Why? Because the intruder he shot was a cop attempting to, are you ready for this, SERVE A SEARCH WARRANT.
Let's summarize: there are good cops, great cops, below average cops and morons. File this under morons. The cop serving the warrant was an 18 year veteran. Someone please tell me how it makes practical sense to BREAK IN - yes, that's what they were doing, to deliver a search warrant?
The police did not knock on the door. Did not scream "POLICE, OPEN UP!" Nothing. Instead, in the early morning, when people are disoriented from sleep, they go in through a window? That's called breaking and entering. Its a crime. Its illegal. A search warrant does not give the police the right to break in. They must, BY LAW, give a copy of the search warrant to the resident notifying them of their rights as well as proving - via the warrant - that A MAGISTRATE has seen fit to issue a warrant giving the police the right to enter your home against your objection. This is always done calmly and deliberately because you are ENTERING SOMEONE'S RESIDENCE. GET IT? ITS NOT THE COP'S HOUSE. They can't just bust in the door and start screaming at people, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The only time a no-knock "raid" is considered justified is when there is a house of KNOWN felons who are KNOWN to carry weapons and even then the cops are on thin legal ice.
Now, the police have the right to defend themselves, so they often serve search warrants armed, with multiple cops, and, IF CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT, a S.W.A.T team; so again, if a house of 15 men known to carry arms is to be searched, SWAT would most likely come along to serve the warrant, its only prudent.
THE HOUSE IN THIS CASE HELD JUST ONE MAN. ONE. MAN. This did not require the police SWAT team - and their automatic rifles - at all. AT. ALL. They could've simply served the warrant DURING THE GODDAMN DAY! Hello? Are they morons? Why serve a warrant at 5:30 a.m.?!?!? I would be scared shitless if someone knocked on the door at that hour NEVERMIND came in through a bloody WINDOW! You go in someone's window, at night, Hell, even if you know them, be prepared to be assaulted. You will scare and startle someone and that can only instill them with fear, which leads to defense of their bodily person, something the U.S. CONSTITUTION PROMISES IS THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. PERIOD. THE END.
The cops BROKE IN to a SINGLE man's home, carrying guns, and they were shot at. GEE, NO KIDDING! WTF is so wrong with knocking on the door? And to top it off, THERE WERE NO DRUGS IN THE RESIDENCE! So they received a FALSE TIP that the man possessed drugs (not a really scary crime, if you ask me; unless he's got 50 kilos of cocaine or something, why would he be considered dangerous? Someone with a few grams of a banned substance is planning to use it themselves in all likelihood - what the Hell about that requires a SWAT team?), and then broke into the home and discovered no drugs were there. Uhhhhh, that equates to THE POLICE FUCKED UP, and since they broke into the home without serving the warrant FIRST, they have broken the law and should be sent to jail - YES, JAIL - no one, NO ONE, is above the law, NOT EVER. If the police get cut a little slack because of the difficulty of exercising caution, yet being exposed to attack, I'll understand, but this is something else entirely.
And what do we see? We see a court system that is MARRIED TO THE POLICE. The judges, prosecutors and police ARE ALL THE SAME THING. No prosecutor is charging the police with a crime, no judge is (yet) throwing out the charge against the man whose home was broken into! This case SHOULDN'T EVEN MAKE IT TO TRIAL. There is a clear justification of a man defending his person and home, AND THAT'S THAT! If the police don't want to get shot at, they should not BREAK AND ENTER A HOME without a warrant to BREAK AND ENTER (there is no such thing) - they have a SEARCH warrant, which they FAILED TO SERVE, so they are simply intruders after that. The resident of the home can't see or hear that THE POLICE ARE BREAKING IN THROUGH A WINDOW! And why would he think the police were breaking in, after all, that's illegal!!!!
That the police would even ATTEMPT to break-in to such a non-threatening home with one man in it, IS ITSELF WILDLY CONCERNING! There is NO CAUSE for the police to do that, especially in this case! This "bad guy" was one man home alone, asleep, and not in possession of any drugs!!!
Further, the REAL risk here is that people - law obeying citizens, stop cooperating with the police! Regular citizens could, justifiably, become AFRAID of the police and see them as assailants and NOT protectors! WHAT THEN!?!??! Then the police NEVER catch the bad guys because no one will testify as a witness or give a statement about a crime they have information about! So MORE bad guys go lose. Further, and a BIG ISSUE BEING MISSED BY ALL, is that if the police take any old tip from any "informant," without confirming it with their own research and reconnaissance, then THIS BECOMES THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS - like what is happening in Iraq. Have a business competitor you want to get rid of? Have a rival to the girl you want? JUST GIVE THE POLICE A TIP THEY POSSESS DRUGS! The police kick in the door to "serve a warrant" and a shootout takes place with the "accused perpetrator" (who is innocent) either shot, or accused of attempted murder/murder of a police officer!
This is not new. It is WELL known that members or family members of drug gangs tip off the police to hit rival gangs who possess narcotics or weapons, illegally. Its just a method to get rid of your competition.
Well, at this point, EVERYONE IS BEING TREATED LIKE A VIOLENT FELON/GANG MEMBER, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL PAST RECORD!
Scary times.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Monday, September 15, 2014
How Bad (and False) is the "MAN IS BIG, EVIL MONSTER, WOMAN IS SMALL, HELPLESS CHILD" Narrative?
From the ultra-feminist The Guardian, a British rag that claims to be progressive and enlightened but usually just pushes the stereotypical crap about ALL men being monsters and perpetrators, comes this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/kelly-brook-punching-two-men-jason-statham-danny-cipriani-male-victims-violence?CMP=fb_gu
This article is just FULL of examples of the false modern-media narrative about domestic violence. It highlights one especially vulgar example, Kelly Brook, who struck not one, but two ex-boyfriends, then laughed about it in an interview (imagine a man doing that? He'd castrated as a "savage woman beater" on the front page news the very next day) and declared no biggie, she'll just keep moving on - yet another fine example of an emotionally damaged female pretending to act blaze and powerful about her relationships, when bouncing from alpha male to alpha male has clearly and irrevocably shaken her faith in herself as a woman able to retain a man as well as her ability to trust a man not to hurt her. Her pain translated to such rage, she struck two men - both of whom could've retaliated, but who instead ran away and failed to report the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE they suffered.
The only disappointment about the article is, of course, the comments section, which if full of "I am a big strong man so when old girlfriends hit me, it was ok, and not really abuse [sic]." Masterful job of missing the article's point, oh educated public. Violence is violence, regardless of gender. And when one partner hits another, bad things happen, including retaliation, sooner or later, and in some cases, justifiably so.
The bright spot in the comments come from the men who were beaten and scratched my female partners and called the police only to be ARRESTED THEMSELVES. You can't make this stuff up; throwing a big fat spotlight on what is a total farce of a DV policy. The DV policy in the western world is any-accused-of-DV-man-is-a-free-lunch for police to pad their arrest numbers, for lawyers to get a paying client, for more criminal cases to justify more judges, more state control of the family, more state employees, more tax dollars, more DV revenue, etc. etc. etc..
People who are part of this for-profit system will tell you from their own mouths they see injustice committed every. single. day. and are helpless to stop it or interfere with it for fear of being castigated a "misogynist, a woman-hater," [or conversely a man-lover? a modern-day "nigger-lover?!?!"]. Every society has its made-up villains. In the early 1900s the myth was the ravenous, violent negro who was going to rape the white women, and murder and plunder. Then came the managed ghettos in housing projects, the absurd drug laws making possession of mere grams of banned substances a 10 year prison sentence - a victimless crime with a mandatory minimum of 10 years?!?! These policies incarcerated 10% of the total African American male population - absolutely absurd figures. And today its the myth of the raping, violent, monstrous young alpha male, ignoring women's feelings, beating them and raping them at will with no consequence.
Ask anyone off the street what the raging epidemic of our times are, crime-wise, and they'll croon Domestic Violence - the men are abusing women. Ask ANY politician, esp. any Democrat, and they'll SCREAM DV, knowing that it resonates with their female voters and disillusioned, self-hating male voters, hoping it'll buy them a reelection, yet knowing damn well that no amount of laws will prevent dysfunctional men and women from engaging in physical conflict, something anyone with rational thought will understand, and something statistically proven by study after study.
But the modern media and its low ratings, the politicians and their ULTRA low ratings, the billion dollar National Organization for Women with NO LEGITIMATE battles left to fight, all have a message and an agenda and they will cram it down your throats no matter how little sense it makes.
We can only hope FACTS and REASON win out in the end. In the meantime, listen to all the lonely young women whine about how men avoid them like the plague....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/kelly-brook-punching-two-men-jason-statham-danny-cipriani-male-victims-violence?CMP=fb_gu
This article is just FULL of examples of the false modern-media narrative about domestic violence. It highlights one especially vulgar example, Kelly Brook, who struck not one, but two ex-boyfriends, then laughed about it in an interview (imagine a man doing that? He'd castrated as a "savage woman beater" on the front page news the very next day) and declared no biggie, she'll just keep moving on - yet another fine example of an emotionally damaged female pretending to act blaze and powerful about her relationships, when bouncing from alpha male to alpha male has clearly and irrevocably shaken her faith in herself as a woman able to retain a man as well as her ability to trust a man not to hurt her. Her pain translated to such rage, she struck two men - both of whom could've retaliated, but who instead ran away and failed to report the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE they suffered.
The only disappointment about the article is, of course, the comments section, which if full of "I am a big strong man so when old girlfriends hit me, it was ok, and not really abuse [sic]." Masterful job of missing the article's point, oh educated public. Violence is violence, regardless of gender. And when one partner hits another, bad things happen, including retaliation, sooner or later, and in some cases, justifiably so.
The bright spot in the comments come from the men who were beaten and scratched my female partners and called the police only to be ARRESTED THEMSELVES. You can't make this stuff up; throwing a big fat spotlight on what is a total farce of a DV policy. The DV policy in the western world is any-accused-of-DV-man-is-a-free-lunch for police to pad their arrest numbers, for lawyers to get a paying client, for more criminal cases to justify more judges, more state control of the family, more state employees, more tax dollars, more DV revenue, etc. etc. etc..
People who are part of this for-profit system will tell you from their own mouths they see injustice committed every. single. day. and are helpless to stop it or interfere with it for fear of being castigated a "misogynist, a woman-hater," [or conversely a man-lover? a modern-day "nigger-lover?!?!"]. Every society has its made-up villains. In the early 1900s the myth was the ravenous, violent negro who was going to rape the white women, and murder and plunder. Then came the managed ghettos in housing projects, the absurd drug laws making possession of mere grams of banned substances a 10 year prison sentence - a victimless crime with a mandatory minimum of 10 years?!?! These policies incarcerated 10% of the total African American male population - absolutely absurd figures. And today its the myth of the raping, violent, monstrous young alpha male, ignoring women's feelings, beating them and raping them at will with no consequence.
Ask anyone off the street what the raging epidemic of our times are, crime-wise, and they'll croon Domestic Violence - the men are abusing women. Ask ANY politician, esp. any Democrat, and they'll SCREAM DV, knowing that it resonates with their female voters and disillusioned, self-hating male voters, hoping it'll buy them a reelection, yet knowing damn well that no amount of laws will prevent dysfunctional men and women from engaging in physical conflict, something anyone with rational thought will understand, and something statistically proven by study after study.
But the modern media and its low ratings, the politicians and their ULTRA low ratings, the billion dollar National Organization for Women with NO LEGITIMATE battles left to fight, all have a message and an agenda and they will cram it down your throats no matter how little sense it makes.
We can only hope FACTS and REASON win out in the end. In the meantime, listen to all the lonely young women whine about how men avoid them like the plague....
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Don't Rape? Thanks for Stopping Me! Ok, when do Don't Murder! Don't Steal! and Don't Commit Arson! come out?
Because all any (disturbed, possibly psychopathic, violent, drug-addled) person needs is a pamphlet to prevent them from raping someone!?!?!
Is this supposed to be funny? Because its logically comical. Rapists don't read pamphlets only days or moments before committing a rape.
I really have no idea what they will do, I'm not one, but from what I understand Rape is NOT about sex, its about POWER and people who are after power don't take advice from random posters begging them not to do something (anything).
Further this poster is wildly offensive. Don't put drugs in women's drinks? What? Is there a rash of that happening? I would submit there is not, but further I would submit that when you go to a loud noisy club full of strangers you ought not to be taking drinks from sketchy looking guys as a general rule; also as a general rule, you should not leave your drink unattended. Never, ever, ever go home with a man from a club. All any DECENT man wants when he buys you a drink is the chance to talk to you and ask for your phone number if he likes you. When the Hell did sex - THAT NIGHT - become involved? What a ridiculous escalation! What is this, the middle of WWII and people are all going to die tomorrow? Come now.
Further, statistics prove this is a joke. 1/3rd of all women on dating web-sites have sex with men they meet online on the very first date. Don't believe me? Look it up.
How sad is that?
Fellas, you don't have to spike anyone's drink. Just post an online profile showing you are a bad ass alpha male and take the girl out to dinner; now granted many of those online people are good matches and "hit it off" on the first date, but ladies, listen up - if you sleep with us on the first date, a little part of us, no matter how small, will lose respect for you and that will never come completely back.
And don't forget, sex means children. Don't give me your bullshit about birth control and family planning. Sex is mother nature's way of making children so EXPECT to get pregnant. Maybe not the first time, maybe not the second, but eventually, you will (and then you will act surprised).
But wow, I'm SO GLAD we're not making any posters that say "Gee, maybe all this sex with people who will not become your spouse is A BAD IDEA in general ESP. for women. Studies have shown when women have more than JUST ONE sex partner before marriage (not unusual) her long time odds of divorce go up MARKEDLY, in some studies as much as 50%.
So if we want to help women (like help them avoid DIVORCE), why not post posters that tell them not to sleep with any man who doesn't want to get married!?!?!?
And oh, sleeping with your future lifelong husband brings your rape risk down to what..... zero?
Let's make sure we don't say things like "DON'T GET DRUNK AND KNOCK ON AN OVER-SEXED ATHLETE'S DOOR AT 2 AM" cuz you know, if that guy let's you in and you start slobbering all over him and turn him on and he starts having intercourse with you IT IS ALL HIS FAULT.
Grow up, already. Give the girls a break. They're half-drunk, half-awake, doped up on anti-depressants, overeducated on feminazi propaganda, following doctrine that fails them, chasing alpha males that use them, and they're sick, tired, lonely, and depressed.
Wake up and get serious about the truth. The girls are trained to be targets because they're told SO MANY LIES. Men are programmed for sex ladies. Demand lots of dates and rings and lifetime promises. Demand it because you're worth it. Demand it and you'll get it. Drink jungle punch at a frat party looking like a slut and start grinding on testosterone-filled young men on the dance floor and your odds for rape will skyrocket. TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR PERSONAL LIFE and NEVER put yourself in a bad, HIGH-RISK situation. Throwing some guy in jail for rape is TOO LATE; you've already been raped - ignore this dumb-ass poster and take every precaution you can to AVOID any and all situations that could get you sexually assaulted.
Is this supposed to be funny? Because its logically comical. Rapists don't read pamphlets only days or moments before committing a rape.
I really have no idea what they will do, I'm not one, but from what I understand Rape is NOT about sex, its about POWER and people who are after power don't take advice from random posters begging them not to do something (anything).
Further this poster is wildly offensive. Don't put drugs in women's drinks? What? Is there a rash of that happening? I would submit there is not, but further I would submit that when you go to a loud noisy club full of strangers you ought not to be taking drinks from sketchy looking guys as a general rule; also as a general rule, you should not leave your drink unattended. Never, ever, ever go home with a man from a club. All any DECENT man wants when he buys you a drink is the chance to talk to you and ask for your phone number if he likes you. When the Hell did sex - THAT NIGHT - become involved? What a ridiculous escalation! What is this, the middle of WWII and people are all going to die tomorrow? Come now.
Further, statistics prove this is a joke. 1/3rd of all women on dating web-sites have sex with men they meet online on the very first date. Don't believe me? Look it up.
How sad is that?
Fellas, you don't have to spike anyone's drink. Just post an online profile showing you are a bad ass alpha male and take the girl out to dinner; now granted many of those online people are good matches and "hit it off" on the first date, but ladies, listen up - if you sleep with us on the first date, a little part of us, no matter how small, will lose respect for you and that will never come completely back.
And don't forget, sex means children. Don't give me your bullshit about birth control and family planning. Sex is mother nature's way of making children so EXPECT to get pregnant. Maybe not the first time, maybe not the second, but eventually, you will (and then you will act surprised).
But wow, I'm SO GLAD we're not making any posters that say "Gee, maybe all this sex with people who will not become your spouse is A BAD IDEA in general ESP. for women. Studies have shown when women have more than JUST ONE sex partner before marriage (not unusual) her long time odds of divorce go up MARKEDLY, in some studies as much as 50%.
So if we want to help women (like help them avoid DIVORCE), why not post posters that tell them not to sleep with any man who doesn't want to get married!?!?!?
And oh, sleeping with your future lifelong husband brings your rape risk down to what..... zero?
Let's make sure we don't say things like "DON'T GET DRUNK AND KNOCK ON AN OVER-SEXED ATHLETE'S DOOR AT 2 AM" cuz you know, if that guy let's you in and you start slobbering all over him and turn him on and he starts having intercourse with you IT IS ALL HIS FAULT.
Grow up, already. Give the girls a break. They're half-drunk, half-awake, doped up on anti-depressants, overeducated on feminazi propaganda, following doctrine that fails them, chasing alpha males that use them, and they're sick, tired, lonely, and depressed.
Wake up and get serious about the truth. The girls are trained to be targets because they're told SO MANY LIES. Men are programmed for sex ladies. Demand lots of dates and rings and lifetime promises. Demand it because you're worth it. Demand it and you'll get it. Drink jungle punch at a frat party looking like a slut and start grinding on testosterone-filled young men on the dance floor and your odds for rape will skyrocket. TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR PERSONAL LIFE and NEVER put yourself in a bad, HIGH-RISK situation. Throwing some guy in jail for rape is TOO LATE; you've already been raped - ignore this dumb-ass poster and take every precaution you can to AVOID any and all situations that could get you sexually assaulted.
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
What's Next, Kicked Out of Life?
Now the video has surfaced of Ray Rice actually hitting his then fiance, something everyone knew he did...
And he has been:
1) Deleted from a video game
2) Fired from his job
3) Suspended by the league, indefinitely (he cannot get a job in his chosen profession, professional football, within the NFL)
Now bear in mind, that he hit someone OFF the field and has not been even CHARGED with a crime (the victim refused to press charges, and in fact married him shortly thereafter).
Also bear in mind that a man hitting a woman - who has not hit him, threatened him with harm, with a weapon, or anything else - is completely reprehensible. Ole' Ray needs to learn to bear hug if he thinks his fiance/wife is moving toward him in a threatening manner (and really she rather was if you see the video).
But the punishment does not fit the crime. It is NOT the place of society, NOT the place of your employer (even if your employer is the NFL), NOT the place of the police, and NOT the place of public opinion to render judgement on you and throw you out of work in lieu of any criminal CONVICTION of any kind.
Ray Rice, at present, is NOT a criminal. He has not been charged or convicted of anything. I wish his [now] wife DID press charges and ensure he was sent to jail, but then she knew she would lose out on all Ray Ray's money. And she wants Ray's money. That's why she married him. I don't suppose she married him to get beat up. Do you? She and Ray obviously have a dysfunctional relationship and both need a counselor, but again, I don't run their lives and neither do you. With Ray being fired and banned from football, wifey lost twice. She was struck, humiliated in public, and now could be headed to being flat broke because her assailant, her husband, is banned from earning a living at his entire profession. This is the woman we are all "helping." Maybe we better stop.
Its not should be no surprise that this woman is now lashing out and defending her husband, claiming society is punishing him far more than is warranted.
Normally, that would be laughable. This time it is not. The punishments that have been brought to bear on Ray Rice have far exceeded the crime. Slap your wife? Has she slapped you? Screamed at her? Her at you? All of those things are considered Domestic Violence. So you have no problem with your neighbor filming any such incident and showing it to your employer who could then fire you from your job and blackball you from YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSION so that you could never work in your chosen field... Right?
Oh but I'm nuts and this isn't a slippery slope..... Really? People have been convinced to let the law (which is already absurd) be surmounted still and punish individuals who are criminally guilty of.... nothing. You are now letting public opinion govern (and possibly destroy) your life...
***UPDATE*** Looks like I'm not the only one with a brain examining this issue....
And he has been:
1) Deleted from a video game
2) Fired from his job
3) Suspended by the league, indefinitely (he cannot get a job in his chosen profession, professional football, within the NFL)
Now bear in mind, that he hit someone OFF the field and has not been even CHARGED with a crime (the victim refused to press charges, and in fact married him shortly thereafter).
Also bear in mind that a man hitting a woman - who has not hit him, threatened him with harm, with a weapon, or anything else - is completely reprehensible. Ole' Ray needs to learn to bear hug if he thinks his fiance/wife is moving toward him in a threatening manner (and really she rather was if you see the video).
But the punishment does not fit the crime. It is NOT the place of society, NOT the place of your employer (even if your employer is the NFL), NOT the place of the police, and NOT the place of public opinion to render judgement on you and throw you out of work in lieu of any criminal CONVICTION of any kind.
Ray Rice, at present, is NOT a criminal. He has not been charged or convicted of anything. I wish his [now] wife DID press charges and ensure he was sent to jail, but then she knew she would lose out on all Ray Ray's money. And she wants Ray's money. That's why she married him. I don't suppose she married him to get beat up. Do you? She and Ray obviously have a dysfunctional relationship and both need a counselor, but again, I don't run their lives and neither do you. With Ray being fired and banned from football, wifey lost twice. She was struck, humiliated in public, and now could be headed to being flat broke because her assailant, her husband, is banned from earning a living at his entire profession. This is the woman we are all "helping." Maybe we better stop.
Its not should be no surprise that this woman is now lashing out and defending her husband, claiming society is punishing him far more than is warranted.
Normally, that would be laughable. This time it is not. The punishments that have been brought to bear on Ray Rice have far exceeded the crime. Slap your wife? Has she slapped you? Screamed at her? Her at you? All of those things are considered Domestic Violence. So you have no problem with your neighbor filming any such incident and showing it to your employer who could then fire you from your job and blackball you from YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSION so that you could never work in your chosen field... Right?
Oh but I'm nuts and this isn't a slippery slope..... Really? People have been convinced to let the law (which is already absurd) be surmounted still and punish individuals who are criminally guilty of.... nothing. You are now letting public opinion govern (and possibly destroy) your life...
***UPDATE*** Looks like I'm not the only one with a brain examining this issue....
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Ray Rice: BOTH SIDES, EPIC FAIL
Everyone's screaming that football player Ray Rice, who allegedly knocked out his fiance, cold, and was caught on camera dragging her from an elevator, ought to receive more than a 2 game suspension.
No, he shouldn't.
He should spend a few years in jail, instead. The actual attack was not recorded. But a simple statement by his now, wife, and a medical examination of her face/jaw, would be plenty. And I can do better than that. Ray is an NFL-class athlete and extremely strong. If he hit her hard enough, he could literally kill her. I don't think you could make attempted murder stick, but assault with a deadly weapon would not be a stretch. A year or two in the cooler would change Ray's vision of acceptable violence.
The league, of course, to satisfy the screaming feminazis, instituted new "domestic violence" punishments. This will be an epic disaster.
Why?
If you have a domestic dispute with your wife or husband, does your job give you 6 weeks off without pay!?!?!? NO! It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR EMPLOYER! And you may very well know that YOU are partially responsible for pushing your husband/wife with the exact language you know would set them off, and you don't want to press charges. Because you don't need the police or your job to straighten you out, YOU NEED SOME DAMN COUNSELING AND SO DOES YOUR SPOUSE. The problem can be addressed without anyone losing their jobs or pay or going to jail.
So again, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE NFL DOING INVOLVED IN AN EMPLOYEE'S PERSONAL LIFE? And hey, NFL, if a woman working for a team kicked their spouse in the shin, screamed at him, and stormed off, would she be suspended without pay for weeks even if no legal charges were filed?
You know she wouldn't. I can even argue if the league chose to take action against her, she - or anyone in her place - could sue them for breach of contract, false suspension, etc.. There is a reason employment contracts do not include behavioral clauses about your marriage. WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR EMPLOYER!?!?!?
Its not the league's job to govern your personal life, or events related to it that happen AWAY FROM WORK.
Now, back to Ray Rice. I suspect (but do not know) his wife was breathing down his neck about something or perhaps even getting a bit physical with him and he snapped - Mrs. Rice (who married him 1 month after the incident), please take note of what not to say. With that said, Ray, you are a grown man, tell your fiance, you are furious and walk her back to her room, go get another room for yourself and cool off. Have a few drinks if you need to, turn on the t.v. and tell your fiance she's being given the night off to think about her words. That makes an impact on most people. Most women I've met would find that pretty jarring. Some people need the night off occasionally. Such is life.
Did the police investigate? Did Mrs. Rice refuse to press charges? If she refused to prosecute, there is not a whole lot the police can do.
And another thing MRS. RICE IS A BIG PART OF THIS PROBLEM. Yeah, you bet she is. She married the man that knocked her out?!?!?! IN GOD'S NAME, WHY!??! Press charges, walk away and start your life over. WTF. So when he hits her again, that's all his fault and everyone will demand his head. But who's the idiot who's staying with the man that beats her!?!? And don't give me this shit about a restraining order. She doesn't need one. SHE IS STAYING WITH HIM. She's is refusing to throw him in jail, refusing to leave him. Its not him stalking her and refusing to let her be. They are both hurting each other over and over again.
This woman needs some help. She's picking bad men and if she doesn't quit, she's going to wind up a lot worse than a few minutes in lights out. Ray? Ray's going to wind up in jail. Sooner or later, that's where he's headed if he doesn't get some help, and no one will be in a hurry to parole him back to a life that doesn't include NFL million$.
The NFL? They're not babysitters. And they have no authority to do the job of an individual or the police. They need to butt the fuck out, not find a way to insert themselves into their employee's private life and grant themselves powers and rights THEY DO NOT POSSESS.
No, he shouldn't.
He should spend a few years in jail, instead. The actual attack was not recorded. But a simple statement by his now, wife, and a medical examination of her face/jaw, would be plenty. And I can do better than that. Ray is an NFL-class athlete and extremely strong. If he hit her hard enough, he could literally kill her. I don't think you could make attempted murder stick, but assault with a deadly weapon would not be a stretch. A year or two in the cooler would change Ray's vision of acceptable violence.
The league, of course, to satisfy the screaming feminazis, instituted new "domestic violence" punishments. This will be an epic disaster.
Why?
If you have a domestic dispute with your wife or husband, does your job give you 6 weeks off without pay!?!?!? NO! It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR EMPLOYER! And you may very well know that YOU are partially responsible for pushing your husband/wife with the exact language you know would set them off, and you don't want to press charges. Because you don't need the police or your job to straighten you out, YOU NEED SOME DAMN COUNSELING AND SO DOES YOUR SPOUSE. The problem can be addressed without anyone losing their jobs or pay or going to jail.
So again, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE NFL DOING INVOLVED IN AN EMPLOYEE'S PERSONAL LIFE? And hey, NFL, if a woman working for a team kicked their spouse in the shin, screamed at him, and stormed off, would she be suspended without pay for weeks even if no legal charges were filed?
You know she wouldn't. I can even argue if the league chose to take action against her, she - or anyone in her place - could sue them for breach of contract, false suspension, etc.. There is a reason employment contracts do not include behavioral clauses about your marriage. WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR EMPLOYER!?!?!?
Its not the league's job to govern your personal life, or events related to it that happen AWAY FROM WORK.
Now, back to Ray Rice. I suspect (but do not know) his wife was breathing down his neck about something or perhaps even getting a bit physical with him and he snapped - Mrs. Rice (who married him 1 month after the incident), please take note of what not to say. With that said, Ray, you are a grown man, tell your fiance, you are furious and walk her back to her room, go get another room for yourself and cool off. Have a few drinks if you need to, turn on the t.v. and tell your fiance she's being given the night off to think about her words. That makes an impact on most people. Most women I've met would find that pretty jarring. Some people need the night off occasionally. Such is life.
Did the police investigate? Did Mrs. Rice refuse to press charges? If she refused to prosecute, there is not a whole lot the police can do.
And another thing MRS. RICE IS A BIG PART OF THIS PROBLEM. Yeah, you bet she is. She married the man that knocked her out?!?!?! IN GOD'S NAME, WHY!??! Press charges, walk away and start your life over. WTF. So when he hits her again, that's all his fault and everyone will demand his head. But who's the idiot who's staying with the man that beats her!?!? And don't give me this shit about a restraining order. She doesn't need one. SHE IS STAYING WITH HIM. She's is refusing to throw him in jail, refusing to leave him. Its not him stalking her and refusing to let her be. They are both hurting each other over and over again.
This woman needs some help. She's picking bad men and if she doesn't quit, she's going to wind up a lot worse than a few minutes in lights out. Ray? Ray's going to wind up in jail. Sooner or later, that's where he's headed if he doesn't get some help, and no one will be in a hurry to parole him back to a life that doesn't include NFL million$.
The NFL? They're not babysitters. And they have no authority to do the job of an individual or the police. They need to butt the fuck out, not find a way to insert themselves into their employee's private life and grant themselves powers and rights THEY DO NOT POSSESS.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
What the....? (Rape Case)
This is a post about rape according to the author, but honestly I'm not sure what to do with it.
How could anyone?
I take it we're all supposed to feel very hurt for the victim and feel her pain, but like many college to post-college aged girls, she doesn't seem to understand how rape OR CRIME works.
I'm terribly sorry this girl suffered this experience, it sounds like she's very scarred by it.
That said, as if we were jurors in a criminal case, we must put a label on what exactly occurred here.
Let's get this straight first - this woman had sex that she regrets and she does say the word "no." She states this pretty clearly. Does the man hear her? Does she say it loudly or with any force at all? Does he take "no" to mean "not right now."? Is he just trying to push his luck a little hoping a little more foreplay will work (yes, men do this sometimes). I don't know, but the tone of her article is extremely submissive. She describes how she wanted to push and kick and scream and shove the man away - but she didn't. She asks "why are you doing this?" but I must (in trying to be impartial) ask, does the man know what she means by that? Does he think she's asking "Why are you having sex with me" (as that is the question he answers) when she means "why are you forcing yourself on me?"
Then she makes him breakfast the next day?
Are we to expect this man to know he did something wrong? For Chrissake he was rewarded! And men don't treat women right these days? No kidding!
I don't know why some women (girls, etc) feel as though they have to let the sex occur if they don't want it. That's what this girl did. She said "no" once and that's it. Let me tell you something reader, if someone was trying to have sex with me and I didn't want them to they would hear the word 'no' quite a few times followed by some serious head injuries. Its called self-defense. Furthermore, women are far from helpless little lambs. The female thigh and hip region is INCREDIBLY muscle-dense and powerful. Kicking, kneeing, biting, scratching, etc. These things make most men get the picture pretty quickly - proceed at your own peril. And just about every man out there, driven for sex or not, likes to keep his face intact. He also needs to know if you're being submissive or if you mean to accuse him of rape or not. Whispering "no" ONCE isn't much of a deterrent, and honestly its easily dismissed 15 minutes into foreplay by a turned on man. He's not going to slam on the brakes and ask you how you feel. Do you think he would've kept going if she said "you are raping me right now," and given him a shove that he could feel? Most men have an ego of some kind and practically none of us feel we need to rape anyone in order to have sex. Its an insult and an effective one. If a man takes loud "No's," and repeated physical abuse including scrapes and scratches and bruises and then TOTALLY OVERPOWERS the girl and forcibly penetrates her, THAT IS RAPE. PERIOD.
What I gather is that she wanted him to stop but didn't want to offend him or lose him as a boyfriend or potential boyfriend.
LADIES, IF YOU FEEL YOU ARE BEING RAPED YOU BETTER DAMN WELL RUN THAT RISK.
Rape is a class A felony, the same as murder and arson. It carries a prison sentence that can run 20+ years. If you accuse a man of rape you are likely sending him to jail for 20 years. YOU THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. Whispering "no" and then having sex with the guy is not the same as him pinning your arms down as you scream violently and prying your legs open to violently penetrate you against your will: THAT is full-on rape.
What's described in her post is sex she regrets at best and some grade of sexual misconduct at worst. She doesn't seem to be describing a violent sexual assault (that's what rape is!). When a "rape kit" is run, the victim is examined and physical injuries are discovered - vaginal bruising, tearing, etc.. Rape is a VIOLENT crime. I'm willing to bet this woman suffered NONE of those injuries, ergo no rape was committed. I wish I could've given her some words of encouragement before this happened and built up her self-esteem. That said, some guy wanting to share physical affection with a woman he things likes him very much and not receiving any real push-back, doesn't make me want to string him up in Sing Sing for 20 years.
And ladies, if you do not have enough confidence in yourself or a strong enough sense of self to stand up and tell a man no and knee him in the crotch if you don't want him to proceed, YOU OUGHT NOT TO BE IN A RELATIONSHIP AT ALL. Same for men: if you cannot stop when a woman says 'no' (louder than a mouse whisper, I hope), you should not be dating, period.
I address this posting more to the ladies because men have very strong sexual instincts, lower emotional I.Q.'s, and they typically look to women to tell them when to stop. I don't think girls today are conveying what they really mean; they are too damn scared of losing their boyfriend or potential boyfriend. How do I know women are not conveying their meaning enough? Because if they were, every accused rapist would have damaged testes and a broken nose. You know, SIGNS OF RESISTANCE from the victim. What is going on when the man accused of rape doesn't have a scratch on him? Is every rape victim drugged and tied up before they know what's happening? That sounds very unlikely to me.
What I see are lots of reports of cases of sex women regret. Recall ladies, MEN ARE PROGRAMMED, THROUGH NATURAL INSTINCT, BY MOTHER NATURE, TO INSEMINATE AS MANY WOMEN AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THEIR OFFSPRING HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF LIVING. I don't like this fact, I didn't give men this instinct, its not excuse for any man raping a woman, and I'm not demanding women sleep around to support mens' instincts. I'm saying women need to keep in mind, some men want to be in a long-term relationship with you and some just want to sleep with you. MOTHER NATURE IMBUED WOMEN WITH INTUITION AND SENSITIVE FEELINGS SO THEY COULD BETTER GAUGE WHICH ONE MEN ARE AFTER. Use your instincts ladies; don't sleep with a man just because he wants you to and don't even get in bed with a man who isn't talking very seriously about marriage after many months of dating and if this means you don't get laid until you meet your husband at 28 years of age, SO BE IT. Women who sleep with more than just TWO MEN begin to suffer higher rates of divorce later in life! It is in WOMEN'S best instincts to sleep with as few men as possible before marriage! Do the feminists tell you that? Or are they too busy demanding men reprogram themselves?
Women followed their instincts years ago and kept with only men serious about them and believe me while there were still incidents of misunderstands (and yes, even rapes), they were MUCH, MUCH LOWER than they are now. There was also a MUCH higher marriage rate, a MUCH lower divorce rate and a lot of alpha males who did not sleep around like they do today because most women could sniff out what they were after and TURNED THEM DOWN.
Take a lesson, girls. No girl should have sex she regrets and no girl should think twice before losing a boyfriend or potential boyfriend because he demanded sex she was not ready, willing, and able to give.
How could anyone?
I take it we're all supposed to feel very hurt for the victim and feel her pain, but like many college to post-college aged girls, she doesn't seem to understand how rape OR CRIME works.
I'm terribly sorry this girl suffered this experience, it sounds like she's very scarred by it.
That said, as if we were jurors in a criminal case, we must put a label on what exactly occurred here.
Let's get this straight first - this woman had sex that she regrets and she does say the word "no." She states this pretty clearly. Does the man hear her? Does she say it loudly or with any force at all? Does he take "no" to mean "not right now."? Is he just trying to push his luck a little hoping a little more foreplay will work (yes, men do this sometimes). I don't know, but the tone of her article is extremely submissive. She describes how she wanted to push and kick and scream and shove the man away - but she didn't. She asks "why are you doing this?" but I must (in trying to be impartial) ask, does the man know what she means by that? Does he think she's asking "Why are you having sex with me" (as that is the question he answers) when she means "why are you forcing yourself on me?"
Then she makes him breakfast the next day?
Are we to expect this man to know he did something wrong? For Chrissake he was rewarded! And men don't treat women right these days? No kidding!
I don't know why some women (girls, etc) feel as though they have to let the sex occur if they don't want it. That's what this girl did. She said "no" once and that's it. Let me tell you something reader, if someone was trying to have sex with me and I didn't want them to they would hear the word 'no' quite a few times followed by some serious head injuries. Its called self-defense. Furthermore, women are far from helpless little lambs. The female thigh and hip region is INCREDIBLY muscle-dense and powerful. Kicking, kneeing, biting, scratching, etc. These things make most men get the picture pretty quickly - proceed at your own peril. And just about every man out there, driven for sex or not, likes to keep his face intact. He also needs to know if you're being submissive or if you mean to accuse him of rape or not. Whispering "no" ONCE isn't much of a deterrent, and honestly its easily dismissed 15 minutes into foreplay by a turned on man. He's not going to slam on the brakes and ask you how you feel. Do you think he would've kept going if she said "you are raping me right now," and given him a shove that he could feel? Most men have an ego of some kind and practically none of us feel we need to rape anyone in order to have sex. Its an insult and an effective one. If a man takes loud "No's," and repeated physical abuse including scrapes and scratches and bruises and then TOTALLY OVERPOWERS the girl and forcibly penetrates her, THAT IS RAPE. PERIOD.
What I gather is that she wanted him to stop but didn't want to offend him or lose him as a boyfriend or potential boyfriend.
LADIES, IF YOU FEEL YOU ARE BEING RAPED YOU BETTER DAMN WELL RUN THAT RISK.
Rape is a class A felony, the same as murder and arson. It carries a prison sentence that can run 20+ years. If you accuse a man of rape you are likely sending him to jail for 20 years. YOU THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. Whispering "no" and then having sex with the guy is not the same as him pinning your arms down as you scream violently and prying your legs open to violently penetrate you against your will: THAT is full-on rape.
What's described in her post is sex she regrets at best and some grade of sexual misconduct at worst. She doesn't seem to be describing a violent sexual assault (that's what rape is!). When a "rape kit" is run, the victim is examined and physical injuries are discovered - vaginal bruising, tearing, etc.. Rape is a VIOLENT crime. I'm willing to bet this woman suffered NONE of those injuries, ergo no rape was committed. I wish I could've given her some words of encouragement before this happened and built up her self-esteem. That said, some guy wanting to share physical affection with a woman he things likes him very much and not receiving any real push-back, doesn't make me want to string him up in Sing Sing for 20 years.
And ladies, if you do not have enough confidence in yourself or a strong enough sense of self to stand up and tell a man no and knee him in the crotch if you don't want him to proceed, YOU OUGHT NOT TO BE IN A RELATIONSHIP AT ALL. Same for men: if you cannot stop when a woman says 'no' (louder than a mouse whisper, I hope), you should not be dating, period.
I address this posting more to the ladies because men have very strong sexual instincts, lower emotional I.Q.'s, and they typically look to women to tell them when to stop. I don't think girls today are conveying what they really mean; they are too damn scared of losing their boyfriend or potential boyfriend. How do I know women are not conveying their meaning enough? Because if they were, every accused rapist would have damaged testes and a broken nose. You know, SIGNS OF RESISTANCE from the victim. What is going on when the man accused of rape doesn't have a scratch on him? Is every rape victim drugged and tied up before they know what's happening? That sounds very unlikely to me.
What I see are lots of reports of cases of sex women regret. Recall ladies, MEN ARE PROGRAMMED, THROUGH NATURAL INSTINCT, BY MOTHER NATURE, TO INSEMINATE AS MANY WOMEN AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THEIR OFFSPRING HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF LIVING. I don't like this fact, I didn't give men this instinct, its not excuse for any man raping a woman, and I'm not demanding women sleep around to support mens' instincts. I'm saying women need to keep in mind, some men want to be in a long-term relationship with you and some just want to sleep with you. MOTHER NATURE IMBUED WOMEN WITH INTUITION AND SENSITIVE FEELINGS SO THEY COULD BETTER GAUGE WHICH ONE MEN ARE AFTER. Use your instincts ladies; don't sleep with a man just because he wants you to and don't even get in bed with a man who isn't talking very seriously about marriage after many months of dating and if this means you don't get laid until you meet your husband at 28 years of age, SO BE IT. Women who sleep with more than just TWO MEN begin to suffer higher rates of divorce later in life! It is in WOMEN'S best instincts to sleep with as few men as possible before marriage! Do the feminists tell you that? Or are they too busy demanding men reprogram themselves?
Women followed their instincts years ago and kept with only men serious about them and believe me while there were still incidents of misunderstands (and yes, even rapes), they were MUCH, MUCH LOWER than they are now. There was also a MUCH higher marriage rate, a MUCH lower divorce rate and a lot of alpha males who did not sleep around like they do today because most women could sniff out what they were after and TURNED THEM DOWN.
Take a lesson, girls. No girl should have sex she regrets and no girl should think twice before losing a boyfriend or potential boyfriend because he demanded sex she was not ready, willing, and able to give.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Do Not Talk to the Police
So many people WANT to help the local police; they want criminals caught, they want justice done.
But 10,000 Federal laws and arrest quotas are quickly turning us into the Soviet Union.
Listen to this man:
But 10,000 Federal laws and arrest quotas are quickly turning us into the Soviet Union.
Listen to this man:
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Married Woman Living with Boyfriend? No Problem says Court
Imagine a headline like this in the Western World. Give me a break. And a friend of mine, who is literally a vice president at a major software company and one of the smartest men I know is telling me that he thinks this is fine. And they say the men in this country aren't feminist-sponsored robots. Sure.
This woman was "THIS CLOSE" to having my respect and admiration. It sounds like her family insisted she marry one man and she chose a different one. She was living with her lover, but then, again, probably to satisfy her family, she married man #2, in an arranged marriage. Now she's in a pickle, right? Because guess what, men will not share the same woman. Hello? Her husband, man #2, takes her to court, basically to insist his wife live with him and not her lover. He uses a habeas corpus motion to release her from the custody of another man.
Cough, cough.
First off, that's a strange and bizarre use of habeas corpus and I don't agree with it. That said, in India, women are still seen as being a man's possession to some extent - and if she can divorce him and take all he has - and she can! - than the man better damn well keep track of her, as it means all that he has if she leaves! Or what else would you, dear reader, suggest the man do!?!?!?
So they go to court and instead of the adults telling them "the woman here must pick one man, marriage or not, now go home," the court says, NO PROBLEM! Marry one, live with the other, hey do as you please! Now, legally, I have no problem with that. It is not the LEGAL judgement BACKED by the POLICE that should force a woman to be with one man or the other. That's crazy! Is the STATE the shotgun held behind a man's back at the wedding? Come, now.
That said, my outrage is behind what this woman is asking: that she be able to marry one man and yet live with another. That's absurd. Further, IF that is granted - and it has been! - then the divorce laws MUST IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT APPEAL, be changed to NO TRANSFER OF WEALTH OR ASSETS BETWEEN PARTIES. As it stands now, a woman takes everything a man has, or nearly everything. That is absurd if she can literally commit adultery right in front of the man's face without any recourse to him.
Back in 1940 or whatnot, some women did leave their husbands to be with other men. Sadly, it happens, and will always happen - to both men and women. People grow apart, fall in love at work (stupid), whatever. I would hope it never happened, but that is not the real world. If a woman did leave a husband, in the old days, she left only with what she had. Everyone cried, and explained, whatever. And then they moved on with life. The ex-husband remarried and everyone went on their merry way.
Otherwise, this mess will only get worse:
This woman was "THIS CLOSE" to having my respect and admiration. It sounds like her family insisted she marry one man and she chose a different one. She was living with her lover, but then, again, probably to satisfy her family, she married man #2, in an arranged marriage. Now she's in a pickle, right? Because guess what, men will not share the same woman. Hello? Her husband, man #2, takes her to court, basically to insist his wife live with him and not her lover. He uses a habeas corpus motion to release her from the custody of another man.
Cough, cough.
First off, that's a strange and bizarre use of habeas corpus and I don't agree with it. That said, in India, women are still seen as being a man's possession to some extent - and if she can divorce him and take all he has - and she can! - than the man better damn well keep track of her, as it means all that he has if she leaves! Or what else would you, dear reader, suggest the man do!?!?!?
So they go to court and instead of the adults telling them "the woman here must pick one man, marriage or not, now go home," the court says, NO PROBLEM! Marry one, live with the other, hey do as you please! Now, legally, I have no problem with that. It is not the LEGAL judgement BACKED by the POLICE that should force a woman to be with one man or the other. That's crazy! Is the STATE the shotgun held behind a man's back at the wedding? Come, now.
That said, my outrage is behind what this woman is asking: that she be able to marry one man and yet live with another. That's absurd. Further, IF that is granted - and it has been! - then the divorce laws MUST IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT APPEAL, be changed to NO TRANSFER OF WEALTH OR ASSETS BETWEEN PARTIES. As it stands now, a woman takes everything a man has, or nearly everything. That is absurd if she can literally commit adultery right in front of the man's face without any recourse to him.
Back in 1940 or whatnot, some women did leave their husbands to be with other men. Sadly, it happens, and will always happen - to both men and women. People grow apart, fall in love at work (stupid), whatever. I would hope it never happened, but that is not the real world. If a woman did leave a husband, in the old days, she left only with what she had. Everyone cried, and explained, whatever. And then they moved on with life. The ex-husband remarried and everyone went on their merry way.
Otherwise, this mess will only get worse:
Married woman can live with her lover: court
KS Tomar Jaipur, April 19, 2007
First Published: 01:28 IST(19/4/2007) | Last Updated: 03:43 IST(19/4/2007)
Can a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her husband? The Rajasthan High Court says yes.
In a judgment on Wednesday, the court allowed a married woman, Manju, to live with her lover, Suresh. “It is improper to pass an order to hand over any unwilling married woman to her husband with whom she does not want to stay,” said justices GS Mishra and KC Sharma. The court also said that nobody should consider an adult woman as a consumer product. (JB: what the Hell does that mean?)
While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Manju’s husband, the court came down hard on the misuse of habeas corpus petitions by people who want to thrust their will upon adult women without their consent. The court said the husband was free to approach the family court for divorce.
Commenting on the judgment, senior Supreme Court advocate and noted women’s rights activist Indira Jaising said, “Though it sounds strange, I am in complete agreement with the high court.”
"At the end of the day an adult woman has a right to decide whom she wants to live with. She can’t be forced to go with her husband against her will," Jaising said.
In this case, Jaising said, it is clear that the woman was prepared for divorce. She also felt that Manju’s husband had abused the habeas corpus petition because such petitions were generally filed when somebody is actually missing.
Asked whether it amounted to adultery, Jaising clarified that the woman could not be prosecuted for this offence under the law. As for the other man, she said, “it seems he is ready to face that”. National Commission for Women Chairperson Girija Vyas said that although it seemed like an important judgment, she could not comment on it since she had not seen it yet.
Manoj Chaudhry, the counsel for Manju and Suresh, had earlier rejected as baseless the allegations that Manju had been kept in illegal confinement by Suresh.
He said that the duo had been living together by their free will and that the relationship had begun even before Manju had got married.
With inputs from Satya Prakash and Sutirtho Patranobis.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Bone-headed Cop #2
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cop-brings-ar-15-school-safety-talk-kid-fires-3-injured-video/#axzz2ibV548mX
Note the name of the officer has not been released. Right. A PUBLIC police officer, paid by taxpayers to protect taxpayers - but his name is a secret!?!?!? WHY?
PUBLIC OFFICIALS MAY NOT DO ANYTHING SECRETLY, PERIOD, THE END.
I'm glad the police showed up to give the kids a demonstration - after all, its not like the kids have fathers to show them this stuff, like I and my friends did.
But in yet another example of cities and towns using their fat, totally unnecessary budgets to hire 10 times the cops that are truly necessary, resulting in the hiring of morons who are not fit to be cops, one of the cops shows up with an AR-15 on his motorcycle. This is fine, just so long as the gun is secured, and unloaded. I have a friend who is a cop - as he, and every other gun owner or boy with a father, including me, knows, is that you do not load a gun unless you intend to shoot it. For people who think they may need to shoot their gun, they carry it loaded, but with the gun on safety and with it holstered (pointing straight down). For everyone else, including hunters, you carry the gun unloaded. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an unloaded gun to go off! And the first rule of gun safety is that you always expect a gun to go off, so you point it down at all times and take every safety precaution you can.
I really don't know why the cop had a large rifle like that at this school day AT ALL; for most emergencies necessitating the police, a small to medium caliber pistol is plenty. If you are going to show up to cop day at the school with a semi-automatic rifle, then it MUST BE unloaded AND safe'tied. If it is loaded, than remove the clip and remove the bullets from the clip, reinsert the clip and presto, you're done; otherwise leave all clips/magazines out of the gun entirely. The gun cannot fire when empty.
Instead, genius cop does the following:
1 - brings the high capacity gun
2 - leaves the gun near curious, young children
3 - leaves the gun loaded (why!?!?!?)
4 - leaves the gun's trigger safety off (THE cardinal sin of gun safety)
Remember, there is no such thing as an accident. EVERY GOOD COP KNOWS THIS. That is why the above four things make this cop an idiot who deserves to be dismissed ASAP.
Note the name of the officer has not been released. Right. A PUBLIC police officer, paid by taxpayers to protect taxpayers - but his name is a secret!?!?!? WHY?
PUBLIC OFFICIALS MAY NOT DO ANYTHING SECRETLY, PERIOD, THE END.
I'm glad the police showed up to give the kids a demonstration - after all, its not like the kids have fathers to show them this stuff, like I and my friends did.
But in yet another example of cities and towns using their fat, totally unnecessary budgets to hire 10 times the cops that are truly necessary, resulting in the hiring of morons who are not fit to be cops, one of the cops shows up with an AR-15 on his motorcycle. This is fine, just so long as the gun is secured, and unloaded. I have a friend who is a cop - as he, and every other gun owner or boy with a father, including me, knows, is that you do not load a gun unless you intend to shoot it. For people who think they may need to shoot their gun, they carry it loaded, but with the gun on safety and with it holstered (pointing straight down). For everyone else, including hunters, you carry the gun unloaded. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an unloaded gun to go off! And the first rule of gun safety is that you always expect a gun to go off, so you point it down at all times and take every safety precaution you can.
I really don't know why the cop had a large rifle like that at this school day AT ALL; for most emergencies necessitating the police, a small to medium caliber pistol is plenty. If you are going to show up to cop day at the school with a semi-automatic rifle, then it MUST BE unloaded AND safe'tied. If it is loaded, than remove the clip and remove the bullets from the clip, reinsert the clip and presto, you're done; otherwise leave all clips/magazines out of the gun entirely. The gun cannot fire when empty.
Instead, genius cop does the following:
1 - brings the high capacity gun
2 - leaves the gun near curious, young children
3 - leaves the gun loaded (why!?!?!?)
4 - leaves the gun's trigger safety off (THE cardinal sin of gun safety)
Remember, there is no such thing as an accident. EVERY GOOD COP KNOWS THIS. That is why the above four things make this cop an idiot who deserves to be dismissed ASAP.
Friday, October 11, 2013
A Leading Cause of Infant Mortality
Is the abuse suffered from a mother's boyfriend who is not the child's father:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9808039/adrian-peterson-son-injured-father-says
But remember, all dad's are bad, and all mom's are good so all mom's should get custody. Just repeat it over and over again in your head like a robot would do.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9808039/adrian-peterson-son-injured-father-says
But remember, all dad's are bad, and all mom's are good so all mom's should get custody. Just repeat it over and over again in your head like a robot would do.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
No, No, Pacman
I'm no Pacman Jones fan. AT ALL. The guy just goes looking for trouble; it seems as if trouble follows him around. And I think he COMPLETELY over-reacted in his actions below.
That said, ladies, you are not shrouded in some cloak of invincibility because you are women. Putting a broken bottle to someone's face? That's going to get a reaction. A reasonable person might slap the bottle out of your hand. But others, especially those intoxicated, will be much more reactionary and aggressive. Such as Mr. Jones, below, and NFL football player with all the strength of one. He hits this woman very, very hard. She may have 'felt' justified in what she did, but what she didn't realize is that she was threatening a man with what could be considered a deadly weapon. I guess she thought he would just back away (also a very reasonable thing to do). He felt the need to defend himself and the judge agreed with him.
Honestly, neither of them are guilty and neither of them are innocent.
Don't threaten someone with a broken bottle, readers. Not unless you're prepared for this kind of response.
That said, ladies, you are not shrouded in some cloak of invincibility because you are women. Putting a broken bottle to someone's face? That's going to get a reaction. A reasonable person might slap the bottle out of your hand. But others, especially those intoxicated, will be much more reactionary and aggressive. Such as Mr. Jones, below, and NFL football player with all the strength of one. He hits this woman very, very hard. She may have 'felt' justified in what she did, but what she didn't realize is that she was threatening a man with what could be considered a deadly weapon. I guess she thought he would just back away (also a very reasonable thing to do). He felt the need to defend himself and the judge agreed with him.
Honestly, neither of them are guilty and neither of them are innocent.
Don't threaten someone with a broken bottle, readers. Not unless you're prepared for this kind of response.
Monday, October 07, 2013
Ever Wonder Why You Hear Women Referred to in Derogatory Language?
Its because of shit like this.
Is this supposed to be funny? Merely calling one's brother-in-law an ass is now a legal crime worthy of the heavy-hand of the STATE!?!?
So if my wife calls my mother a nag, I can have her thrown in jail!?! Oh yeah, that's right - this is a nation-wide LAW just for women. Well that's sounds equal and fair, doesn't it!
Are you nuts?!?!?!?
EVER HEARD OF FREE SPEECH!?!?!?!?
From the Feminazis of India, comes this:
Is this supposed to be funny? Merely calling one's brother-in-law an ass is now a legal crime worthy of the heavy-hand of the STATE!?!?
So if my wife calls my mother a nag, I can have her thrown in jail!?! Oh yeah, that's right - this is a nation-wide LAW just for women. Well that's sounds equal and fair, doesn't it!
Are you nuts?!?!?!?
EVER HEARD OF FREE SPEECH!?!?!?!?
From the Feminazis of India, comes this:
Legal Terrorism – 498a and DV Act exposed by Karan Thapar
October 11, 2010 § Leave a Comment
Renuka Chowdhury: Well, thank you. But be careful.Thursday, October 03, 2013
NYTimes - Definining the Word "Moron"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?hp&_r=1&
This is written by a woman and its supposed to be a scathing example about how there are not many women in science and math.
It is a singularly awful article.
Because its written by a woman about science and math!?!?!
NO.
BECAUSE THE LOGIC OF THE ARTICLE IS DREADFUL. And that's being kind.
Her logic is just this: there are not more women scientists and mathematicians because people, when surveyed, still have trouble seeing women as legitimate professionals in those fields.
That means relatively nothing. I personally know two women with Math degrees. I personally know 2 men with math degrees. If women almost NEVER received math degrees, it would be a small miracle (but possible) for someone to know the same amount of people, in each gender, with math degrees.
The point being women get plenty of science degrees IN SPITE OF people seeing that as bizarre.
Then the author tries to blame the lack of women TRYING to get math and science degrees on people not seeing them as math and science people.
This is backwards.
First off, women do get math and science degrees - just not at the same rate men do. Is this because of natural aptitude? Is this because of women's personal preference? Is this because people don't see women as math and science folks?
All of the above.
So let's assign weight to each of the three causes we have presumed to affect the outcome of our little experiment (SO few women in math and science).
Aptitude - I have no empirical data here so I really don't know. but I give this 20% of the cause - I saw plenty of girls in school who were very good in math and science in school.
Magical distraction/derailment - This is the author's favorite - that women don't go into math and science because they're not "expected to." Because women do not see themselves as mathematicians or scientists, so therefore the cannot be them. 20% of the cause - MAX 20%, maybe less. We have more women in college and grad school than we do men. So women see no barriers to higher education, but some "thing" magically stops themselves from entering math and science? No. they stop themselves from entering math and science. Its not aptitude.
Personal preference: 60% of the cause. Maybe closer to 80% (making the above causes 10% each). I'm a smart guy. I love art and architecture. I've been called a sharp dresser. If I really tried hard, I could work in fashion. But I don't. Why? Aptitude? Nope - in fact, studies have shown many people do things they are inherently not talented in. Someone/thing derailing me? No; although many straight men ARE probably derailed because they are seen as gay otherwise and straight men hate that - this can NEVER be brought up as an excuse though - men get no excuses. So what's the reason? BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT FASHION. I notice it. I've appreciated it. But its not what I want to do with my life. I don't think about it all that much. I don't try at it. I simply don't really care about it. There is someone holding me back from doing it - ME!!!!!
Ever meet a woman waxing rhapsodically about MATH and science? Not really. Not often. Most women WOULD RATHER care about something else. Like fashion. Art. Literature. Marketing. Whatever. Not Math and Science. Fck, I really don't care about math and science. My love is elsewhere. THIS, research has shown time and time again, is the bulk of the cause behind what people do.
Do you know who Marie Curie is? She was born in 1967. I imagine if the world is out to get women in 2013, then in the 1970s and 80s women were all but shit on in Math class, right? She won the Nobel price in Physics AND CHEMISTRY. What a miracle, eh?
Oh wait, that's wrong.
You see Marie Curie was born in 1867. EIGHTEEN SIXTY SEVEN. That's 146 years ago. Two lifetimes.
She also won the Elliott Cresson Medal, Davy Medal, Matteucci Medal, John Scott Legacy Medal and Premium, Benjamin Franklin Medal.
HOW COULD SHE DO THAT!?!?!?! SHE WAS WONDER-WOMAN!!!!!
No. She was just some girl who loved science and math and didn't hold herself back.
And the MALE-DOMINATED, EVIL WORLD that refused to recognize women as scientists went ahead and gave her not one, BUT TWO Nobel prizes.
Whups.
I guess the men forgot to ignore her for being a woman and couldn't help but notice she was brilliant.
But don't tell that to the NYTimes. Women don't achieve because of men. And that is the only possible explanation. Cuz the world is full of men and men are evil. So be sure to listen to them and not think. Its worked wonders. It really has.
This is written by a woman and its supposed to be a scathing example about how there are not many women in science and math.
It is a singularly awful article.
Because its written by a woman about science and math!?!?!
NO.
BECAUSE THE LOGIC OF THE ARTICLE IS DREADFUL. And that's being kind.
Her logic is just this: there are not more women scientists and mathematicians because people, when surveyed, still have trouble seeing women as legitimate professionals in those fields.
That means relatively nothing. I personally know two women with Math degrees. I personally know 2 men with math degrees. If women almost NEVER received math degrees, it would be a small miracle (but possible) for someone to know the same amount of people, in each gender, with math degrees.
The point being women get plenty of science degrees IN SPITE OF people seeing that as bizarre.
Then the author tries to blame the lack of women TRYING to get math and science degrees on people not seeing them as math and science people.
This is backwards.
First off, women do get math and science degrees - just not at the same rate men do. Is this because of natural aptitude? Is this because of women's personal preference? Is this because people don't see women as math and science folks?
All of the above.
So let's assign weight to each of the three causes we have presumed to affect the outcome of our little experiment (SO few women in math and science).
Aptitude - I have no empirical data here so I really don't know. but I give this 20% of the cause - I saw plenty of girls in school who were very good in math and science in school.
Magical distraction/derailment - This is the author's favorite - that women don't go into math and science because they're not "expected to." Because women do not see themselves as mathematicians or scientists, so therefore the cannot be them. 20% of the cause - MAX 20%, maybe less. We have more women in college and grad school than we do men. So women see no barriers to higher education, but some "thing" magically stops themselves from entering math and science? No. they stop themselves from entering math and science. Its not aptitude.
Personal preference: 60% of the cause. Maybe closer to 80% (making the above causes 10% each). I'm a smart guy. I love art and architecture. I've been called a sharp dresser. If I really tried hard, I could work in fashion. But I don't. Why? Aptitude? Nope - in fact, studies have shown many people do things they are inherently not talented in. Someone/thing derailing me? No; although many straight men ARE probably derailed because they are seen as gay otherwise and straight men hate that - this can NEVER be brought up as an excuse though - men get no excuses. So what's the reason? BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT FASHION. I notice it. I've appreciated it. But its not what I want to do with my life. I don't think about it all that much. I don't try at it. I simply don't really care about it. There is someone holding me back from doing it - ME!!!!!
Ever meet a woman waxing rhapsodically about MATH and science? Not really. Not often. Most women WOULD RATHER care about something else. Like fashion. Art. Literature. Marketing. Whatever. Not Math and Science. Fck, I really don't care about math and science. My love is elsewhere. THIS, research has shown time and time again, is the bulk of the cause behind what people do.
Do you know who Marie Curie is? She was born in 1967. I imagine if the world is out to get women in 2013, then in the 1970s and 80s women were all but shit on in Math class, right? She won the Nobel price in Physics AND CHEMISTRY. What a miracle, eh?
Oh wait, that's wrong.
You see Marie Curie was born in 1867. EIGHTEEN SIXTY SEVEN. That's 146 years ago. Two lifetimes.
She also won the Elliott Cresson Medal, Davy Medal, Matteucci Medal, John Scott Legacy Medal and Premium, Benjamin Franklin Medal.
HOW COULD SHE DO THAT!?!?!?! SHE WAS WONDER-WOMAN!!!!!
No. She was just some girl who loved science and math and didn't hold herself back.
And the MALE-DOMINATED, EVIL WORLD that refused to recognize women as scientists went ahead and gave her not one, BUT TWO Nobel prizes.
Whups.
I guess the men forgot to ignore her for being a woman and couldn't help but notice she was brilliant.
But don't tell that to the NYTimes. Women don't achieve because of men. And that is the only possible explanation. Cuz the world is full of men and men are evil. So be sure to listen to them and not think. Its worked wonders. It really has.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
The "Dads" Show, like most Big Network Sit-com's is FOR WOMEN!
I know plenty of men and I'll tell you right now: they don't watch sitcoms, for the most part. Not anymore. They used to. They'd watch Seinfeld, The Cosby Show, any of the detective-crime-dashing-male-lead shows, Law and Order, McGyver, etc. You get the picture.
But we don't bother anymore. First off, those shows are mostly dead and gone - even wildly successful Seinfeld. And secondly, the shows made today, Everybody Loves Raymond, Two and a Half Men, and the latest, "Dads" depict men as immature, incompetent, stumbling, bumbling children. Its pathetic. Even when the shows are quite funny - Two and a Half Men used some decent scripts - ultimately they're awful. And controlling much of this, is the female audience.
Men have tuned out. Men are watching movies. James Bond style stuff. Jack Reacher, Skyfall, War of the Worlds, Rambo, Die Hard, etc.. Many of those movies portray men, even if they are first seen as bums, as ultimately very capable bad-asses who get things done and are righteous in doing so. THE VERY OPPOSITE OF THE CRAP-SITCOMS ON T.V..
So who is watching t.v.? Women. That's who. And watching many of these stupid programs - from a woman's perspective - is very, very different. They basically excuse women for being around and marrying these bozo-men in the shows. After all, if the men are so pathetic, why are the women in the shows with them? Why don't they just walk away? Or never get with them in the first place? That's never addressed, of course. NEVER. Instead the show is like a recipe for women; it says to them, See? There are plenty of women out there stuck with chauvinist losers, JUST LIKE YOU! This is why half-way intelligent people don't watch t.v. at all anymore and the internet-based programs through Netflix and others are radically increasing viewership, especially among the young. Youthful (late 30s and under) people are watching HBO, A&E, or other unique, crafty network programs. Breaking Bad has exploded in popularity and that show is about a bumbling Chemistry teacher turning into a murderous, drug-dealing, money-making bad-ass. This man is involved in a criminal enterprise and he is the hero - out-thinking and out-witting his naive wife; making millions to give to his family as he is planning on dying from cancer.
He is doing bad things for a good cause and the cause isn't even himself. It brings out his inner demons and ultimately twists him into something terrible, but his reasons at the outset were not himself, they were his family. THIS is a popular show. Everybody loves Raymond was cancelled. Take a hint, dear reader.
The women who watch the shows below are RELIEVED; they are so because they are stuck with either low-class, low-level boys from fatherless homes who are immature, INSECURE, macho lunatics, who, thanks to their fatherless home (I'm sure in each and every case the father was a monster, anyway, right?) learned their life lessons from rap videos (hence the racist and sexist angle). Or else the women who watch are stuck with a well-earning yet twisted, insensitive, and out-of-touch-with-anything-female type man. This show is to point out how foolish these men are and how much they need the women that they are with. Because the inverse of that MUST NEVER BE TRUE! RIGHT!?!?!?
The show is meant to alleviate and calm all the anxieties these female viewers have. Men don't watch these shows. They have enough outlets telling them they need to be more of a "real man" earning more, and "taking care of" their wife or girlfriend who is wildly depressed at out-earning the husband she wants to be more dominant. Men don't need injury added to the insults they receive; they watch the shows that embody who they want to be - the man who can think on his feet and outwit the world to protect his family and earn for them. Its a fantasy inside of a life lesson.
The Fox "Dads" show will be cancelled within a few months, if it takes that long. These one-sided shows on men are gaining absolutely no traction. Shows like Two and a Half men showed the man's viewpoint and his vulnerability quite often; both men and women enjoyed that; ultimately that show was doomed by its singular dimension, but it clearly had a broader audience. "Dads" does not portray "flawed" men, or even take a quick insightful look at women's flaws; it merely piles on the garbage and ills of men and then asks you to stomach it. Its a show for the white trash - I don't know how else to put it. Here's to a quick death of it.
Another look at this show appears below, but I think Robert misses on the women's angle to this.
But we don't bother anymore. First off, those shows are mostly dead and gone - even wildly successful Seinfeld. And secondly, the shows made today, Everybody Loves Raymond, Two and a Half Men, and the latest, "Dads" depict men as immature, incompetent, stumbling, bumbling children. Its pathetic. Even when the shows are quite funny - Two and a Half Men used some decent scripts - ultimately they're awful. And controlling much of this, is the female audience.
Men have tuned out. Men are watching movies. James Bond style stuff. Jack Reacher, Skyfall, War of the Worlds, Rambo, Die Hard, etc.. Many of those movies portray men, even if they are first seen as bums, as ultimately very capable bad-asses who get things done and are righteous in doing so. THE VERY OPPOSITE OF THE CRAP-SITCOMS ON T.V..
So who is watching t.v.? Women. That's who. And watching many of these stupid programs - from a woman's perspective - is very, very different. They basically excuse women for being around and marrying these bozo-men in the shows. After all, if the men are so pathetic, why are the women in the shows with them? Why don't they just walk away? Or never get with them in the first place? That's never addressed, of course. NEVER. Instead the show is like a recipe for women; it says to them, See? There are plenty of women out there stuck with chauvinist losers, JUST LIKE YOU! This is why half-way intelligent people don't watch t.v. at all anymore and the internet-based programs through Netflix and others are radically increasing viewership, especially among the young. Youthful (late 30s and under) people are watching HBO, A&E, or other unique, crafty network programs. Breaking Bad has exploded in popularity and that show is about a bumbling Chemistry teacher turning into a murderous, drug-dealing, money-making bad-ass. This man is involved in a criminal enterprise and he is the hero - out-thinking and out-witting his naive wife; making millions to give to his family as he is planning on dying from cancer.
He is doing bad things for a good cause and the cause isn't even himself. It brings out his inner demons and ultimately twists him into something terrible, but his reasons at the outset were not himself, they were his family. THIS is a popular show. Everybody loves Raymond was cancelled. Take a hint, dear reader.
The women who watch the shows below are RELIEVED; they are so because they are stuck with either low-class, low-level boys from fatherless homes who are immature, INSECURE, macho lunatics, who, thanks to their fatherless home (I'm sure in each and every case the father was a monster, anyway, right?) learned their life lessons from rap videos (hence the racist and sexist angle). Or else the women who watch are stuck with a well-earning yet twisted, insensitive, and out-of-touch-with-anything-female type man. This show is to point out how foolish these men are and how much they need the women that they are with. Because the inverse of that MUST NEVER BE TRUE! RIGHT!?!?!?
The show is meant to alleviate and calm all the anxieties these female viewers have. Men don't watch these shows. They have enough outlets telling them they need to be more of a "real man" earning more, and "taking care of" their wife or girlfriend who is wildly depressed at out-earning the husband she wants to be more dominant. Men don't need injury added to the insults they receive; they watch the shows that embody who they want to be - the man who can think on his feet and outwit the world to protect his family and earn for them. Its a fantasy inside of a life lesson.
The Fox "Dads" show will be cancelled within a few months, if it takes that long. These one-sided shows on men are gaining absolutely no traction. Shows like Two and a Half men showed the man's viewpoint and his vulnerability quite often; both men and women enjoyed that; ultimately that show was doomed by its singular dimension, but it clearly had a broader audience. "Dads" does not portray "flawed" men, or even take a quick insightful look at women's flaws; it merely piles on the garbage and ills of men and then asks you to stomach it. Its a show for the white trash - I don't know how else to put it. Here's to a quick death of it.
Another look at this show appears below, but I think Robert misses on the women's angle to this.
FOX’S DADS, CRITICS OK WITH HATEFUL PORTRAYAL OF FATHERS
September 19, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
With a new sitcom on Fox named Dads, it’s hard not to tune in and, having done so, register an opinion. It turns out a lot of TV critics did the same thing, and, at this point, it’s hard to know which is worse, the show or the critics’ responses. But, if I were asked to make a call, I’d have to say that, horrible as Dads is, the critics’ takes are worse. The two taken together tell us a lot about the anti-dad fever that’s gripped the nation for so long. Dads isn’t the only TV offering about fathers, and many of them don’t promote the type of frank misandry the Fox show does, but by itself, Dads hustles every anti-father stereotype that’s zipping around the ether. That just happens to be the good news.
Dads premiered this past Tuesday. The set-up is that two 30-something men, Warner (Giovanni Ribisi) and Eli (Seth Green) run a small but reasonably successful business making videogames. Warner’s father Crawford (Martin Mull) lives with him, his wife (Vanessa Lachey) and their two kids. In the first episode, Eli’s father David (Peter Riegert) comes to live with him.
What are these fathers like? Do you really have to ask? They’re the very incarnation of every bad stereotype of fathers trafficked in by everyone from NOW to the judges who daily decide child custody cases, almost invariably choosing Mom custody over equal custody. If dads are really like they are in Dads, who could argue?
There’s not much to choose between Crawford and David. After all, when you have one stereotype of a father and two fathers to apply it to, they inevitably come out looking a lot alike. And sure enough, both dads are childish, clueless, selfish and self-absorbed and uncaring. They’re also abject failures at everything. They’re failures in business and penniless, which is why they’re living with their sons. They’re failures at love, having left (or perhaps having been left by) their wives. And of course they’re failures at fatherhood. David left his whole family years before and Crawford is just a jerk.
All of this is hammered home in the classic sitcom tradition that nothing can be too obvious. So, within the first minute of the premiere we see Warner’s kitchen in a shambles because his father had made himself a sandwich. His wife provides the obligatory lesson that she’s already got two children and doesn’t need a third.
From there we’re treated to a show-long litany of crudities courtesy of the dads. Needless to say they’re racist (slurs against Asians), sexist (Crawford refers to Warner’s wife as “the maid) and homophobic (he asks if there aren’t “some gays” at Warner and Eli’s office).
In short, the fathers are pretty much what you’d expect – the worst of people with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. As Gomer Pyle would say, “surprise, surprise, surprise.”
By about the first commercial break, we also get the message that the apple hasn’t fallen far from either tree. The sons are just younger versions of their dads. Oh, their business is successful enough for now, but look at how they treat their female employee, a young Asian-American woman (Brenda Song). For potential Chinese investors, they have her dress up in a sexy “little Chinese schoolgirl” outfit, assuming this will impress the money men. Meanwhile, their other scams include Eli’s dressing in jeans and wearing a motorcycle helmet to convince the investors that their company is cool and, presumably cutting edge.
The none-too-subtle message is that dads are creeps and, however much their grown sons try to convince themselves they hate them, the younger generation hasn’t changed much, if at all.
With that take on fathers, I was heartened to learn that the critical response to the show has been uniformly negative. Article after article, I read, found the show to be awful, a loser. So I figured people are starting to catch on. In a culture that seems to seek ever more hateful ways to depict fathers (remember Kevin Spacey’s Pay it Forward character whose father had poured gasoline on him as a child and set him alight?), surely people were catching on. Or so I thought.
I couldn’t have been more wrong. The show premiered on Tuesday; by the end of Wednesday, I’d read about a dozen critiques of it, and, as I’d been led to believe, they were without exception derogatory. The problem, though is that each reviewer, again without exception, completely missed the obvious. Reading them, I sometimes thought “they didn’t watch the show,” but that’s not right. They accurately described the action, the characters and quoted them in detail. The reviewers had clearly watched the show.
But astonishingly, not a single one of them noticed the screamingly obvious fact that Dads disdains dads. Despite the fact that it’s made painfully clear from literally the first seconds of the show, not a single reviewer mentioned the fact. Nor did they notice the - admittedly more subtle but still clear – point that the younger men are just somewhat hipper versions of their old men. The frontal attack on fathers as stupid, incompetent children sailed right past every reviewer I read. I suppose if they witnessed a gasoline truck collide with a school bus and explode in a ball of flame, they’d talk about the new store at the mall in the background.
What reason did they give for disliking Dads? To a person it was the same; it’s “racist and sexist.” It’s racist because Asian people are depicted in a stereotypical light. It’s sexist, not because of its treatment of fathers, but because Warner and Eli’s Chinese-American employee is forced to dress up in a schoolgirl’s uniform and Warner’s wife is never seen outside the kitchen.
Well, those things may be worth mentioning, but to notice what are essentially sidelights and ignore the anti-father narrative that appears literally in every scene, is bizarre at best.
What’s worse, though is that the reviewers do what’s unfortunately become de rigueur over the years – they don’t notice who’s wearing the white hat and who the black. I know it’s a fiendishly difficult concept, but, in no-nuance shows like this, when the bad guy (he’s the one in the black hat) says or does something, we know it’s bad. See? He’s the bad guy. When Snidely Whiplash ties Little Nell to the railroad tracks, we’re supposed to know that his doing so is a bad act, not a good one.
Sadly, the college graduates who reviewed the first Dads show haven’t mastered that most basic and simple of concepts. They think that putting the Asian employee in a girl’s school uniform with sexy red bra peeking through, is a slap at women – sexually objectifying them, don’t you know. What they miss is that it’s done by the idiot sons of idiot fathers. Because it’s forced on the young Asian woman by them, we’re meant to understand that sexual objectification of women is bad and therefore so are they. It’s so painfully obvious, but somehow everyone missed it.
Ditto the fact that the three of the four women in the piece – Warner’s wife, the Asian employee and a Hispanic housekeeper for Eli – are the only sane, competent and remotely normal people in the bunch. That may be sexist, because of course women aren’t always that way. On the other hand, it may be sexist because there’s a clear divide here between the sexes that’s far easier to see: the men are destructive idiots and the women are competent and together.
Strange how every single reviewer missed all of that. Is the show sexist? You bet it is; it’s a non-stop tirade against fathers. Somehow the critics managed to not notice.
Generally speaking, I think pop culture should be free to say pretty much anything. I think humor particularly should have a free rein in expressing ideas. But where I draw the line is where it too often promotes discrimination against a certain group of people. Pop culture’s role in creating and maintaining certain concepts is in making them part of the mainstream. It does that by depicting them as normal, everyday.
So, if we’re routinely treated to, say, African-Americans in roles as thugs and dope addicts, pop culture makes it easier for us to subconsciously assume those qualities about blacks. That in turn makes it easier to imprison them, fear them, treat them with suspicion, etc. Black people in the U.S. have a hard time getting an even break in many walks of life, and that sort of portrayal by popular culture makes matters worse. Many blacks have pointed this out many times.
Well, fathers too get the short end of essentially every stick, at least when it comes to their children. From custody to child support to adoption to paternity fraud and more, the legal system kicks dads to the curb, the unsurprising result being damage to them and their kids. It’s a situation that screams for change. Dads urges us to maintain the misandric and destructive status quo.
And not a single critic noticed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
