon deranged propaganda, that’s why Twitter needs to ban him“. As is often the case for opinion pieces, comments to the piece were neither requested nor required. So here we go…


If untruthfulness was the basis of censorship, half of the liberal media would be in jail. Sadly, there are no laws in this country against mendacious libel as there are in the United Kingdom

Every week the tabloids disgorge a fresh cargo of sex, lies and fanciful tales at supermarket checkouts throughout the land, and nobody seems to get upset. While I voted for Trump in the last election (and I called it five months out) I am not a fan of Alex Jones. I find him to be a blowhard. I have never been a fan of either Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, though I have agreed with some of their ideas, principles and positions. By the same token, I find Michael Moore to be a delusional blob of feel-good socialism. But they all have every right to speak, write, make movies, and do their thing. And I would oppose any attempt to censor or silence any of them.

Last time I looked, Ignorance wasn’t a crime. If it were, the Bernie-Sanders socialists would be up on charges for failure to understand basic mathematics.

Close but no Cigar, bucko. While you are absolutely correct in saying that Twitter/Google/FakesBook et al are private organizations who can do as they please, that is not the point. The point is that these organizations are blatantly practicing partisan politics while pretending to be politically neutral. To quote Judge Judy Scheindlin: “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”

Another true-but-disingenuous statement. First up, the left increasingly uses “Hate” as a catch-all phrase for “criticism that I don’t like“, in the same way that they use Alt-Right to describe “someone I want to describe as a Nazi/Fascist/Racist/White supremacist, but can’t use those terms without looking like an intellectually dishonest idiot“. Most sensible people define “Hate speech” as something along the lines of “Any speech that calls for harm to another person”. By this definition, Maxine Waters’ call to harass Trump’s Staff in public is hate speech, as are the consistent calls to assassinate President Trump. Kathy Griffin’s infamous photo stunt may be a form of hate speech. No liberal media outrage in either case. Liberals, your political slip is showing.
Secondly, the NFL’s decision to ban players from any kind of political grandstanding is right and reasonable; the players are paid to play ball, and the League, who pays their salaries, can do as they please. If players want to play politics, they are more than welcome to do so on their own time. If I walk into a Starbucks wearing a MAGA hat, I should be treated the same way as anyone else. However, if I work there, my employers have the right to require me to remove it or leave. The bottom like here is the same: Don’t mix politics and business.

There’s the H-word again. Whenever you see that word, substitute “WAAAAH! SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING I DIDN’T LIKE!” Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let them speak, and let the chips fall where they may.

If there’s one thing that the last few Administrations have taught us, it is that a power that is given to one president is inherited by the next one. That which is created by the stroke of a pen can be destroyed by the stroke of a pen. The use of censorship to silence your opposition may one day blow up in your face.


He’s hitting all the buzzwords here. These people use cellphones and Postal serviced to communicate. Want to ban those as well? And what about the ISIS Recruiters on Social Media, are they being shut down with the same alacrity? Why is “Kill all white men” perfectly acceptable speech, but substituting the word “Black” is somehow racist?

This is just plain dishonest. Is the Post Office answerable for letter-bombs? Is the phone system legally responsible for wire fraud? Of course not. Is Facebook responsible for every DuckFace Selfie? So why is Twitter being held responsible for every tweet? And what, pray tell, is “real fake news”?


I am a firm believer in free speech, as long as it does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights. But that includes speech that I may disagree with. No one has a right to not be offended or outraged. If I don’t like it, I can spend my time, attention, and dollars elsewhere. Twitter has a competitor — Gab.Ai — and a lot of Conservatives, both reasonable and crazy – have moved there.

Bottom Line: The author is trying to suggest that Twitter can and should be some kind of digital safe space. Even if that were feasible, it would be an extremely bad idea.

Rebirth of a Nation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXPhLXuJ90I

  • What if I told you that Donald Trump was not a Nazi?
  • What if I told you that Republicans are not Fascists?
  • What if I told you that Fascism came, not from the right, but from the left, and always has?
  • What if I told you that the Ku Klux Klan was originally the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party?
  • What if I told you that,before they became enemies, Adolf Hitler admired President Roosevelt’s Progressive policies, and considered him to be “One of us”?
  • What if I told you that the Nazi Nuremberg laws, which turned the Jews into second-class citizens were based on the Jim Crow laws created and passed by Southern Democrats?

I’m not going to tell you any of those things. I leave that to Dinesh D’Souza, who lays out his case in this engaging film, which I watched a few days ago.

The movie starts with a depiction of Hitler’s last moments in a German Bunker, before answering the question “What is a Nazi?” (Answer: “The German National Socialist Worker’s Party“), defining Fascism (State control and regulation of the private sector), and examining the political and ideological similarities between Hitler, Mussolini and Franklin D Roosevelt.

The movie goes on to examine the life and times of a Republican President who was so controversial and so incensed Democrats that they were openly calling for his assassination and were willing to divide the nation and go to war to bring him down. Sound familiar?

It should… it was Abraham Lincoln.

D’Souza draws parallels between Presidents Lincoln and Trump that are sure to warm the hearts of liberals everywhere.

But don’t take my word for it. Watch the movie. Hear out his claims, and disprove them if you can.

Roe V Wade… for men?

There is a lot of noise coming from the “Loony Left” that President Trump is bent on “Reversing Roe v Wade”. As with so much that comes from the liberal media, this is a complete red herring; he has said no such thing, and there is absolutely no evidence to support this. (Returning abortion decisions to the states is not repeal, it is simply following the constitution). Nor would it be easy; a “settled law” Supreme Court case cannot easily be reversed by Executive Order, the only thing that can stand against it is legislation – and that has to come from Congress.

This got me thinking… instead of reversing Roe v Wade, why not expand it? We live in an age of equality, so why not expand Roe v. Wade to apply to men as well?

Right now you are thinking that the Wizard has lost his marbles. “Men can’t get pregnant, so how can abortion be an issue?” And you would be right, except for one thing: Roe v Wade was not about abortion. That was the practical upshot, to be sure, but the plaintiffs did not fight the case on the morality or merits of abortion-on-demand; they would have lost that argument. Instead, the case hinged on one simple question:

“Is consent to sex consent to parenthood?”

The court, quite rightly, said no, and that was how the case was won. A woman cannot be forced to have a child against her will. So far so good. But by the same token, if a man doesn’t want a child, why should he be forced to pay for it?

The sad fact is that an increasing number of women are mis-using their fertility as a way to collect dollars from wealthy, desirable men. And they are getting it. Some women are getting pregnant for famous sports starts and then taking them to court, often for ridiculous sums. This practice needs to stop.

A few simple changes to the law are all that is needed to fix this:

  • No child support for children born out of wedlock with the father.
  • Compulsory paternity testing at birth.
  • Standardized or itemized child support costs.

Most men would look at that list and find it to be fundamentally just. Many women will consider it fundamentally unjust. But a woman who is pregnant has three ways to avoid the burden of parenthood; abortion, adoption or legal abandonment. Men have none. Even men who are the victims of statutory rape by an adult woman are still on the hook for eighteen years of child support if she gets pregnant. This has to change, otherwise men will continue to disengage.

…or, we can just keep doing what we are doing and hoping for a different result. Good luck with that.

Truth and Consequences

Henry Cavill is an actor who recently got himself into a spot of bother with a horde of yammering harpies. In an interview with GQ, he said the following:

“Stuff has to change, absolutely,” he adds, addressing men’s behavior. “It’s important to also retain the good things, which were a quality of the past, and get rid of the bad things.

“There’s something wonderful about a man chasing a woman. There’s a traditional approach to that, which is nice. I think a woman should be wooed and chased, but maybe I’m old-fashioned for thinking that.

“It’s very difficult to do that if there are certain rules in place. Because then it’s like: ‘Well, I don’t want to go up and talk to her, because I’m going to be called a rapist or something’. So you’re like, ‘Forget it, I’m going to call an ex-girlfriend instead, and then just go back to a relationship, which never really worked’. But it’s way safer than casting myself into the fires of hell, because I’m someone in the public eye, and if I go and flirt with someone, then who knows what’s going to happen?
“Now? Now you really can’t pursue someone further than, ‘No’. It’s like, ‘OK, cool’. But then there’s the, ‘Oh why’d you give up?’ And it’s like, ‘Well, because I didn’t want to go to jail?’”

Unsurprisingly, the girlies went nuts. Here are a couple of their offerings

It’s not about rape, sweetheart, and you know it. And it is not about men trying to “position themselves as “victims”” either. This is an example of a female trying to move the goalposts by changing the subject.

You wish. His exact words were “wooed and chased”, which clearly shows romantic, rather then terroristic, intentions. Oh, and I’ve seen your picture; you have little to worry about.

Everything he said was 100% true. The irony is that a man talking to a magazine that is ostensibly aimed at other men (GQ, if you didn’t know it, stands for Gentleman’s Quarterly) can cause such ire among a bunch of women. This is not about rape or sexual harassment, it is about perceptions, accusations, trial-by-media and witch-hunts. We now live in an age where a man’s life can be ruined over one accusation without any proof; Google “Brian Banks” if you don’t believe me.

For men in the twenty-first century, the ground is shifting under their feet. First it was rape; a serious crime that is committed by about 5% of men, but for which the other 95% are somehow guilty by association and are therefore responsible for policing and fixing.

Then it was Sexual Assault, which, while also a crime, is often far less serious; touching a woman inappropriately — and the term is often loosely defined — is most often solved by confronting, either with words or a good old-fashioned slap, and requires jail time only in the most extreme cases.

Having made men aware that inappropriate touching is bad, they them moved on to the next target; Sexual Harassment. Once upon a time, powerful men hired pretty young secretaries to look pretty, fondle, and occasionally sleep with. If truth be told, many of today’s powerful men probably miss those days, but they are gone. And I suspect that at least a few pretty young girls are probably upset that the powerful big-shots in the corner offices are forever beyond their reach, thanks to the advent of the Pence Rule, an entirely rational reaction to the specter of Sexual Harassment.

Almost all employers are now bending over backwards to make sure that we are aware of (i.e., they can’t be sued over) sexual harassment. Which will kill any chances of a young woman finding a husband in the workplace, cos all of the high-value guys are either Gay, already taken, or understandably gun-shy.

Cavill’s biggest mistake, in my opinion, was apologizing. To be fair, his apology was actually for the confusion that his remarks may have caused, but to the horde of yammering Social Justice Harpies yapping at his heels, it was a victory and another male scalp to add to their collection. My take on this is to never apologize for being right, Misunderstandings should be cleared up, but not from a position of submission. If I had a say in the matter, I would have advised Mr. Cavill to call a press conference and say the following:

“There are some in the media who would chide me for my use of words. They would say that the word “chase” makes some women feel uncomfortable. However, it should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that the word was used correctly in context. Most men understand that #MeToo is in danger of morphing from a genuine grievance, to something that looks a lot like trial-by-media and punishment without due process. If you are one of those who is that easily offended by a misunderstanding, you just made my point for me. Thank you.”

Ladies, changing society to make you feel more comfortable is all well and good, but don’t think for a minute that such change comes without consequences. And one of those consequences is that in the age of #MeToo, the only men who can effortlessly approach women are men who have nothing to lose.

Good luck to you