Can we try to "Make America Good Again"?

Far be it from me to lay claim to any special abilities to see into or predict the future. It's not like it was difficult to anticipate events of the past week (or indeed, all of the vitriol and atrocities spoken and committed by Trump supporters over the past 2 years).  Anyone with a pulse and two functioning brain cells could have foreseen this 36 months ago at the start of the campaign season, could have offered guarantees of the outcome if they'd only been paying attention and applied the smallest inkling of critical thought to the last presidential election. What we've seen in the last week, is the culmination of all that #DonTheCon campaigned for--to make anger, ignorance, and lies in defense of stupid white men the law of the land. Yep, that was the entire platform.

#MAGA "Morons are Governing America."

As I said, I can't claim to have any special skill in prognostication, but I did write about this way back in June 2018 HERE, about how our current #NotMyPresident "leader" and the GOP are creating homegrown terrorists. And HERE writing about the beginning of the end of the US as a beacon of freedom.

I just didn't go far enough in shouting out a warning about what was coming. Perhaps I was in denial--we'd never let the racism, hatred, bigotry, and discrimination get so bad in this country that we'd ever again see two black people hunted down and killed, as they'd been back in the civil rights era, would we? No! We'd never sit idly by while some maniac wound up his sycophants to such rabid heights that they'd attempt to murder political opponents. Of course not! Not in the USA. That sort of nonsense happens in third world countries, banana republicans, and Russia, but never here. And certainly, as the champions of freedom around the world, the country that charged in and liberated the concentration camps, freeing the Jews, gays, political dissidents, academics, and all the other thinking people that Hitler had to suppress and murder so he could continue to spread his evil and lies, we would NEVER allow persecution like that in our country; never allow attacks on and the murder of Jews in Synagogue. Not here.

Until now. Until the past 3 years---starting with people accepting this insane man as a viable candidate to the highest office in the land. Our slide down this slippery slope into the hell our country began with people making excuses. "Give him a chance." Despite there being zero evidence that he deserved a chance as he belligerently railed against and made fun of liberals, the media, the disabled, women and anyone and everyone not an old, white, conservative male. Those still holding out any defense of him by the time the election rolled around were delusional. There was no other possible reason to continue supporting him after the vile campaign he ran. My favorite delusion comes from the "christian" Right (aka fascists): "I don't like the man he is, but I like his policies." WHAT?!? His policies are every.single.thing.Christ.Opposed. So, if that's your reason for supporting him, congratulations. You failed Sunday School. You failed Christianity 101. You failed at being a good human being. Stop deluding yourself. God knows you aren't fooling her or anyone else.

But some still did, and when he won, they offered, "The office will change him, he'll rise to the dignity of the position." Within days, he shouted down reporters doing their jobs, urged his crazy followers to attack those reporters (and indeed, anyone who questioned his propaganda), and blathered on about "fake news" each of the many times he was caught in a lie. By November 15, it was clear to everyone (again, everyone with the capacity for thought) that no, he isn't going to rise to the expectations of the office. He's lowering the bar for our country and the position to the least common denominator--his supporters.

As if "Pizza Gate" wasn't ridiculous and pitiable enough for every single person in the world to see what a lunatic was in that office. Didn't we all laugh and say, "no one could possibly be stupid enough to believe that!" But his followers did. One even charged in, single-handedly, rifle at the ready, to save the day. What sane person could believe such a preposterous and obvious fiction, much less act on it?

Words to live by.

And yet, here we are. It's difficult to fathom how far we've sunk so quickly. Did the majority of the German citizenry feel like this in 1933? Had they spent the previous few years thinking "He'll change," or "Someone will do something about this"? Did they feel terror when they knew Hitler's  claim that communists were behind the explosion at the Reichstag was false? That it was just a means to an end, allowing him to easily manipulate a willing legislature--through fear and promises of "greatness again"--into turn over power to him and the Nazi party? Did they feel a terror similar to what so many of us here and now feel when similar claims--"it was the liberals," "it's the democrats"--echo from the mouths of lunatics like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and anyone at Fox News? They spew their blatant lies, misinformation, and innuendo, casting blame and aspersions on those of us who are mortified by these events, those who are targeted by the GOP's new brand of "nationalist" nuts, decrying as victims the criminals behind these attacks.

Let me state this in no uncertain terms: every single one of these acts was perpetrated by a Trump supporter, by "nationalists" like Trump proudly proclaimed himself to be just a week ago. That's what the EVIDENCE and FACTS--and even the words of the perpetrators themselves show. Yet, there are those who will still believe the conspiracy theories spewed by the propaganda machine that the White House has become because it feeds their anger and justifies their violence and hatred of their fellow human beings.

Will we, the people, act in time--in mere DAYS--to save our country from them?

I certainly hope so.

Until then...as I've asked in astonishment many times before: How can anyone still support or defend this immoral, lying narcissistic lunatic? While each time I've asked in the past, I've been amazed and disgusted to hear people still suggesting he and his supporters deserve the benefit of the doubt, this time, there is no doubt. If you still support this man, this party, and this direction for our country, you are not a good person. You are an evil, mean, despicable person with a black heart and soul. You can no longer hide behind the shield of "voting for my beliefs." Your beliefs are clear and what you believe in is being a spiteful, violent bigot. Your vote shows what you believe, and it's ugly. It's shameful.

I will never again underestimate the depths of ignorance and hatred rampant in this country.

Perhaps in the upcoming midterm election and in the next presidential election, we should elect a leader who wants to "Make America Think Again." I'd even he happy with someone who wants to make America GOOD. It would be lovely if we could live the way we perceive ourselves to be, as we break our own arms patting ourselves on the backs for being "God-fearing" and a "Christian" nation. How about we get back to just not going out of our way to hurt anyone and every who doesn't look like us? How about we at least stop proudly striving to be idiots?

Rampant Gullibility: Ah, so that's how it happened

A common reaction from students learning about the Holocaust 40, 50, 60+ years after the fact is, "How could the world have let that happen?" or "How could the German people let that happen?" The latter comes after reading about all the German people who claimed not to have known what was going on in the concentration camps, even while soot, thick with the incompletely incinerated remains of humans burned in the crematoriums, fell on their homes and in their yards. We are repulsed by what that country did to the world---and yes, we blame the entire country. "How could they not know?" "How could they let it happen?" "How could someone who was so clearly demented come to power?"

By promising to make Germany great again.

By promising to fix the economy.

By placing the blame for all the woes of the "Aryan race" on "others"--anyone with dark hair, dark eyes, swarthy complexions...

anyone different: homosexuals, foreigners...

anyone who could recognize and call out the lies: intellectuals, scientists, journalists...

Anyone not gullible enough to believe Josef Goebbels propaganda machine, the fake news spewed out with little regard to even a passing acquaintance with credibility.

Those were the enemies of the state who were to blame for all of German society's ills and against whom Hitler and the Nazi party directed all the animosity, hate, and revenge of the small-minded, ignorant, and gullible. Those like them.

Trump. Bannon. Flynn. Pizzagate.

The ignorant and hateful, led by the ignorant and hateful, spewing lies by and to the ignorant and hateful. The reality is already playing out. When members of Trump's team blatantly post fake news, when his minister of propaganda runs a "media" outlet that's not only known for, but proud of, how well it can get gullible people to believe its fake news, when followers read not only fake, but so ridiculously-over-the-top-that-only-a-complete-moron-could-believe-it news, when an ignorant and gullible Trump-supporter will drive hundreds of miles to shoot up a pizza parlor and "free the children held captive in the basement" because of that news, there can no longer be any doubt about what you--Trump voters--have wrought on this country.

I am repulsed by those who voted for Trump, and even more so by those who continue to support him. If you voted for this deplorable man, you are deplorable. There is no rational reason for it--the economy has steadily been improving,slowly but surely, since the devastation of the Bush administration, so it can't be the economy. It can't be in support of his policies: there were no policies, there were no remedies proposed in his campaign, only blame and lies.

Some initially wanted to be patient, give him and his ilk the benefit of the doubt (because 2 years of campaigning wasn't enough to see the real man? How stupid and slow are you?) But now we're seeing more and more that what he spewed for those two years does show the man he is, and he proclaims it loudly and proudly with ever appointment to his transition team, with every Tweet, and with every refusal to disavow the clear and obvious fake news spread by those with whom he surrounds himself. Hell, who he surrounds himself with is more than enough evidence of what a misanthropic, manipulative, mean-spirited man he is.

If you're still waiting to see, to give this deplorable excuse for a human being a "chance," I wonder how you'll respond in 10, 20, 30+ years when people ask, "How could the US have let that happen?" and "How could they not know?" "How could they not have stopped it?"

Future generations will judge us. They will judge you. They will ask how you could be so ignorant and gullible. And like millions of people judging the Germans after World War II, who don't separate out the German people from the Nazi party, or those who didn't vote for Hitler from those who did (yes, he was elected to office), they won't separate out those who committed atrocities from those who claim to have opposed them but did nothing to stop them, or those who will claim ignorance.

We will all be judged, and we will all be blamed for the atrocities that have already started.

How far will we let this go? I'd like to think we'll be smarter, braver, stronger than the Germans who opposed Hitler were, but so far, all evidence is to the contrary. So far, this country is exhibiting the same rampant gullibility the Germans did when Hitler came to power, with no sign in sight that we have the ethical or intellectual will to stop it. No sign we'll stand up for what is right, good, and decent.

We should all be very ashamed of our country. More so with each passing day and each new assault to democracy and truth that the incoming administration heaps on us. Instead, we're taking the easy, lazy way out, saying "this to shall pass." That might be true, but maybe we should ask Germany about what can happen between now and the time the evil passes.

THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY OF SECESSION, or Why We Should Let Them Go

Can you believe those damn bleeding heart liberal democrats—communists, socialists, and welfare recipients, the lot of them--won so big in this election? Always taking all our money, taxing us unfairly, then spending our hard-earned dollars on lazy, no-good welfare recipients! It's outrageous.

Are any of these recipients of our good-will and tax money appreciative? Hell no. And I for one don't want my tax dollars going to someone who is too lazy to earn their own money. Do you want to know what's wrong with our country? All you have to do is a little bit of math.

Just look at these numbers: In 2005 (most recent numbers available), out of the total taxes paid to the federal government, for each $1.00 we pay, only $0.91 comes back to us in our home states or territories. Those other $0.09? Gone: off to Washington, DC or to overseas military bases, or, sometimes, to help some foreign country that couldn't help itself, that expects us to bail them out.

Some people have decided that it's better to keep their tax dollars right at home, in their own states, and use the money to benefit themselves. "We don't need no stinkin' federal government taxing us then redistributing our wealth! SECEDE, I say! SECEDE!"

The secessionists don't want their hard-earned money going to some place that hasn't paid their fair share into the system. That's the equivalent of welfare and good, small-government, capitalist Republicans don't abide by that.

Well, I'm all for those states doing the fiscally responsible thing and seceding from the Union. Their secession can benefit quite a few states, especially those who receive back less than they pay into the system.

Is it fair that those poor residents of New York only receive back $0.24 of every dollar they pay to Uncle Sam while South Carolinians get back $1.31 for every $1.00 they pay? Is it fair that the red states, those who voted Republican, get back, on average, $1.38 for every $1 they pay—a 'welfare benefit' of $0.38 per dollar—paid for the most part by blue states? Is it fair that for every tax dollar those damn Yankee, liberal, democrat states in the northeast pay, the southeastern states, those that want the Federal government to stay out of their business, receive an average of $1.69, while the Yankees only get back an average of $0.74?

http://capitolfax.com/2010/04/12/todays-maps-for-thought/ 

This map shows how states fare on their tax dollars. Those in red receive more than a dollar back for every tax dollar they send the federal government. Those in blue receive less than a dollar. Funny how the states most opposed to taxes and big government, those who vote "red" (GOP) are the ones benefitting the most from the "socialist" redistribution of wealth, isn't it?

Hell no, it's not fair!  If the recipients of federal government largess don't appreciate it, continue to deprecate our great country and the duly and fairly elected President, if they don’t like our generosity, screw them. Let's let them secede!

There are a number of states that agree that they should be allowed to secede (mostly ones with poor public education so their citizens are bad at math.) These states are sick of the "socialism" and want to secede from the Union.

Fifteen states have filed petitions to secede since the election last week. With few exceptions, I think we should not only allow them to secede, but thank them for doing so! Fiscally, letting these states go would be the responsible thing to do. It will be to the country's financial benefit. How?

Those states that stay in the Union and grant secession to the petitioners will get to keep their hard earned dollars. Right now, the reason most true-blue states get back less from their tax dollars than they pay into the system is because it's being redistributed to the very states that want to secede (see what I mean about them being bad at math?) Cut loose the states that want to secede, and the remaining states get a windfall profit.

We can only hope the petitioners to secede don't actually ever learn their numbers and renege on their effort to leave the country and go it alone. If they do, Louisiana will figure out that they'll lose the extra $0.78 they get back for each dollar paid in taxes (they get $1.78 back to their state for every $1.00 they pay in Federal taxes)—money that those  bleeding heart liberals in the blue, northeast states will be able to keep! True, Louisiana might struggle a bit as an independent country, but let's five them a well-deserve a round of applause for wanting to practice what they preach. Given their history of cronyism and backroom politics, I'd expect they'd become a third-world country in very short order.

Alabamans, who now get back $1.66 for every $1 paid, will have to do some belt-tightening, but it works out well for the states that are currently supporting them. Kentuckians can kiss good-bye their $1.51 for every $1.00 paid in Federal taxes, freeing up those 51¢ for the states who are now bearing the burden of Kentucky's vehement opposition to welfare and socialism. North Dakota (gets back $1.68 for every $1.00 paid) and Montana ($1.47/$1.00) also complain about socialism and welfare and would like to secede, thereby saving the states that remain in the Union a big chunk of money once they no longer have to support those welfare-recipient states.

Letting Mississippi go is the real money-maker and budget-balancer for the rest of the country: for every $1.00 they pay in taxes, they get $2.02 back! Considering they're almost always dead last in education and healthcare rankings, it makes you wonder what their state government is doing with that money, doesn't it? But hey, "states' rights"--you go, Mississippi.

North Carolina will lose out on their net gain of $.08 per dollar paid ($1.08 back), Indiana will lose 5¢ that they get  back in addition to each $1.00 they pay, and Georgia will lose out on the $1.01 back per dollar paid in federal taxes--not too bad of a drain on Federal tax-payers, but welfare nonetheless, and every penny returned to the coffers of the states whose generosity is so little appreciated is a good thing. So, to these states, I say, "B-bye!"

Florida and Texas might be about okay, once they raise taxes. They get back $0.97 and 0.94 for every dollar they pay, respectively. Maybe they'll continue to help out some of their southern secessionist neighbors? No. Probably not. They don't believe in "socialism."

I just have to wonder, though: If these states are so hell-bent on living according to their principals, of opposing big government assistance and social-welfare programs, why do they accept the welfare from the rest of the country to begin with? Why don't they just give back the money that isn't rightfully theirs?

 

FOR MORE INFO:

To see which states are the biggest drain on our taxes, and which are carrying the greatest share of the load, go to:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005

http://capitolfax.com/2010/04/12/todays-maps-for-thought/ 

Where are you now, Mary Richards? or Sitcoms, Role Models, and the Election

I voted today. We'll be returning from a visit to DC on the 6th and didn't want to risk getting in after the polls closed. Prior to voting, I spent a lot of time looking over the candidates websites and voting records. The effort got me reminiscing about television sitcoms that helped my generation define ourselves. Yes, the subjects of sitcoms and the election are related. How? I'm glad you asked.

I'm at the tail end of the baby-boom generation, so I wasn't among those women who broke down walls. I reaped the benefits of their fight for equality and them demonstrating that women were equally competent (if not more) than men in the workplace. By the time I hit my teens, girls knew we could be anything we wanted to be. Women were in the military, and the first female cadets had entered the military academies. Women were running businesses, representing us in Congress, and challenging (and beating) men in sports (shout out to Billy Jean King!)

At that same time, sitcoms moved women from the kitchen (in a dress wearing heels and pearls, a la June Cleaver) to the newsroom with Mary Richards in the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Sure, Mary had been Rob Petry's wife on the Dick Van Dyke show in the 60s, but by the 70s, she'd moved on to the "big city" (Minneapolis) to "make it on her own." She was a single woman in her 30s with a career.She wasn't widowed or divorced or seeking a man to support her.

Mary Richards was what the women before me had worked so hard for, and had achieved. She was part of my generation's world view: women go to college, have careers, move away from home to pursue their own interests. They meet life on their terms and conquer the world without a man. Once a woman is a whole person in her own right, well, then, if she meets the right person, she can have a relationship, spouse, and family too. But it isn't a prerequisite of happiness.

We also had Maude, Edith Bunker's outspoken, middle-aged, politically liberal cousin to show us what women are capable of. Even our 1950s girls, Laverne and Shirley, were independent, sharing an apartment, working in Schottz's brewery, and always scheming ways to get rich.

In the 80s, we had Murphy Brown, a sharp-witted, sarcastic investigative journalist who was also a recovering alcoholic. Candace Bergen's Murphy Brown gave us an older, more world-wise and world-weary role model than the ever-perky Mary Richards. She was a 40-something woman who had made it in a man's world. She showed us that it could be done. The show's political satire maybe cut too close to home for some, and when Murphy decided to become a single-mom after becoming pregnant by her ex-husband, Dan Quayle decried the country's falling morals all because of Murphy's choice to raise a child alone. Sadly, Republican's are still blaming single moms for the country's problems. 

I don't know what happened while I was off pursuing my own education and career, but when I finally had a few minutes to watch TV, I found women's role models had devolved. Instead of women struggling with work-homelife balance, fighting for equal opportunities, or continuing the fight for equal pay, and instead of strong women determined to live life on their own terms first, we had Ally McBeal, a twenty-something, airhead who could NEVER have passed a bar exam anywhere, ever. Somehow she became a lawyer who obsessively fantasized about meeting Prince Charming and having a baby. Her strategy to accomplish that? Wear the shortest skirts she could get away with on prime time television and act ditzy. 

The de-evolution didn't stop there and we can only hope that we're at the very bottom of this sad trajectory for women in television. Now we have reality TV where women fight to find a husband in 10-easy episodes on The Bachelor, where Snooki struts her illiterate brand of stupidity and slutiness on the Jersey Shore, and where Teen Moms get their own show. We're back to being objectified and shown as mere "arm-candy" and gold-diggers. These women's and girl's lives are defined by having a man, not by having a brain or an identity or even a personality. They don't want to accomplish anything by themselves or for themselves. They're just there to please a man; any man will do.

With shows like this, is it any wonder that teens and women in their 20s and 30s don't have a clue why women of my age and older are so upset with the current political climate? All those hard-won gains at becoming people, rather than just some man's posession, are trickling away. That trickle will become a torrent if the GOP wins the presidency or control of either the House or Senate in the upcoming election.

"Feminist" isn't a dirty word and it isn't a euphemism for lesbian. The Feminist movement is the reason young women today can go to a bar with their friends and not be branded sluts (but stick with the GOP and you'll lose that right, just ask Rush Limbaugh). The Women's Right's movement is the reason we can be more than just secretaries--we can be scientists, engineers, business owners,astronauts, congresswomen, or even President because women who are 10, 15, 20 years older-than me--and more, back to the suffragettes of the early 1900s--fought for us to have those abilities.

We're in danger of losing so many rights, and much more. We're in danger of losing self-respect, self-determination, dignity, and the right to say NO. Sitcoms may appear to be a bit of fluff given the serious problems our country faces. But right now, they seem to be a harbinger that we're heading in a very wrong, very dangerous direction. Imagine a world where Snooki is considered a woman's role model. Imagine a world...one that we could have in just a few weeks....where you can't say NO; where rape is "just another form of conception (1)" and it must be "God's will (2)," and if it's "legitimate rape" (3) (I guess that's the kind these men thing some women "deserve" or "ask for"because "some girls rape easily. (4)" [Just an aside to fathers and mothers who might be ill-advisedly considering voting Republican this year, notice, they don't even stop at adults, this moron from Wisconsin is talking about raping girls. Does he have experience with that? Sure sounds like it. Do you really want who condones raping girls because it's easy representing you in Congress?!?]

This election is hugely important for all women, and for our daughters, granddaughters, and nieces The voting booth booth is the one place where even those women who have been dominated, subjugated, bullied, belittled, or just made to feel less-than-equal by men in their lives can exert their equality and their independence. (I know it happens 'cause I've been there--supporting his side to win favor. It doesn't help, just makes him push for more!) Don't be intimidated or threatened. Don't let this election be the one future generations of females look at and say, "that's when we became less than human."

Go watch a few episodes of Mary Tyler Moore, Murphy Brown, Maude, or even Laverne and Shirley, and then go vote. VOTE to keep our ability to choose our own lives, whether that is as a housewife, a mother, a career woman, or all of these. Our lives should be our choice, not something predetermined by men. VOTE!

(1) Paul Ryan, GOP vice-presidential candidate, August 24, 2012
(2) Richard Mourdock, Indiana Tea Party senate candidate, October 24, 2012
(3) Todd Akin, Republican congressman and current senate candidate from Missouri, August 19, 2012
(4) Roger Rivard, Wisconsin GOP state senator, October 10, 2012

 

  

 

 

Good Dads --- Bad Dads

John Grisham's 1989 novel A Time to Kill is the story of a man whose 10-year old daughter is brutally raped. Let's be clear here: All rape is brutal, that's why it's classified as a violent crime. It is NOT an act of passion, or lust, or love. It is an act of violence intended to dominate a victim, exert power over the victim, and suppress the victim through force. In the novel, the young girl's father, Carl Lee Hailey, kills the two rapists.

 

Most sane people, and certainly any good parents' response to that, was "good for him. I'd do that same."

He was a good dad. 

 

Indeed, in the story, that is just about everyone's response, including the deputy who was accidentally shot and lost a leg in the incident. Carl Lee Hailey was the champion of those who couldn't defend themselves against those with more power. Readers all cheered for him. THIS is what a good father does to protect his child, to ensure she doesn't have to live in a world where the monsters who did this to her run free, and where she would have to live in fear of seeing them over and over again.

Grisham got the idea for the story from a similar true-life event where the father didn't get such justice. He asked himself, "what would happen if the girl's father killed her assailants?" Last year, life imitated art when a Texas man beat to death the attacker of his 5-year old daughter. He was acquitted. There is a law on the books in Texas that allows use of deadly force when defending a victim against sexual assault.

Across the country the primary public reaction was that the incident, while unfortunate, was not murder but rather a justified defense of an underaged crime victim:

 

He was a good dad.

It goes without say that fathers want to protect their daughters, not only from rapists, but from horny teenage boys and the girl's own libido when they reach adolescence. Wait, let me clarify: that's what GOOD fathers want to do.

I can't fathom, anywhere, by any stretch of my considerable imagination, a good father wanting to embrace his daughter's (or wife's or mother's) attacker. I can't imagine what kind of father, husband, son would consider rape acceptable. And yet, there is an entire political party that has the support of about half the American people, who, through their words and deeds, have shown they support not the women in their lives, but the use of force and violence against them!

The Republican Party platform calls for a constitutional amendment that will make abortions illegal. (GOP Party Platform) - it does not make any exceptions or exemptions for cases of rape or incest.

Thirty-one states have laws protecting the rapist's right to visitation and even custody.

 

What message is being sent by proposing or showing support for the following statements? Let's look at the subtext and see.

When a husband or father says:

“... I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that, the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life” (Paul Ryan, August 2012) i.e., rape is just another form of conception, what he's telling his wife is, "If you are raped, that's exactly the same thing as you and I having consensual sex for the sake of reproduction. No problem." And, in the 31 states that allow the rapist visitation, that husband, father, son is further saying, "...and I'll invite your attacker into our home, sit down and have a beer with him, share this child with him, maybe even pat him on the back and give him an "attaboy" for conceiving a child."

A good husband, a good dad, doesn't do that. That's a bad dad.

When a son, husband, father says, "If a rape is inevitable, the woman should just lie back and enjoy it" (Clayton Williams, a candidate for governor of Texas running against Ann Richards made this statement), they are telling their mother, "It's okay for a man to force himself on you, you might as well have a good time with that...he is."

 

A good son, a good dad, doesn't do that. That's a bad dad.

 

When a man makes the ignorant and erroneous statement that "a woman's body is capable of preventing pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."" Rep-Todd Akin (R-Mo.) what he is telling your sons is that "it's okay to rape a woman. You won't get them pregnant, but if you do, it's a blessing because that's just another form of conception, and you'll get visitation rights to boot!"

 

A good son, a good brother, a good husband, a good dad, doesn't do that. That's a bad dad.

(While many on the right would never let something as simple as facts, figures, or scientific evidence get in the way of their beliefs, let me just interject here that "approximately 25,000 women become pregnant through rape each year." - Georgetown Law Review, 2009)

 

If a woman, whether she is someone's daughter, wife, mother, or sister, has a violent act committed against her, she will have to live with that for the rest of her life. So will the men in her life. Women are far stronger and more resilient than men. She may be strong enough to love that child unconditionally, but the facts show us that few men are (most acts of child abuse are committed by non-parental males living in a household with children.) All evidence indicates that nonparental males have a hard time accepting the child of another man (numerous studies, including one by the conservative Center for Marriage and Families of the Institute for American Values--the right's own think tank--shows that unrelated males in caretaker roles post a particular threat to children).

If a woman wants to and can have  and raise a child resulting from a rape, it should be her CHOICE. and only hers. The choice should not be removed, and she should not be mandated to have a child, to extend the trauma of that experience for 9 months or a lifetime if she doesn't feel she can do that and maintain her own health. She should be the one choosing if she can and will have that child, give it up for adoption or keep it, or abort it.
 

Please don't argue the "pro-life" position. Those who cheered for the Texas man when he beat his daughter's attacker to death, those who oppose stricter gun regulation, those who oppose welfare, health insurance, and education, and those who support rape as just another means of conception have loudly and clearly demonstrated that they are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. They are pro-sex, pro-conception and pro-gestation, but ANTI-child, and ANTI-LIFE.

 

These words and actions speak far louder than all their rhetoric about "pro-life." These words and actions support violence against women and male dominance over the women in their lives. They are actions that reward rapists, that reward incest, and that reward misogynists.

 

These are the actions, laws, policies, and positions of BAD DADS.

 

What these acts harken to is not the heroics of a father protecting his daughter as in A Time to Kill, but to the roles of males and females shown by Jean Auel in Clan of the Cave Bear, where neanderthal males were able to, and expected to freely rape women as a sign of their dominance over them. Ayla, the Cro Magnon female (those were the first line of modern humans, Homo sapiens), is raped by the neanderthal Broud as an act to show his dominance because he is threatened by Ayla's skill and ability, and because he could; that was the accepted and expected practice. She bore and raised and loved the child conceived of that violent act, but it was her choice. Even the neanderthal women knew which herbs to take to end an unwanted pregnancy.  

 

I hope all the very many good dads that are out there will support their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters in the November elections and get rid of the monsters who endorse harm to women. Step up GOOD DADS!