The Man On The Street

--- 21st Century 'Officers'

2012-01-12T09:45:00.004-05:00

Anyone have an idea as to how long a MALE skipper would remain in command when acting so "unbecoming of an officer"? Let alone given an honorable freaking discharge! But hey! In this now modern military.. The womenz is MORE equal don-cha-know!
______________________________________________
Navy to Let Ousted Captain Get 'Honorable' Retirement
January 09, 2012
Stars and Stripesby Erik Slavin

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan -- A former ship captain fired from her post for “cruelty and maltreatment” of her subordinates will be allowed to leave the Navy with an 'honorable' retirement, officials said Saturday.

Capt. Holly Graf, who was removed from command of the Yokosuka-based guided-missile cruiser USS Cowpens in January 2010, will also retain her O-6 rank upon retirement, according to a statement from Juan Garcia, Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

Graf lost her command after an Inspector General report substantiated five claims leveled against her: breaches of ethics; use of her office for personal gain; dereliction of duty; and both verbal and physical assault.

The Inspector General investigation reported that Graf’s abusive patterns stretched back at least as far as her tour as commander aboard the USS Winston Churchill in 2003.

“In making my determination, I thoroughly reviewed the matter, and weighed heavily material provided in the statements recorded during the initial investigation, the record of proceedings from the Board of Inquiry, and her performance over 26 years of naval service,” Garcia stated.

Following her dismissal from USS Cowpens, Graf was transferred to the Navy Air and Missile Defense Command in Dahlgren, Va. She later faced a board of inquiry, which recommended that Graf be retired as a captain –- a recommendation later approved by Garcia.

“Ultimately, Capt. Graf’s conduct fell short of that expected of our commanding officers,” Garcia stated. “As a result, her non-judicial punishment, early transfer from command and early retirement are warranted.

“However, I have also determined that her conduct did not rise to a level sufficient to warrant the characterization of her service as less than Honorable, especially when weighed against the totality of her service to the Navy.”

-- Stars and Stripes reporter Chris Carroll contributed to this report.

http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-to-let-ousted-captain-get-honorable-retirement.html?ESRC=navy.nl

___________________________________________

So much to say about this but why bother.... I guess over ten years of proven abusive behavior etc isnt enough to warrant a CM versus an NJP if your a female "officer"...

TMOTS

--- Yet Another woman that gets it.

2011-11-18T10:24:00.003-05:00

futzing around on the brain drain site known as YouTube, I came across this woman that goes by the name of girlwriteswhat.

Shocked at first at her willingness to state the obvious, then impressed at her way of doing so. If you haven't yet, check her out. Her ability to clearly state her opinions (many I agree with) on the gender dynamics is a breath of fresh air.

Enjoy,

TMOTS

--- 1 down, 49 to go!

2011-09-17T10:58:00.001-05:00

Via Paul Elam at AVfM

AUSTIN, Texas (AVfM) Legislators have changed a law that prevented victims of paternity fraud from challenging child support obligations. The landmark legislation took six years and three congressional sessions to complete.

According to the old Texas law, a man is legally a father if any child is born during his marriage, regardless of whether he is or isn’t the biological father. This resulted in many men paying child support after a divorce for children that were a product of their wife’s infidelity.

No genetic test was required to establish paternity. If fact, paternity tests proving no biological connection between the legal father and the child were considered irrelevant to the issue of child support.

Under the old Texas law, he was forced to support that child financially, and had no course of action to terminate the parent-child relationship even though he was a proven victim of paternity fraud.

The new law changes all this. It allows men to use the results of a genetic test to prove they are not fathers, and to petition Texas courts to terminate the parent-child relationship and child support. Courts will now be mandated to terminate child support orders and end legal sanctions against the victims of paternity fraud.

The law includes a grace period until September of 2012 for men who were victims of paternity fraud to make their cases before the court. Men who discover they are victims of paternity fraud after September 1, 2012 will have one year from the time of discovery to petition the courts.

The new law effectively terminates child support payments and requires the state to pay back any support already paid at the time of the petition. It is possible, then, that those women who have been fraudulently extorting monies from those targeted by their scams, will become liable to the state for restitution of the money they have illicitly collected.

NICE! Only 49 more states to go! Of course, my cynical side says; "Let;s wait and see if it is upholded AND ENFORCED. Then I'll do the crabby dance!

TMOTS

--- Mary Kellett Saga Continues

2011-08-21T07:13:00.003-05:00

August 20, 2011
Paul Elam
Action Updates, Featured

Kellett steps in it, big time

As I reported on recently, Mary Kellett, the Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor notorious for pursuing flimsy cases, always against men accused of sexual or domestic assaults, has put her foot in it again. Only this time it appears that her misstep has put her ankle deep in a bear trap.

A recap of the most recent case goes as follows. Keovilaisack Sayasane, 44, was charged with threatening to harm his wife with a hammer in their home. A problem for the prosecution in the case was that Sayasane’s wife was scheduled to testify for the defense. As the only eyewitness and alleged victim in the case it could have proven to be an insurmountable obstacle to a conviction.

But the wife had a change of heart about testifying when she was told by Mary Kellett that Sayasane had been convicted of killing his first wife some 25 years earlier. The Bangor Daily News reports that when the judge in the case, Justice Kevin Cuddy, learned of this, he ultimately declared a mistrial, which ended the current proceedings against Sayasane, but allows the prosecution to retry the case.

Sayasane, however, had not killed his first wife. He was convicted of manslaughter in the 1987 stabbing death of a man in Hampden, Maine.

Court transcripts reveal that both defense attorney Jeffry Toothaker and Mary Kellett informed the court that they were both given the erroneous information on Saysane’s conviction by Deputy Attorney General William Stokes, head of the Attorney General’s Office’s criminal division. But Stokes has a strikingly different story. Namely that it never happened.

This is Stoke’s version according to the Bangor Daily News:

“Stokes said he never provided any information to Kellett that indicated that the victim in the manslaughter case was Sayasane’s previous wife, or even that the victim was a woman. Stokes said he had no prior knowledge of the case before Kellett contacted him about it, and so had to go look up the information in case summaries that are kept on file at the Attorney General’s Office in Augusta.

The summary, Stokes said, indicates that the victim in the 1986 stabbing was a 21-year old man named Boudone Meuaneboutdy who was a friend of Sayasane’s. He said that is the information he forwarded to Kellett.

“Where the wife part came in, I have no knowledge,” Stokes said.

Now, assuming that Stokes is not lying, Mary Kellett has just been dropped into the fryer. On the merits of his statement alone, two factors become abundantly clear.

Mary Kellett engaged in witness tampering by lying to the alleged victim in the case thus coercing her to withdraw exculpatory testimony.

Mary Kellett further perpetrated a fraud on the court by misleading the judge to believe that she had been furnished information from the state AG’s office, when in fact she had been furnished no such information.

There may well be other violations that become apparent as this case is investigated further. But these two points of interest do serve as grounds for further complaints to the Overseers of the Bar in Maine, as well as to the office of Governor Paul LePage and the Office of the State Attorney General.

There is a pending bar complaint on Mary Kellett stemming from the Vladek Filler case that was filed by the National Coalition for Men. That complaint has been investigated and referred to the bar with the recommendation that sanctions against Kellett were warranted.

It was originally the position of AVfM that before a complaint was filed with the bar against Kellett for the Sayasane case that the Filler complaint would be allowed to come to conclusion. These recent revelations by the state AG of Maine are grounds to revise that decision.

The time for action is now.

On behalf of the people of the United States and in the interest of justice, AVfM will now proceed with a bar complaint against Mary Kellett for the willful fraud of a court of law and for witness tampering in a criminal proceeding. We will also be sending letters of protest and pleas for justice to Governor LePage and to the Attorney General of Maine.

I am also going to call on readers of AVfM to assist with these vital actions as quickly as possible. Please write Governor LePage and the State Attorney General and ask them why, after such demonstrated malfeasance on the part of a Maine state functionary, is she being allowed to continue prosecuting in Maine.

I am also writing Ellsworth District Attorney Carletta Bossano, Mary Kellett’s direct supervisor and the individual that holds the ultimate responsibility for actions that emanate from her office, to demand that Kellett be suspended from duties until her actions are thoroughly investigated. I ask all those interested in justice to do the same.

Finally, if you have a blog or website, no matter how large or small, I ask you to please help us go on the offensive against the Orwellian nightmare happening in Maine by posting this article, in its entirety to your site. Facebook and twitter users, please do the same, and thank you all for helping us turn up the heat on an ongoing miscarriage of justice.

Remember, if we can just take one corrupt prosecutor out it will send reverberations throughout the system of feminist governance and will correct an absolute evil going in the state of Maine. Even the Bangor Daily News, previously hesitant to fully address this story, is now smelling blood. Let’s finish this. Let’s FTSU, and I mean NOW.

Contact Maine’s State Attorney General

Contact Governor Paul LePage

Contact District Attorney Carletta Bossano

Reprinted with permission from Paul Elam of A Voice for Men

TMOTS

--- Letter to a Friend at War

2011-08-09T07:48:00.000-05:00

August 9, 2011
Manuel Dexter Via A Voice for Men

Letter to a Friend at War

This is a letter written for a personal friend of Manuel Dexter. The man to whom this is written is presently entangled in what is turning out to be a nasty divorce. He is a decent, honest man who unfortunately has not yet taken what we call in the MRM world, “the red pill.” As the author of this piece I have replaced personal references with nonspecific place holders for two reasons; to protect the identity of my friend, and so that others still living in a blue pill reality may hopefully benefit from the story.

Read the rest here.

TMOTS

--- Justice for once!

2011-07-26T06:52:00.002-05:00

Well daym! It would apper that there is at least one female in a position of power that will admit to a knee-jerk reactionary wrong and correct it! AVfM Radio is back.

Personally I would like to thank Miss Shannon Dingee-Kramer for working this out with Paul and giving a sincere apology for her actions. Thank you Miss Dingee-Kramer.

Here is Paul explaining it all;

Well gents and ladies, it has been a most interesting evening. Grab yourself a cuppa and listen to what you, MRM loyalists, did.

Just about two hours ago I got off the phone with Shannon Dingee-Kramer, the director of customer relations and operations for BlogTalk Radio.

The short version of that talk is that we are back in business at BTR, with an apology for the interruption but the details of the conversation are what you will find most interesting.

The program was interrupted by a complaint about something I said on the air on 6/28/11, in the episode entitled FTSU Big Time. I said, and the quote is approximate, regarding the debut of register-her.com, “Now, if Mary Jane Rottencrotch decides to falsely accuse her husband of domestic violence in order to get the upper hand in a divorce, we can publish all her personal information on the website, including her name, address, phone number…even her routes to and from work.”

This remark elicited a complaint to BTR, from an unnamed individual. I asked if it was Jessica Valenti and was told by Dingee-Kramer that she did not know.

I asked because it was immediately after that broadcast that Valenti was caught tweeting her followers, looking for advice on how to erase her existence off the internet.

Apparently the tough as milquetoast creator of Friday Feminist Fuck You is just a scared little girl when someone fights back.

In the next part of the conversation we covered what should have been obvious from the outset. I was making a rhetorical, hypothetical remark about the possibilities of what we could do, using a fictitious character in the process.

Dingee-Kramer’s reaction to the complaint was impulsive and thoughtless for sure.

I threatened no one, speaking only in the realm of possibilities, and the reaction should never have happened. And as anyone visiting register-her.com can see, there is no personal address of anyone listed on that site, much less their routes to and from employment or anywhere else.

No one named Rottencrotch either.

To her credit, that was precisely Dingee-Kramer’s after-the-fact assessment of her own decision, and why she offered what appeared to be a sincere apology.

She also reinstated AVfM Radio while we were on the phone together.

Her explanation of what happened centered around her assertion that they were very short staffed when the complaint came in and that she made a decision spontaneously, without diligent investigation.

All because someone complained about what I said, alleging it was a real threat against an actual human being.

In short, just another feminist telling a lie. And someone else who bought into it without thinking.

Truth tell, I liked speaking with Dingee-Kramer. She was personable, accountable and shared with me that she visited register-her.com and is “100% supportive” of what we are doing there, also relating her feeling that women in this culture can “fall into a bucket of poop and come out of it smelling like a rose.”

It appears she is familiar with the pussy pass.

Jared White recently posted an excellent article on this site, “And then they fight us…”

Of course the partial quote is from Ghandi’s “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

And now, gents and ladies, they are fighting us. And we are winning.

Dingee-Kramer also shared with me that they had been getting a high volume of “hate mail” from fans of AVfM Radio.

People, that was not hate; that was your VOICE. And the world is starting to listen to it. I have absolutely no doubt – NONE - that you broadcasting your righteous outrage crushed the feminist lie and set us back on course.

BTR listened to you.

Oh, and so did Mary Kellett and the Ultimate Men’s Summit and the Bangor Daily News.

And you can bet your ass that no matter how silent they are around AVfM Radio, the feminist hate mongers are listening to you as well.

And it is eating them alive. Too bad for them it only gets worse from there.

Let me tell you what the net result was of a feminist lodging that false complaint against us. We got an apology and a high ranking staff member of BTR that is going to screen future complaints (and they will get them) a lot more carefully and thoughtfully.

We got Bob O’Hara, a respected and competent MRA to volunteer to be the first AVfM News Director. We got yet another technical expert who will be working henceforth with JtO on register-her.com.

We now have Nergal as our new volunteer coordinator to help us organize talent and resources that we can use to keep upping the ante.

We got some badly needed donations that will now allow us acquire VPS services for AVfM for at least the next year AND a damn good start on what I need to build or buy the serious hardware I need to take this to the next level.

All these things became a part of the chain of events because one feminist told a lie and the real MRA’s, all of you, decided they were not going to take it laying down.

Then they fight you, then you win.

Then. you. win.

So to Valenti, or whoever the feminist bonehead was who tried to take us down with one of your filthy lies, THANKS! Please listen to the newly invigorated AVfM Radio more in the future. Contact BTR with phony complaints as often as possible (and for you that is very, very often). We will be back on the air with a Jessica Valenti Special on August 2, 2o11.

Another dozen false allegations and AVfM will get a 50,000 watt radio station.

But seriously, to readers and listeners of AVfM, take a moment after reading this and consider you just dealt a significant blow to the hateful ideologues that want to continue their war on men and boys with your complicit silence.

Look back on the things that have happened just at this website in the past year, from the New York Times to launching our own radio program, to BENEFITTING from the attacks on us.

And then imagine where we will be and what we will be doing a year from now.

These people are not invincible. They are vulnerable, simple minded bigots, and we are going to take them all down.

Again, thanks Miss Miss Dingee-Kramer, and thank you all for what I would gather was a rather large amount of angry emails. You done good!

TMOTS

--- AVfM Falls, Feminists Cream Pants

2011-07-24T08:53:00.006-05:00

Well folks, personally I can't say I am all too shocked. After some 16 weeks, A Voice for Men Radio seems to have been killed. Speculations abound but, in all honesty, we in the MRM know all too well as to the whos and whys... Don't we.

In Paul Elam's own words;

I suppose it actually was inevitable.

I just received an email from an AVfM Radio listener informing me that the show has disappeared from the BlogTalk Radio website. Sure enough, an attempt on my part to log on just produced a message that my account there has been disabled.

And of course I found out in the predictable way. No notification, no warnings, no nothing. Just zap, you’re gone.

Typical of the times. Typical of corporate scumbags.

I wonder if they think this is going to shut us up?

Take heart, friends, we are temporarily down but hardly out.

I actually figured out after starting the broadcast out of BTR that there are much more cost effective options out there that do not put me at the mercy of pro feminist corporate forces.

We will be back on the air the MRA way. On our own.

It will take a little time. I need to press BTR for the refund and then sort through the equipment and learning curve for the new set up.

My genuine impression of all this?

Fuck ‘em. There will be much more powerful entities than BTR that will try to shut me down before this is over with. Fuck them, too.

Recently our friend Harry posted that there was a need for a certain amount of MRA’s that were willing to be somewhat vicious in order to push for changes. I could not agree more, and I will add one to that.

Some of us are willing to be more than that.

There are only two circumstances that can possibly result in my being silenced.

Justice or death.

Anyone thinks I am kidding is a fool.

Now, I have an article to finish that I started before this minor inconvenience happened.

Effing pathetic eh?

Don't worry folks, AVfM may be silent for a few, but not permanently! Paul and crew (all those involved in the show in some form or other - including folks who donated) will be back... Even Stronger!

Here is Uncle Bern showing his indignation on this.

TMOTS

--- MSM wont, so AVfM will!

2011-06-29T08:48:00.004-05:00

Since the lame stream media sees fit to never mention when a female of the species does anything wrong... or if on the off chance one does ... excuses abound with the icing being a penis to blame somehow - One of the premier Men's Rights websites, A Voice for Men has decided that it is time to rectify this 'policy'.

--How's THAT for a 'sentence' eh?--

Anyhow, this new site, called REGISTER-HER.COM, while having some slight overlap with such great sites like The False Rape Society, will cover an abundence of female perps. From rapists to peados, False acusers to murderers... REGISTER-HER.COM will have it all.

Check it out. And don't forget, as Brother Paul says, take the red pill!

TMOTS

--- A call for ACTION!

2011-03-30T06:37:00.028-05:00

Every so often, there comes a time in a mans life where he must stand up and shout; ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS! This is one of those moments. The following is a call for action from A Voice for Men's main man, Paul Elam. Reprinted with permission. (TMOTS)

_______________________

by Paul Elam

[Special note: I urge and implore all bloggers, anywhere on the internet, to reprint this article in its entirety with a link back to this page. Please help me get this event in front of as many eyes as possible. Thank you – PE]

Bar Harbor, Maine Circa 2011

There are often times that we shake our heads at injustices in the world. Sometimes it seems to be all we can do. And with so many problems in modern life, and their often systemic, intractable nature, it can be difficult to choose what battles to fight and when. Because of this we have increasingly become a nation of head shakers, concerned about an array of injustices but often not knowing where to turn or what to do to solve them.

With that in mind we have an opportunity, right here and now, to face down and fight against a terrible injustice, an absolute evil, going on in the state of Maine.

Vladek Filler is about to face trial for a second time on the charge of raping his wife, Ligia. He was brought to trial the first time by Bar Harbor prosecutor Mary N. Kellett, who has sought to imprison Mr. Filler despite the fact that she knows that there is no physical evidence that he ever committed a crime, and despite the fact that his accuser Ligia Filler, has proven to be a violent criminal, a liar who has been caught in false allegations against her husband, and a physical and emotional abuser of her husband and children with a history of severe psychiatric problems.

Ligia Filler has been referred to as “certifiable” by sheriff’s department personnel who she repeatedly threatened to kill.

Mary Kellett’s professional conduct in this case breeches virtually all canons of legal ethics where it concerns prosecutors, from intentionally misleading jurors to avoiding pretrial discovery to actually asking a law enforcement officer to refuse to comply with a valid subpoena in order to help her conceal exculpatory evidence.

All of this, and many other similar cases, have been conducted under the supervision of Bar Harbor, Maine, District Attorney Carletta Bassano, leading to the almost unavoidable conclusion that the problem is not just one rogue prosecutor, but one in which District Attorney Bassano is an enabling accomplice.

Additionally, all of these events have transpired without so much as raising an eyebrow in local news media.

Given the complicity of her supervisor and the lack of attention by local media, Kellet appears emboldened to continue this reign of terror on the life of Vladek Filler, his children, and other innocents who reside in the community Kellett is supposed to protect.

Vladek and son Andrew - 6 months before the persecution.

After having Filler’s first conviction overturned by the Maine Supreme Court, due to her own prosecutorial misconduct, she is coming after him again, putting him through another trial on the same slipshod evidence.

Kellett is not pursuing justice; she is making a mockery of it in ways that border on criminality. She is out of control and no one with authority over her is doing anything about it.

And given the hubris demonstrated by her actions, it is clear she feels free to proceed with impunity.

We cannot, must not, allow this to happen.

This is a battle worth choosing to fight, and A Voice for Men is not the only place that is happening. Glenn Sacks at Father’s and Families, the nation’s leader in father’s rights advocacy is speaking out about this story. You can also read about it at The False Rape Society. This article will also be running at the-spearhead.com, with thanks to our good friend Mr. W.F. Price.

The organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (S.A.V.E.) has taken an even more significant action, sending a Complaint for the Disbarment of Prosecutor Mary Kellett to the Maine Board of Overseers for the Bar.

They have also authored a letter to Paul LePage, the Governor of Maine, referencing the disbarment complaint and making an appeal for an intervention on Mary Kellett on behalf of Vladek Filler and the people of Maine.

And you can do your part.

Write Governor LePage here and respectfully insist on an investigation to the practices of Mary N. Kellett. The message can be as simple as. “For the sake of justice, please assure that Mary Kellett is relieved of her prosecutorial duties and disbarred from the practice of law.”

Write the Board of overseers for the Bar here, and insist that they respond to the allegations against Kellett with an investigation.

Lastly, try to get the media involved. Bill Trotter does crime reporting for the Bangor Daily News. You can write email him at btrotter@bangordailynews.com or phone him at 207-460-6318 and ask him to consider investigating this story. This is a very important step as media attention will require political attention and action of some kind.

Don’t wait for others to do this, please, or think that just one person calling and writing is enough. That would be a fatal mistake.

When you have done one or all the suggestions listed here, please come back to this thread and simply put the word “done” in the comments, wherever you are reading this.

What is happening in Maine is only a microcosm of what is happening across the western world. So regardless of where you live, your insistent message to one or all of these people can help force them to consider looking in to Kellett’s activities. And make no mistake about it, Kellett’s actions, if unchecked, are a forecast of own future. We know this is a witch hunt, but because most are ignoring it, it will spread. If we take this silently, we have lost in the most tragic and disgraceful of ways.

This is a fight worth fighting, people. If you are reading this, you could be another Vladek Filler, or someone who cares about him. Your children could be hurt the same way his children have. And your freedom, even if seemingly secure today, cannot be assured for tomorrow as long as the likes of Mary Kellett are allowed to practice predatory prosecutions against innocent human beings.

And If she is allowed to build a career on doing this, there will be nothing to stop the same from happening where you live.

It is your future, and your move.

[Addendum: A Voice for Men Radio is doing a one hour special on this tonight, March 29, 2011 at 9:00 p.m. EST. You can listen to the show live, or the archives are always available in the sidebar at avoiceformen.com. immediately following the program.]

Additional Stories:

AVfM Additional Information

The False Rape Society

The Spearhead

_________________________
Thanks Men! TMOTS

--- How to promote a (false) ideology

2011-02-09T09:12:00.011-05:00

Here we have a pseudo "PSA" aimed at boys. You know, to protect them from the evils of females and the like. Come on now, we all know that females can be mean and evil just like males... right? Right?

What? You find that offensive? Really? Why is that? I mean, it's just a message to boys about the possible pitfalls of getting involved with girl's, right? Information is power! Save the Children! Right?

Hmmmm. Well, OK, fair enough. Then I guess you'd find this "PSA" equally offensive too.

What? You don't? Really??? You don't find the implication that a child of maybe one year old is a rapist in waiting even slightly offensive?

Wow, wonder why that is.... Actually, I don't but...

Ironically, the first one isn't aired anywhere; for it's not a "real" PSA.

The second on the other hand, well it is being widely aired. Along with a few others. And this is just ONE compan...er activist group.

Think it's just a one-off? How about this one?

Still think it's just a one-off?

This is the sort of adverts that our children are exposed to daily. Sure, one could say that the boobtube doesn't form a child's mind or belief system... But one would be wrong. Children's minds are like sponges. They pick up on even the slightest nuances and do in fact formulate opinions and beliefs based upon what they see in the world wich incidentally includes the media (TV specifically). A narative voice-over implying that a infant boy is nothing but an evil rapist time bomb just waiting for the right time (age) to begin his reign of terror on women is despicable.

Regardless, the true facts that the rate of actual, as in REAL rapes, is significantly less than what the feminists want us to believe, and that false accusations of rape is almost equal, is of no consequence. But hey, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good ole male-bashing lynching right?

The difference here is of course, the PSA with the girl would never see the light of day. And we all know why. Male=bad / female=good is the mantra. Any variation from that policy is shuffled away withthe rest of the X-files.

If, for some gread oddity, you DO IN FACT find the boy one equally offensive, speak up! Contact this tool of a man, and his company that it is not right to use children to spread lies about the seriousness of rape by using small (male) children) - unless he willing to counter with the facts on False Rape Accusations as well - using small female children. I highly doubt he will but one could hope.

If you want to see what type of society we have become when it comes to the DV/Rape industry - and it is in fact a million dollar industry, check out The False Rape Society at http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/.

In fact, posting at the FRS shows no less than two cases of false accusation, false imprisionment, and in some cases murder along with many other heinious acts perpetuated against men and boys on a daily basis... Yet the MSM seems to have no knowledge of these facts. Or should I say, they know of it, they just refuse to take on the juggernaut that the anti-male industry.

Sickening? You bet your ass it is.

TMOTS

TMOTS

--- Ohhh what a wonderful mornnnning...

2011-01-06T09:35:00.004-05:00

Madame speaker?

YOU'RE FIRED!

(cue ding dong the witch is dead...)

TMOTS

--- It's That Time of Year!

2010-12-26T09:34:00.002-05:00

It's that time of year again - Christmas!

This country was built upon the backs of Christians and Christian principles. We celebrate CHRISTMAS. Not Ackmeds fucking third eye, nor quanza, rhashasanowitz, five beer day or any other such shit. YOU assimulate to OUR culture, not we to yours.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Offended? Good! You offend me with your anti-Christmas shit as well!

MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR FOLKS!

TMOTS

--- A call for support!

2010-09-27T08:28:00.001-05:00

First and foremost, I am sorry for the lack of content as of late. Life once again gets in the way of these things.

And although life is still getting in the way, I felt it prudent to take a few moments to post - for no other reason but to prompt like-minded folks about an idea from a gent that a good many of you are well aware of already. Our own Bernard Chapin, of Chapin’s Inferno.

“Uncle Bern” has put the word out - about a new Facebook group (I know, I know, I hate that damned thing too but...) called The Men's Voting block.

The goals of this new group are simple and outlined as four “planks”. But, instead of attempting to explain them here, I’ll let “Uncle Bern” do it though his YouTube video located here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ1W8qcMs5c&feature=channel

We need unity men. We need to get behind someone - or at least behind an idea from someone - that will ensure our voices are heard. I think that Bernard’s attempt here is as good as any place to start.

So, let’s get to it men! Get on your face book accounts and join in! Bernard’s goal is to get 10,000 members. Sounds daunting at first, but I think it is quite possible when you think about how many MRA/FRA’s are out there. Even if you are not an MRA/FRA but agree with the premise that men are being marginalized by today’s socialistic climate, then join in!

Here is the link to the Facebook group;

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mens-Voting-Block/152293551470077?v=wall&ref=ts

You have your orders men!

TMOTS

---‘Classical Liberal’ Alex Knepper Fights the Power!

2010-05-01T07:12:00.002-05:00

A little old but still relevant.

American University, Washington D.C. –An opinion piece on Campus censorship in the campus rag The Eagle has turned into a full blown media circus. The Washington City Paper was first to pick up the firestorm, with FOX, NBC, and now CBS’s The Early Show climbing onboard.What’s the entire hubbub about? What’s the big deal about some college kid writing an article for the University’s paper you ask? By now, you have undoubtedly heard of Alex Knepper. If not, read further.

In his initial piece titled Dealing with AU’s Anti-sex Brigade, Alex commented on how “Jeremiah Headen likely lost the vice presidency of the Student Government over a hyperbolic Facebook note.” The comment? An all-caps final sentence “call to raid booty and women from neighboring villages”.

Alex couldn’t see what the issue was. In his opinion, it was most assuredly a “silly” comment, but it really had nothing to do with the content of the total writing.

In his own words, Alex states:

“The comments on The Eagle’s Web site, mostly by Gay Party activists and feminists, condemned Headen for being an “anti-queer misogynist” and for undermining American University’s commitment to being “safe space” for the “gay community.” He was also rebuked for using the term “hermaphrodite” instead of “intersex.”

What a sniveling bunch of emotional cripples! I have never encountered a more insular, solipsistic view of human sexuality than at this college. The rigidity of Pat Robertson has nothing on feminism.”

Knepper further opines on the feminist dogma of “social construct” and the religious like fanaticism with such gems as “Sex isn’t about contract-signing. It’s about spontaneity, raw energy and control (or its counterpart, surrender). Feminism envisions a bedroom scene in which two amorphous, gender-neutral blobs ask each other “Is this OK with you?” before daring to move their lips any lower on the other’s body.”.

As with anyone that challenges feminism or gays, Alex states that “For my pro-sex views, I am variously called a misogynist, a rape apologist and — my personal favorite — a “pro-date rape protofascist.””

Knepper’s words hit a feverous pitch with his opinion on the feminist Holy Grail, rape. In an attempt to put his prose into prospective, he states;

“Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.

“Date rape” is an incoherent concept. There’s rape and there’s not-rape, and we need a line of demarcation. It’s not clear enough to merely speak of consent, because the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry. If that bothers you, then stick with Pat Robertson and his brigade of anti-sex cavemen! Don’t jump into the sexual arena if you can’t handle the volatility of its practice!”

One would expect that with his creative words to define feminists and feminist ideology with lines like “Put down the Andrea Dworkin and embrace the fires of sexuality!” he would garner a few dissenting tongue lashings in the comment section, but you would be wrong.

At last view, over seven hundred comments to date is a telling indicator of the can of worms Knepper has opened. At one point, the comments section was closed (somewhere around six hundred) due to issues with “personal attacks” and “threats”. Considering that Knepper was attacked and labeled a ‘rape apologist”, conservative, and in need of psychiatric help, all in the second comment alone, it is no wonder that Alex responded in the third and fourth comment stating;

“Believe it or not, this column went through about five edits to remove remarks deemed too inflammatory.” And “Also, I am not a “conservative” and do not want my viewpoints associated with it.”

Reading further, Knepper is additionally labeled with such shaming words as misogynist, woman hater, metapod, a-hole, insensitive, and the coup de gras, he has ugly cats.

On April 1st 2010, Alex responded to his critics via opt-ed in the Newsbusters titled “Sex, Lies, and Media Bias: A Chronicle of Censorship in Campus”. No, he did not offer up an apology. Nor did he retract his statements. He merely, as with any good journalist, fledgling or not, offered up an explanation, within a chronology of sorts.

The first indication that Knepper had opened the preverbal can of worms was a call on Monday afternoon by Amanda Hess of Washington City Paper. Hess was calling to inquire as to Knepper’s feelings on the fact that hard copies of The Eagle had been gathered up, replaced with signs stating "NO ROOM FOR RAPE APOLOGISTS" and thrown back at the main office of The Eagle.

Upon further investigation, Knepper discovered that members of the cultural-Marxist campus "social justice" organization called Community Action and Social Justice (CASJ) and Women's Initiative were responsible.

Knepper finds this both confusing and humorous. For removing information from public consumption that one doesn’t like is exactly what he was initially speaking of – censorship.

Described as a “classical liberal”, Alex states that the article was “designed to elicit strong responses and spur a spirited debate. But the reaction from the campus left, and feminist groups in particular, has been simply beyond the pale of reasoned debate and does a supreme disservice to the notion of a liberal education. It is an attempt at de facto censorship.”

That evening the CASJ held a special meeting to discuss the “Alex Knepper Question”. Knepper felt that it would be prudent for him to attend along with the thirty or so people – to hear what they had to say and even to answer questions.

Immediately upon arrival, an organizer approached Knepper and asked him to leave for “safety reasons” Alex responded, “Do you think I'm going to hurt someone?” To which she responded: "I think you've hurt enough people already." An attendee, Knepper claims is a feminist, identified herself as a rape victim and asked him to look her in the eyes and tell her that she deserved to be raped. Knepper writes, “Almost in disbelief I told her calmly that this of course was not the case.”

As the meeting progressed, Knepper discovered just how adamant the feminist and CASJ members were about this being a political “talking point” and that someone had to pay, specifically Alex Knepper. Ideological political pressure was abounding.The meeting was filled with questions as to how the editors (women) could allow such a ‘pro-rape’ column to be published, what they had to say to all rape victims, and whether or not Knepper was to be fired.

Within the next 24-hours, the attendees had constructed a list of demands which consisted of firing Alex, print the Sexual Harassment code in the next publication, apologize for the column, removal of the column from the archives, and the resignation of the Editor-in-Chief. Additionally what Knepper found to be odd was that many of the students that under normal circumstances could care less about the paper were also rallying to “take it back”. Admittedly, Knepper doesn’t expound on what “take it back” actually refers to.

In true fashion, Knepper was asked to resign his position. He responded; “I'd sooner be fired than send the message that CASJ has a free-reigning veto over the rest of the campus' behavior.”

In the end – of this chapter anyhow, Knepper has agreed to finish out the semester with The Eagle and to not apply for the columnist position next semester. An agreement he willingly accepted since he was told that new editorial policies would be put in place to “weed out provocative columns”. Again, censorship, the point of Alex Knepper’s articles all along. And something that Alex could not sanction. At the time of this article, The Eagle has suspended all opinion pieces and issued an apology which can be read here.

Knepper cannot decide if the main stream media is indeed bias or stupid but it would appear that the coverage of his statements is out of context. His interviews with NBC, CBS, and ABC have all been shot and he has seemingly seen the to-be-aired version and he claims that they edited the interviews in such a manor that alters the context of what he actually stated.

IF anything comes from this Alex admits that “the fight against campus Stalinism will proceed -- and as more and more media pick up on this, the more we can expose what's happening on college campuses all over America.”

Sources:

Alex’s Original Article:

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/

Follow-up Article:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alex-knepper/2010/04/01/sex-lies-and-media-bias-chronicle-censorship-campus

The "Apology" from the Eagle:

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/a-message-from-the-eagle/

TMOTS

---Screw You!

2010-04-26T08:31:00.003-05:00

..And I don't even watch southpark!

TMOTS

---The Reason is Worth the ‘Weight’

2010-03-30T08:03:00.004-05:00

Racine County – March 9, 2010 – Each day, for a few hours of business as usual at the Racine County Courthouse, a lone man walks slowly, painfully, taking periodic breaks during his four block route only to reposition the heavy weight he bears upon his shoulders.

Ricardo Martinez is a father. Not unlike many fathers in the 21st century, he is divorced and a father who relishes what little time he is allowed to spend with his children, yet he aches for more.

Although the court has given Martinez ‘joint custody’ of his six and seven-year-old sons, that doesn’t mean he actually gets them fifty-percent of the time. What it really means is that he sees his boys Wednesdays and the occasional weekends, an amount of time he says is not nearly enough.

Martinez adds, “I'd rather be at home with my sons enjoying them," he said. "I've already missed ... years of their lives." That's why he walks; bearing a 12-foot wooden cross - Similarly to that of Jesus Christ of the Christian faith.

Martinez claims that he is carrying the cross to call attention to the plight of fathers that deserve to see their children but are vilified in family court. An apparently religious man, Martinez uses the cross to symbolizing his plight: He states; “As people hurt Christ he too has been hurt and as Christ died for his children Martinez too would do anything for his”.

To exemplify his religious and paternal convictions, he also wears a sign which states, "The question isn't what will he do for his children.” “The question is what wouldn't he do for his children."

Admittedly unemployed, Martinez states that while many show support for his cause, there are those that are insensitive and cruel stating he should get a job or a life. One man stopped and shared his similar plight of child custody while others have stated they are glad that he is standing up for his children.

Ricardo Martinez is an activist of sorts; he is and will always be, a father first. While Martinez is well aware that his activism will most certainly not change his case, he walks to create awareness of future fathers and children.

Source

TMOTS

---Meet Your Oppressors

2010-02-18T19:19:00.016-05:00

Every once in a while, someone, somewhere does something that makes you just say... WOW!

You want activism? You want to get involved? You wanna blame feminism? All feminists? Just some? Why not blame the feminists (or supporters) that feed bogus information to those that make policy and law? Well, here is your chance.

Welmer over at The Spearhead gives you a great place to start! Here is THE list of all lists!

This list contains most, if not all of the femikook and mangina types that are making men's lives miserable via policy and/or law.

Get them damned pens (keys) ah movin! Share this list! Share it far and wide! if anything, share The Spearhead URL with other MRA/FRA's!

____________________________________________
Meet Your Oppressors
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/02/18/meet-your-oppressors/

Are you one of the millions of men who has seen his life crumble under the treads of the family law system? Did you ever wonder why hatred and abuse directed toward men was so prevalent in school? Maybe you’re an employer who got screwed in a sexual harassment lawsuit, or an employee who was falsely accused.

Perhaps you are the victim of an ex parte TRO (temporary restraining order), and were summarily evicted from your own house and your children’s lives. You might have tried to fight for custody of your children, only to find the deck stacked so high against you that you had no choice but to give up.

Maybe your wife had an affair, then received your house plus a hefty alimony judgment and now lives there with her new boyfriend.

After facing terrible injustice, you can’t imagine who would ever create this monstrous, oppressive system that has driven you to ruin and despair. You look around, but you have no idea who is to blame.

Look no more, because The Spearhead has come upon a neatly compiled list of people who are directly responsible for your pain and suffering. Yes, the people listed below are proud to be the source of your affliction, and broadcast their efforts to ruin the lives of more men from their lecterns in our nation’s institutes of higher learning. They write law, indoctrinate students, influence judges, serve as legal advisors to organizations such as NOW, and generally put a great deal of effort into beating down men with the law.

Of course, the following list is not comprehensive, but it’s a good start. It shows where they work, and has links to CVs that detail their experience and affiliations. Those who are interested in activism can use the info to protest the nearest school, or if they are alumni to demand an explanation for why the school is promoting sexist, misandrist female supremacists.

These lists are golden for political purposes, as cross-referencing can easily identify associations that are dedicated to feminism, allowing us to identify enemies and their allies as well as their opponents. They should be widely distributed so that plenty of people can use them.

Albany Law School
Alicia Ouellette
Laurie Shanks

American University Washington College of Law
Ann Shalleck
Anthony Varona
Billie Jo Kaufman
Christine Haight Farley
Mary Clark
Nancy D. Polikoff
Pamela Bridgewater
Victoria Phillips

Boston University School of Law
Katharine Silbaugh
Linda McClain
Wendy Gordon

Brigham Young University School of Law
Cheryl Preston

Bristol Law School
Rachel Fenton

Brooklyn Law School
Anita Bernstein
Liz Schneider
Minna Kotkin

California Western School of Law
Nancy Kim

Chapman University School of Law
Francine J. Lipman

City University of New York
Caitlin Borgmann
Deborah Zalesne
Jenny Rivera
Julie Goldscheid
Michelle Anderson
Penelope Andrews
Rebecca M. Bratspies
Richard Storrow
Ruthann Robson

Cleveland State University College of Law
Lolita Buckner Inniss

Columbia Law School
Ariela Dubler
Carol Sanger
Caroline Bettinger-Lopez
Elizabeth Emens
Elizabeth Scott
Jane Spinak
Katherine Franke
Kendall Thomas
Patricia Williams
Susan Sturm
Suzanne Goldberg

Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
Marcia L. McCormick

Drexel University College of Law
Anil Kalhan
David S. Cohen

Duke University School of Law
Kimberly Krawiec

Elon University School of Law
Eric M. Fink

Emory University School of Law
Martha Fineman

Florida Coastal School of Law
Nareissa Smith

Florida International University College of Law
Cyra Akila Choudhury
David D. Walter

Florida State University College of Law
Faye E. Jones
Lesley Wexler

Fordham Law School
Sonia Katyal

George Washington University Law School
Alexa Freeman
Joan Meier
Naomi Cahn
Neil Buchanan
Phyllis Goldfarb

Georgetown University Law Center
Nan Hunter
Rebecca Tushnet

Golden Gate University School of Law
Leslie Rose

Gonzaga University School of Law
Mary Pat Treuthart

Hamline University School of Law
Marie A. Failinger
Sharon Sandeen
Tom I. Romero

Harvard Law School
Elizabeth Bartholet

Hofstra University School of Law
Barbara Lukeman
Elizabeth M. Glazer

Humbolt University Berlin Law Faculty
Susanne Baer

Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law
Felice Batlan

Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Susan H. Williams

Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis
Jennifer A. Drobac
Shawn Boyne

John Marshall Law School
Colin Miller
Doris Long
Susan L. Brody

Lewis & Clark Law School
Kathy Hessler

Louisiana State University Law Center
Christine Corcos

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
M. Isabel Medina

Marquette University Law School
Andrea K. Schneider
Jessica E. Price
Lisa Mazzie Hatlen
Rebecca Blemberg

McGill University
Kim Brooks

Michigan State University College of Law
Catherine Grosso
Cynthia Lee Starnes
Joan Howarth
Kristi L. Bowman
Melanie B. Jacobs

New York Law School
Ann F. Thomas
Carlin Meyer
William P. LaPiana

New York University School of Law
Amy Adler
Meg Satterthwaite
Sylvia Law

Northwestern University School of Law
Elizabeth L. Inglehart
Kimberly Yuracko

Ohio State University College of Law
Marc Spindelman

Pace Law School
Adele Bernhard
Alexander K.A. Greenawalt
Andrew C.W. Lund
Audrey Rogers
Barbara Atwell
Bennett Gershman
Bridget Crawford
Darren Rosenblum
David Cassuto
David Dorfman
Don Doernberg
Emily Gold Waldman
Horace Anderson
Janet A. Johnson
Jeffrey Miller
Jill Gross
John Humbach
Leslie Yalof Garfield
Linda Fentiman
Margaret M. Flint
Marie Stefanini Newman
Michael Mushlin
Michelle Simon
Noa Ben-Asher
Ralph Stein
Vanessa Merton

Pennsylvania State University
Eileen Kane

Princeton University
Imani Perry

Rutgers University School of Law – Camden
Imani Perry
Sarah Ricks

Rutgers University School of Law – Newark
Suzanne A. Kim

Santa Clara University School of Law
Margaret M. Russell
Michelle Oberman
Stephanie M. Wildman

Seattle University School of Law
Julie Shapiro
Lily Kahng
Margaret Chon

Seton Hall University School of Law
Rachel D. Godsil

South Texas College of Law
Kathleen Bergin

Southern Methodist University School of Law
Rose Cuison Villazor
Susan Scafidi

Southwestern Law School
Angela Riley
Danni Hart
Gowri Ramachandran
Judy Sloan
KC Sheehan
Myrna Raeder
Sung Hui Kim

St. Thomas University School of Law
Lauren Gilbert

Stanford Law School
Deborah Rhode

State University of New York at Buffalo
Athena D. Mutua
Martha McCluskey

Stetson University College of Law
Ellen Podgor
Marleen O’Connor

Suffolk University Law School
Frank Rudy Cooper
Jessica Silbey
Kate Nace Day
Marie Ashe

Syracuse University College of Law
Kevin Noble Maillard
Leslie Bender

Technorati
Technorati

Temple University School of Law
JoAnne Epps
Kathryn Stanchi
Marina Angel

Texas Southern University School of Law
Deana Pollard Sacks

Texas Tech University School of Law
Jennifer S. Bard

The University of Chicago
Mary Anne Case

Thomas Cooley Law School
Kimberly O’Leary

Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Marjorie Cohn

Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Deseriee Kennedy
Meredith R. Miller
Tracy L. McGaugh

Tulane University Law School
Elizabeth Nowicki

Umeå University
Åsa Gunnarsson

University of Alabama School of Law
Kimberly Ann Bart
Meredith Render
Montré D. Carodine

University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law
Theresa M. Beiner

University of Baltimore School of Law
Leigh Goodmark
Margaret Johnson
Wendy Gerzog

University of British Columbia Faculty of Law
Claire Young
Susan B. Boyd

University of California at Irvine School of Law
Dan L. Burk

University of California Berkeley Boalt Hall
Melissa Murray

University of California Davis School of Law
Courtney Joslin
Dennis Ventry
Lisa R. Pruitt
Madhavi Sunder

University of California Hastings College of Law
Kelly Weisberg

University of Cincinnati College of Law
Barbara Black
Kristen Kalsem
Margaret Drew
Verna Williams

University of Colorado School of Law
Carolyn Ramsey
Clare Huntington
Laura Spitz
Marianne Wesson
Scott Moss

University of Dayton School of Law
Pamela Laufer-Ukeles
Vernellia R. Randall

University of Denver College of Law
Ann Scales
Kristian Miccio

University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Bonita Gardner
Bret Boyce
David Koelsch
Jennifer Henderson
Julia Belian
Julie St. John

University of Florida College of Law
Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol
Nancy Dowd

University of Houston Law Center
Nancy B. Rapoport

University of Idaho College of Law
Elizabeth B. Brandt
Maureen Laflin

University of Illinois College of Law
Beth Burkstrand-Reid
Christine Hurt
Sara R. Benson

University of Kansas School of Law
Stacy Leeds

University of Kentucky School of Law
Lori Ringhand
Sarah N. Welling

University of Louisville School of Law
Jim Chen

University of Manitoba Faculty of Law
Debra Parkes
Jennifer L. Schulz
Karen Busby

University of Maryland School of Law
Danielle Citron
Karen Czapanskiy
Martha M. Ertman

University of Miami School of Law
Caroline Mala Corbin
Donna Coker
Mary Coombs
Zanita Fenton

University of Michigan Law School
Jessica Litman

University of Minnesota Law School
Dan L. Burk
Heidi Kitrosser
Mary Louise Fellows

University of Missouri-Kansas City
June Carbone
Nancy Levit

University of Nebraska College of Law
Colleen Medill
Eric Berger
Sandi Zellmer

University of Nevada Las Vegas
Ann McGinley
Jean Whitney
Kay Kindred
Lynne Henderson
Rachel Anderson

University of New Mexico School of Law
Margaret E. Montoya
Marsha Baum

University of North Carolina School of Law
Tamar Birckhead

University of Oregon School of Law
Caroline Forell

University of Ottawa Faculty of Law
Ian Kerr

University of Pennsylvania Law School
Anita L. Allen-Castellitto
Anne E. Kringel
Regina Austin

University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Anthony Infanti

University of San Diego School of Law
Orly Lobel

University of San Francisco School of Law
Maya Manian
Rhonda Magee

University of South Carolina School of Law
Ann Bartow
Danielle R. Holley-Walker
Jacquline Fox
Kim Diana Connolly
Susan Kuo

University of Southern California Law School
Mary L. Dudziak

University of Tennessee College of Law
Becky L. Jacobs
Fran Ansley
Jennifer Hendricks
Joan MacLeod Heminway
Mae Quinn

University of the Pacific School of Law
Miriam A. Cherry
Ruth Jones

University of Toledo College of Law
Llewellyn Gibbons

University of Victoria Faculty of Law
Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey
Gillian Calder
Maneesha Deckha
Maureen Maloney

University of Virginia School of Law
Kerry Abrams

Vanderbilt University Law School
Beverly I. Moran

Vermont Law School
Joan Vogel
Stephanie Farrior

Villanova University School of Law
Michelle Madden Dempsey
Penny Pether

Wake Forest University School of Law
Jennifer Collins
Margaret H. Taylor

Washington & Lee University School of Law
Joan Shaughnessy
Susan D Franck

Washington University in St. Louis
Laura Rosenbury

Wayne State University Law School
Linda M. Beale

Western New England College Law School
Erin Buzuvis
Giovanna Shay
Sudha Setty

Willamette University College of Law
Laura Appleman
Susan Smith

William and Mary Law School
Rebecca Hulse
Susan Grover

William Mitchell College of Law
Sarah Deer

Again, I take zero credit, none, nunka for this great list. All kudos go to Welmer over at The Spearhead.

And the 64K question of the day is...

Notice anything odd about this list? Anyone? Beauller?

TMOTS

---Paul Elam of MND Call For Action

2010-02-06T09:39:00.006-05:00

From HERE!

MRA John Dias of Misandryreview.com has put together a sterling collection of animated banners to get the word out all over the blogosphere about the upcoming Symposium on Male Studies.

Choose one or two of these banners an place them on your home page. Write other MRM bloggers and ask them to join you.

Do the same with other blogs that are political in nature, or educational, or religious. They need not be MRA oriented to understand the value of the OSI objective.

In an act as simple as putting a banner on a website, you can help spread this critical message across the MRA world and beyond in these last 8 weeks before the conference. Oh, and once you have the banner installed on your site, go ahead and click through and register for the online stream of the conference. It will be the best $15.00 you spend this year.

After two weeks have passed, if you see a men’s rights website or blog that does not have one of these banners, please write them respectfully and ask them why they aren’t supporting the greatest opportunity in forty years to further the cause of men and boys.

And if your next move is not to grab a banner and the URL from this page, the allow me to ask respectfully:

What are you waiting for?

Just click through any of the four images located HERE to see the full animated version and to download. Be sure to direct them only to:

http://www.malestudies.org/

Thank you in advance for getting on board to make this a success.

TMOTS Says: Ditto!

TMOTS

---"Sexist" or not, I'm posting it!

2010-01-27T09:33:00.007-05:00

Normally when I see something like this on fool tube, I just snicker to myself and move along. Not this time. With all the 'real' commercials that are out there today that do nothing but make men look like abusive idiotic bafoons, this is a real breath of fresh air!

Enjoy!

And if you are a femikook and naturally find this offensive, s'matter, can't take a joke?

TMOTS

---Domestic Violence? Really?

2010-01-22T08:33:00.003-05:00

If there was ever any doubt that no matter what a man does in anger, it's domestic violence...

Here's proof...

BRADENTON, Fla., Jan. 7 (UPI) -- Authorities in Florida said a man was arrested for allegedly smearing meatloaf in his wife's face while they were discussing a separation.

The Manatee County Sheriff's Office said Lance David Ziegler, 39, allegedly picked the meatloaf up off his kitchen table and smeared it into his wife's face Wednesday after she announced her intention to leave him, the Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune reported Thursday.

Deputies said they arrived at the home at about 7:45 p.m. and found the woman's face was slightly red and slathered with small amount of residual sauce.

Ziegler, who told deputies he had not hit his wife, was arrested and charged with domestic battery.

Now consider this when thinking about the actions of Mary Winkler, Mary J Blige, Elin Woods and so many many other independent and strong women...

TMOTS

---A Beacon of Hope for men - part deux

2010-01-14T10:45:00.004-05:00

You know your orders brothers!

(Note: When downloading - if the file extension is missing, add the .pdf extension to correct.)
MRm! - Issue 2

TMOTS

---Merry CHRISTmas!

2009-12-26T10:01:00.000-05:00

There, I said it. Don't like it? Tough shit!

TMOTS

---A Beacon of Hope for men

2009-10-17T08:18:00.007-05:00

A new milestone in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) has been reached, the launch of a new magazine entitled MRm!

This edition was produced by Factory (Editor and Creative Director), with contributing writers Amfortas, Fidelbogen, Paul Elam, and Angry Harry. Great job, guys! Give it a look-over, and feel free to send them your feedback.

E-mail the editor at mrm.magazine@gmail.com.
MRm! - Issue 1

Read it! Download it! Email it! Pass it on!

You have your orders!

TMOTS

---For your listening (and viewing) pleasure.

2009-06-09T08:46:00.021-05:00

Sometimes life gets in the way of things. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!

Anyhow, it has been brought to my attention recently that a few good men have taken on the arduous task of producing podcasts and videos from the male prospective... if you will.

Sure, one could say that the ever-growing amount of MRA/FRA information on the web claiming the male prospective is bordering saturation, but you would be wrong. With the lame-stream-medias inability to speak candidly (as in tell the truth – and tell all of it) about the gender wars, feminism, and men in general, the internet has become a sort of men’s’ media of choice.

What one should say though is that within that ever-growing amount of information, quality as well as sound information is difficult to find, THAT! Would be a correct statement.

So when I do in fact find a quality site, blog, Vlog, or anything else offered from the litany of offerings, I take note. In some cases, I broadcast it to inform others of its sheer quality and sound offerings.

This is one such case.

Of course I speak, admirably I might add, of Paul Elam, Amfortas, and Christian J.

These three gents have taken a significant amount of time to address some of the issues present day man (as in males) must endure… Not by choice I might add… but endure non-the-less.

From the disintegration of the family unit to the bastion of woman-feel-good-isms known as modern advertising… from feminism and its effects on women to the feminist golden earring, the nonexistent pay gap, these individuals take ‘em on. And do it quite well at that!

The following is a listing of their works thus far to date. Each podcast or video contains a small synopsis to inform the listener/viewer of the topic-de-jour. For the podcasts, just click on the name and listen away!

Listen, absorb, and learn my friends. For these are perfect examples as to what we as a group can do with a little ingenuity and allot of drive!

By the way, does anyone else thing Amfortas sounds a little like Sean Connery? Sure, I know Connery is Scottish and Amfortas is Australian… But they are both Knights, right?

…bad American.. Bad, bad American.

The first two-part podcast is called Stolen Generation.

Stolen Generation Pt.1.
A professional analysis of the Family Court’s ‘Bible’ that justifies the ‘ least detrimental alternatives’ to the traditional family. “We have a generation of fathers who are shell-shocked, heartbroken”. It was Adolph Hitler who first said that people will take any reduction to their freedom if you tell them it is in the best interests of the children. Could we not have a non-detrimental alternative, Amfortas asks.

Stolen Generation Pt.2.
The Family Court brings about the detrimental conditions that lead to a delinquent culture of fatherlessness in children. The ‘most deserving parent’ is chosen on genitalia. Professionals make judgments that cause parental alienation syndrome. A juggernaut is driven over Magna Carta. An equal society is replaced by a superior class of people.

Next we have a two-part series on the negative portrayal of men in media - television - and advertising, called Give a Dog a Bad Name.

Give a Dog a Bad Name. Pt.1.
The mass media is anti-male by commercial design. Comprehensive study data shows the depth of disrespect for men. Even ‘Old-school’ feminists are appalled at the damage being done to men. The media is ‘Wrong, both factually and morally”, says MRA Amfortas. Government pays for an agitprop war on men’s reputation to frighten women. At what cost?

Give a dog a Bad Name. Pt.2.
Women have unconsciously adopted a habit of disrespecting men. “Men are feeling profoundly disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted” and are withdrawing their support and protection of women. Society and women in particular, are losing a valuable resource needed for its healthy continuance. The Love of men. Is this what women want?

In the next two-part podcast, named Sacred Cows in the China Shop, the topic of discussion is the legitimacy of Women’s Studies in academia.

Sacred Cows in the China Shop. Pt.1.
A female economist takes on a leading Feminist in a debate. Women’s Studies Depts’ have no legitimacy and should be closed. They are academically bogus and “Ideologically biased”. A men’s Studies Dept could be better trusted to seek truth and answers to urgent social questions. Women dominate Universities and are driven by bias.

Sacred Cows in the China Shop. Pt.2.
A ‘Life studies dept’ would serve society better than a ‘woman’s studies Dept. “50 million unborn babies have died for women’s rights”. Enough is enough. University cobbled Feminists ‘cherry pick’ studies and ignore contrary evidence to present false ideas to the public, corrupting their intellectual obligation and actively creating and manipulating a negative and destructive image about men.

The title says it all in this next two-part podcast, aptly named Feminism is NOT Good For women.

Feminism is NOT good for Women. Pt.1.
Post WW2 Feminism adopted Marxist ‘conflict’ model, pitting a new ‘Class’ of oppressed women against an imaginary exploitative ‘patriarchy, according to Female Economist Jennifer Morse. Christian J narrates how women adopted it to assuage and project their guilt and resentment after so many male deaths in wars to defend them. Women were in work since WW1 and had parity in University education before WW2, long before the Feminist revolution of the 70s.

Feminism is NOT good for Women. Pt.2.
Christian J continues to show how the destruction of marriage and Family is against women’s best interests and is leading to profound unhappiness. Women participate in the public sphere by chemically neutering themselves during the peak child-bearing years. “The infertile career woman - and her close cousin, the single mother -is not exactly by choice, but more by default. These women are extremely disappointed.”

Granted, this next three-part podcast is geared more towards our Australian brothers, I should point out that identifying the similarities with England and the United States is rather simple if not transparent.

Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.1.
The ‘women’s Safety Survey’ was “uncorroborated, biased and manipulated” ‘Advocacy research’ orchestrated by the Office for the Status of Women and passed off as Bureau of Statistics report. It caused an enormous row, says MRA Amfortas. Manipulated definitions and hysterical claims copied from America made innocuous behavior criminal. DV sells commercial products to women and expropriates public funds for the fastest growing ‘Industry in Australia.

Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.2.
Three other sources of ‘official’ data which are routinely manipulated and presented to support DV lies are analyzed by Amfortas and compared to Independent University research which completely contradicts the ‘official message’.” It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.”

Deliberately Lying about DV in Australia. Pt.3. The Truth is out there – Somewhere.
Christian J narrates how the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey completely contradicted the Government’s 1996 survey. He also points to the attempts by feminist bureaucrats to manipulate by having ONLY female interviewers to bias the results. Results show women twice as safe as men. The Government has thrown a blanket of silence over it. Feminists maintain an undemocratic stranglehold, expropriating public monies for their anti-male ‘Industry’.

The next podcast identifies, rightly I might add, the misandrist (read feminist) play, The Vagina Monologues. A play that injects man-hate, lesbianism, and “good rape” under the guise of empowering women and how such “empowerment” isn’t empowering for women at all.

The Degradation of Women – by feminism
“In textbook leftist style, feminist supporters of the play ’Vagina Monologues’ cloak their attack on normal family values and morality under the guise of promoting awareness about violence against women. One does not have to be a prude to see a weak excuse for pornography and an anti-male agenda. But to disguise it as ‘awareness of abuse’ is an abuse of women’s minds and sensibilities.” Amfortas lauds Bridget Blanton for her stand and protests and against the glorification of lesbian rape of young girls.

Paul Elams' analysis of the so-called pay gap is narrated by Amfortas in this next piece named The Wage Spin.

The Wages of Spin
Amfortas narrates the analysis of Paul Elam of the Pay Gap Myth, showing the mendacious and partial statistics promoted by politicians to anger women for political advantage. Women’s choices are intelligent and nurturing while men not only work longer hours but take the dangerous jobs that pays more. Dr Warren Farrell’s early rationales are sustained.

This next podcast is an analysis of feminism by yet another succinct and learned MRA/FRA, Fidelbogan. A must listen!

Is Feminism a Hate Movement?
Amfortas narrates MRA Fidelbogan’s well established, clear and logical analysis of the links between the spectrum of disaffection feelings that women have for men and the rise and sustenance of Feminism. This spectrum is lead from the top by hateful, sociopathic women and supported by ‘rent-seeking scum’ women in growing bureaucracies, who take immoral advantage.

As the saying goes, all good things must come to an end. Well, I say "not without going out with a bang!”. The remaining two entries are what I like to call “The Next Logical Step” in the information process. Sure, podcasts are great, but once imagery is added, whoa! A whole new level! YouTube!

Everyday Family Terrorism
Paul Elam, Amfortas and Christian J show and tell of the damage done within families and society by intransigent people, in this instance Women, who are prepared to destroy their own families to get their own way. Erin Pizzey documented the effects of showing the Truth about violent women, for which she received Feminist death threats. Dr Eric Berne shows several 'Games' used including the 'let’s you and him fight' game so common today where cops and courts do the dirty work that leaves children unprotected.

The Pay Gap - The Wage Of Spin
Amfortas, Paul Elam and Christianj, examine the myth of the Pay Gap and show, name and shame the political women who lie to get the women's vote. Dr Warren Farrell demolished the mendacious claims but has been ignored by the media. Men do the dirty, dangerous work which pays well while women exercise choices that are more nurturing and 'safe'. The glass ceiling does not exist but the glass cellar does. Excellent video production by Paul Elam.

Until we meet again my brothers, keep on doing what you're doing!

TMOTS

---Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti

2008-10-18T07:11:00.031-05:00

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti

Bare with me folks. This gets lengthy, but I will promise you, it is well worth the trip. Well, for some of you anyhow…

Well now, I am not one to point fingers at those that expect everyone else to follow a rigid set of rules, designed by them of course, but practice another…

Aww, who the hell am I kidding. I love pointing it out! Case in point. As the Gonzman would say, those hippy chicks at feministing… or in this case specifically, one Jessica Valenti, is at it again.

This time its sexist adverts depicting women in demeaning ways like…. Gawd! Doing… Laundry! Oh, did I mention that it was a retro-commercial? You know back in the day when a woman was in the home and a man was out in the fields/factory/office? Ah, no matter. Here is the ad first, then her comments:

Jessica states; "Clorox does end up unintentionally showing how women have been doing household grunt work for generations. The worst line in the commercial says that 'even a man or two' has done the laundry. As if all the women watching are supposed to have some little laugh to ourselves about the inequitable division of labor. 'I do shit work for free, tee hee!'"

“Unintentionally”? I think not. I am sure that the advertisers knew exactly what they were implying. The poor woman/evil lazy man theme is living strong and well in advertising and marketing la-la-land… trust me.

As a matter of fact, what’s this so called, “Shit work”? Seems to me that if clothes require washing someone needs to do them. Back when women ‘ran the house’ it was the woman’s job. Oh boo hoo. Furthermore just where in the hell does she get this “free” shit from? If she is “running the house” and he is FINANCING the household with his labor, then it is what we in the real world like to call, a partnership. His supporting of her, as in a roof over her head, food on the table, and the oh-so-wonderful MALE invention called a washing machine, are all considered as ‘payment’ for her SHARE of the workload.

Even by today’s standards, if he is working 60 hours and she is working 20 or even 40, just who has the time to be doing said washings? Certainly the person that has more time to burn. If that is the woman, which it is most of the time, Ooo-la-la! Logic!

Back when my children were young, their mother worked. I did also, but from the home. I have always had the comfort of working from the home. Now mind you, I worked just as many hours as she did, and sometimes even more. But you know what? I was here. It just made sense for ME to throw a load or two in during the day… to have dinner on the table, to take care of the soccer practices, recitals, and doctors’ appointments. I was the one that had the luxury of flexibility in my work. You know that thing that many employers afford to most women with children, but not to very many men? Yea, that flexibility. So I guess I am the “once in a while a man” they reference in the commercial eh Jessica?

Now lest I get on a tangent, not uncommon for me, this article is not about the commercials specifically. It is about the hypocrisy of a self proclaimed ‘predominant’ feminist blogger(s). But to do that I have to show where the hypocrisy begins; let’s continue shall we? In another similar entry (aren’t they all?), Jessica goes gaga over yet another advert. This time it is Tom Ford’s perfume for men ad. Here is the advertisement as well as her post on the advertisement:

Tom Ford wants everyone to know about his big, thick, hard...perfume bottle"
(Jessica Valenti)

Jessica says, “Just in case you didn't get the oh-so-subtle hint the first time around, Tom Ford wants to make sure that you know he has the most cock-like cologne around.”

Admittedly, I kind of agree with ole Jessie as far as the “WTF” factor. I just don’t get the ad. Why is it necessary to put his bottle on the crotch of a woman’s obviously shaven beaver? I really don’t get it. BUT! ….. BUT! All things being equal, advertisers do things like this for shock value - amongst other things. The point is to get you to remember. And it does, does it not? Think of Tag spray for men for starters. Or better yet, have a gander at this!

FORD’S COMMENTS:
"It was meant to be a play on the new [fragrance] campaign," Ford says—ads are running in magazines on newsstands now that show a bottle of his juice strategically placed in front of a woman's crotch, barely obscuring the holiest of holies. "But there's a double standard with featuring female nudity and featuring male nudity," Ford adds. "When people say to me, 'Well, you objectify women,' [I say] I'm an equal opportunity objectifier. We had a lot of magazines reject the female version [of the campaign], so the male version is going to get rejected even more."

Interesting how THAT little tidbit (pardon…) of information/imagery never entered her nice little buttoned-up ideology, eh?

As for her reference to an “oh-so-subtle hint the first time around”, she is referring to an initial post on her site pertaining to an advertisement similar in nature, below:

And if that isn’t enough to show her disdain for the evils that are male, have a look at this short post:

“Oh. My. God.”

“This may be one of the most heinous (and most ridiculous) displays of dismembered women's body parts I've ever seen. The question is, is it more disturbing to dismember with functionality like a sink, or just straight up for display?“

“The fact that this product in particular is being used as a substitute for a dead animal makes it a wee more heinous for me, but it's a toss-up."

Hmmmm… “Dismembered”? And what my dear would you call a ‘dildo’? You know, those “personal care items” you so pleasingly and enthusiastically promote?

To whit;

“In a campaign to expand the range of their products, Amazon.com has recently started selling sex toys. Awesome.

It’s actually a shitload (around 37,000) of sex products, ranging from condoms and lubricants to dildos and vibrators, located in the Health and Personal Care section. Condoms and lubes have been the top sellers of the products, reaching the top 100 best sellers on the site.

So kudos to Amazon for expanding the personal care of their customers! Click here to check out the products o’ pleasure. After all, who can resist when the vibrators are decorated with daisies.”

Oh, I forgot. That’s differennntttttttttttt……

Anyhow. Moving on…

Sexist? Sure…I guess you could say that. Poor taste? Most certainly. stupid? Indeed. I also find the singing fish of similar form to be stupid as well. “Heinous”? WOW! I donno. Maybe, but not without admitting that many, many advertisements use men in similar manor if not worse. For instance:

The All Men Are Bastards Knife Blocks

The advert (left) claims, “If you've got some aggression to get out and need a place to store your kitchen knives, this is the product for you. It comes with five stainless steel knives--a paring knife, bread knife, carving knife, and large and small chopping knives. The blades are protected in the rear by a clear plastic sleeve.”

Or how about this image of a TV advert:

Trojans ad tells men (and women) that you (men) are pigs unless you use their product…so to speak. Funny how a product that is *supposed* to be for men or at least instill ‘sexual responsibility’ in men demeans them by calling them pigs if they don’t. BUT HEYYYYYYYY! Suck it up! Take it like a man! You know the drill. Shrill and shame…. Shrill and shame.

And not to be outdone by one-offs (or even two-offs) here is yet another one….

Oh the hilarity! Isn’t that just a hoot? Of course ole Jessie and her cohorts have no issue with this bit of ‘humor’. Narre a peep. After all, “It’s just a joke!” Right?

Now, least I be accused of being one-sided…Here is the ‘female version’ of above said pen holder…

But that is where the similarities end…. Ole’ Jesse is upset about the FEMALE VERSION, but says nothing about the male version. Stating;

“Apparently there's more than one woman-hating pencil product out there. First there was the headless doggie-style sharpener, and now Shakes shows us this: Lusty Linda the pen holder.”

You'll note from the packaging that Lusty Linda can utter "8 lusty sayings," which fall into one of two categories”, "good mood" or "bad mood," controlled by the click of a switch. Says one site (screen cap) that sells Lusty Linda, "too bad all women did not have such a switch." Ho ho ho!

Her "bad mood" sayings include "Ow," "Help, Help!" and "Get out you, you dirty old man." You know, because rape is hilarious. “

Indeed Jesse. Rape is hilarious…But only when it’s a man that is… Or should it just be ignored, like you did/do?

Furthermore, one could say that the male version wasn’t present when she did her ‘article’ about the evil, vile, and misogynistic female version. One would be wrong. You see, they ARE BOTH on the same page of the seller that she got her information and image from! Not only that, the male version IS FIRST ON THE PAGE! So, we can surmise that she did indeed see the male version, but chose, in true feminist fashion, to ignore it. Also note that the URL is: http://www.prankplace.com/penman.htm, whereas the name of the page is…PENMAN…

ahem… But I digress... Yet again.

And to add more hypocrisy to her never-ending level of ridiculousness, she calls out Glenn Sacks on his article on such objects, stating;

“Recently "men's rights activists" scoffed at the idea that we were offended by the pencil sharpener, which blogger Glenn Sacks wrote "depicts a conventional, common sex act which women enjoy." (What woman enjoys fucking without her head, I don't know.) I wonder if they'll find more excuses as to how "Help!" and "Ow!" are actually cries of unabashed pleasure.”

Hmmm, how blind can she be? The male version ALSO says similar things when the pen is inserted into his ass. Well, almost. There are no ‘approving indicators’ or ‘good mood’ categories. Only cries of pain…humorous as they are!

Of course, one of her cohorts just has to add her supporting diatribe. You know, to hit the point home;

“Cara puts it well:

This promotes rape. If you buy one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you laugh at one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you don’t laugh but still think that it’s a harmless joke, you are promoting rape. If one of your friends has one, or thinks it’s funny, and you don’t say anything about it, you are promoting rape. (Note: Bold hers)

How many more times do we have to say it? Rape is not funny.”

How exactly did we get from a tasteless and admittedly stupid pen holder to promoting rape? Only in a feminist mind I guess. But wait! Isn’t the male version promoting rape as well?

Of course not! That’s different! It’s funny! Can’t you take a joke? Gesh TMOTS! Get with the program! When it is perceived as derogatory towards women, it is derogatory towards women, period. When it is perceived as derogatory towards men… we men need to get a sense of humor.

Uhuh, we have heard it all.

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.

Frankly, using sex to sell is a tried (or is that tired?) and true method of advertisers. Using violence and insults is not…. Well, that is unless the recipient of the violence is male that is. America’s Funniest Home Videos anyone? You cannot watch that show without seeing no less than two males getting it in the nads. Funny effin shit eh?

Now, I have just spent a significant amount of your time showing how Jessica Valenti; the feminist, has a real issue with sexism. Logically, you would guess that the crux of the issue is actually the objectification of women as sex toys, sexual play things, Using their bodies to sell, degrading them, etc…etc… ad nausea.

Please allow me to submit Exhibit A. This is Jessica at a gathering with other ‘like-minded’ individuals. Or so……she would have you believe….

Notice anything interesting about the image? Here, let me help you less piggy type readers of mine, or the blatantly stupid folks; her gal-pal is grabbing her breast. Now, from her own admission, she is heterosexual. So, the begging question is, WTF?

This is what ‘respectable professional feminist type women’ acts like? Better yet, at a quasi-public gathering? Isn’t this ‘sexual harassment”? Isn’t this an example of disgusting sexual behavior? Sexual harassment?

Would she smile so matter-of-factly if it were a male doing the titillating (pardon…)? Is this just one of those ‘girl thangs’? If so, then how can you be against evil vile men using women as sexual toys, sexual harassment, and allow this to happen to yourself… let alone be photographed? Furthermore, allow it to be published publically on the internet?

Oh, I answered my own question… Silly me. It is only when MEN do it or even thinks about it… THEN! It’s actually bad….

Oh! Wait! I got it! Did she ply you with alcohol? That’s it isn’t it? RAPIST!

Oh wait, silly me, yet again. If that is rape, then it must be a ‘good rape’.

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.

And before any of you claim that I am just a MANster of photo-chopping. This is a real photo. Furthermore, don’t even go to the “well she was drunk and it was this one time….at band camp” crap.

For if it were, just once…at band camp, Exhibit B would not exist right? To whit:

Well, well well… Another titty grab! At a wedding yet! Not sure if it is the bride doing the grabbing, but WTF? Sure looks like it eh? Oh.. And by the way, should she be wearing white? I doubt it. Now that I think of it, where is the man-boy? How does he feel about his future wife acting like this at their wedding? Oh, I forgot (yet again). The wedding is HER day…Only about HER… Only her dreams, desires, and wants… not him. What he thinks or looks like with this sort of sexist activity is of no consequence… She is empowered! She is “OK with her sexuality!” And he damn well better be too! Or else!

SHIT! Wait a minute! A feminist? At a wedding? The imperial venue of the Patriarchy? The patriarchy’s tool of female oppression!? NO! It cannot be! Something is amiss!

In the ever popular style of Rod Serling; “Imagine if you will.. A man, about to be wed, grabs one of his patron pals in the jewels for a photo-op. The Wife to be…. Happy as a lark, giggling like a child with these interesting and empowering images burned into her and her parents’ heads…”

Yea… rightttttttttttt!

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.

But wait! There’s more! Have a gander at this next action-packed image!

Huh!? Isn’t that …uhm….shit! That’s her sister, Vanessa! WOW! Mom and Dad must be oh-so-proud! So not only does ole Jessie have different male/female standards for public displays of ‘affection’, she also apparently thinks that lesbian incest is fine too! As does Vanessa as well I guess.

You go girllllllllz!

Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.

TMOTS

---21st Century 'moms'

2008-06-04T08:03:00.005-05:00

Every once in a while, I come across a ‘site’ that just screams “ARE YOU EFFING SERIOUS?”

Below is a perfect example of what a 'modern' and 'independant' woman sees her husband as.... a mule. And what's her job? Guess...

It's a good thing she has time to follow her 'new passion' as well, feminism...

Oh, and I refuse to give a link to this pathetic site. Suffice it to say that it is a site dedicated to, now get this.... mommies! And this was listed under the heading of “The Equality Challenge”. Yea, okayyyyy…

Her post is in italics, and my responses are not...
___________________________________________________________
On November 18th, 2007 Barbara (not verified) said:

“Hi everyone! I just have to make mention a couple of things. First is the fact that I am in my mid thirties and have found a new passion (other than my wonderful husband and just as wonderful four children). My new passion is the subject of feminism. From it's very beginning to the current issues has held my fascination for the last few months or so. This is the reason I have come across this wonderful forum.”

Mid thirties, four children….. wow! Must be chaos in your house! Especially when you add feminism to the mix.

“Second, I too have a fantastic 'partnership' for a marriage. My husband works fulltime in an extremely emotionally, physically, and psychologically difficult job, goes to school to complete his second degree, and is also "on call" 24-7.”

Well, at least she can admit that it isn’t really a partnership, albeit subconciously. Note the use of the ticks around the word ‘partnership’.

So he works his ass off, goes to school, and is on call 24/7, and is supportive of you. And what exactly do you do to support him?

“With all this being said, he is the most supportive man I have ever been lucky enough to have met. He went from a single man to marrying me- a single mom of two with an abusive ex-husband. (whom is still extremely mentally and psychologically abusive) Duane (my wonderful husband) has taken the challenge of parenthood to the absolute extreme.”

Oh, that’s right, you gave him a ready made family and just for good measure, you added a couple more. What a woman.

And of course, just to add a little icing to the top of the cake, the tried and true “I have an abusive ex….blah blah”…. Got it. Thanks. And what exactly does that have to do with the price of freaking tea in China?

“Not only is he an active parent of my first two children, but in 2004, we were blessed with a set of girl/boy twins. My wonderful husband was never asked to change diapers because he was always headed that way before I got a chance to. He changed diapers, did dishes, had "binky patrol", got up almost every single night each and every time it was feeding time, etc., etc., etc. He did this even when he went back to work after taking a six-week FMLA.”

Well, isn’t that special. He got to take ‘family leave’ (without pay I am sure) so that you could… uhm… what….. sit on your fat ass and watch him do everything? How very…. Uhm… 21st century woman and supportive of you. Were you sick? Is there a reason for you not to do anything and he does everything (by her own admission)?

So he is an “active parent”. Gesh, then what does that make you? I would really hate to see what an “inactive parent” looks like. Oh wait….

“Now fast forward three + years and he continues to take on any chore that is necessary to maintain our household. This includes, but is not lmited to, dishes, cleaning bathrooms, planning AND cooking meals, vacuuming, windows, grocery shopping, potty-training assistance, laundry, etc. The list goes on. The really neat thing about this - I have never had to ask him to do these things. He does these things on his own!!! How cool is that? Oh, I must also mention that I am a stay-at-home-mom.”

Hmmm… The kids appear to be of school age now… At least two are and the other two are most likely in kindergarden. What is it exactly do you do all day again? Oh that’s right, you’re a stay-at-home-mom! That’s what! Oh wait! “potty Training assistance” so that must mean you at least do part of that…..

WHEW! Take a break! Must be very tiring! Would you like some bonbons with your oprah Madam? I am sure if you call your man-slave at work, he can stop by the store and get you another box!

Curious though, does he ever ask you to do anything? Do you ever ‘just do it’ because it needs to be done so that after a nice easy day at work he doesn’t have to come home and do it? Nawwww that would never enter into your selfish little mind now would it. Why would you? You can just sit around feeling lucky and ‘allow’ him to do it all and you so that you can follow your new passion, feminism! You go Grrrlll!

“So for all those who have lost hope as I had once done, every now and again there is a man (many more perhaps) that actually know how difficult running a household fulltime is. He walks in the door, takes off his uniform, rolls up his sleeves, and gets busy. This absolutely includes the fun "hi-yaaa!!!" (say it like you are doing a karate-chop). There is even bathtimes, story-times, and snuggles to be had!”

Lost hope in what? Having a personal slave that not only does everything traditionally his, but all of your traditional stuff as well? WHOOT! Man! What a lucky son-of-a-bitch he is! Or should I say husband-of-a-bitch….Seems more apropoe. All is well though. You found your gold ring! You can have time for your new passion and just wait a few years for him to croak! Then, it’ll all be yours!!!!!!!

“Knows how difficult running a household fulltime is”.

Really? How the hell would you know? You, by your own admission, haven’t a clue as to what it takes. Oh, wait, I take that back. You do know what needs to be done, you just don’t do any of it. You just gloat on a femikook site about ‘how lucky you are’.

Oh, you are lucky all right. No man in his right fucking mind would put up with this shit. You are a stay-at-home-mom but you don’t do any 'mom' stuff! Well, except the stay at home part that is. Personally, the word leach comes to mind.

“I still am very interested in becoming active in the feminism works of current events. Please give me some ideas that I can do to begin this challenge.”

Well for starters, how about getting your ass out of the house and work, you lazy bitch. Secondly, according to feminism, equality and sharing the workload is the order of the day. So you best be getting your ass off the couch and start doing some chores around the house. Maybe a nice dinner from the microwave once a month for starters. Wouldn’t want you to get overwhelmed now would we… Maybe you should go on holiday or something… you know, some ‘me time’. You sure could use it.

“I thank you all for your time.”

No problem. Not like you have any time to spare, so what else is a slav….err man who has plenty to spare to do?

“Sincerely, Barbara”

Oh, I don’t doubt that you have some redeaming qualities, I am just not sure what they are. I am sure though, that sincerity isn’t one of them you pathetic meatbag!

SOOOOOoooooo… Let's recap, shall we?

He works 6 days a week in a physically, emotionally, and psychologically challenging job.

He is ALSO attending college to get his SECOND degree.

He comes home and immediately "rolls up his sleeves and gets to work" by cooking dinner, doing baths, cleaning, laundry, etc etc.... all the while continuing to do traditional male things like house/yard/car maintenance stuff.

And what does she do? Well, she is a 'stay-at-home-mom'. Uhuh. Good to see that she understands what a stay-at-home-PARENT really does…

In closing, I am not condemning all stay-at-home-moms. It’s just that this woman is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that they (some) are so full of shit. In her warped little mind, this is what a husband ‘helping out’ is all about. Well, I don’t consider this a partnership at all. This man is on a one way trip to his grave.

If a woman wants the traditional role (staying at home mommy) then she should be doing the traditional STAY AT HOME stuff! Pretty simple actually. When I was a WORK-at-home-dad, I did most of the traditional mom stuff as well as my own dad stuff. Why? It made sense, I was home! She was out working her ass off, keeping us covered medically! It was the right thing to do! I had the flexability, and the time, I used it wisely. Something that the modern day stay-at-home-moms seem to have conveniently forgotten about.

TMOTS

---The Ignored (or is that Hidden) Truth

2008-04-28T13:09:00.015-05:00

You know, every time I see a pink ribbon campaign I get pissed off. Oh sure, some would say; “if you knew someone that survived or even died from breast cancer, you’d think differently.” Well, I have, I do, and I still feel the same thank you very much.

Recently, I was ‘discussing’ yet again, the disparity in research, care, and funding for men’s health issues. And of course, the subject of breast cancer being the #2 killer of all female creatures on the planet, whereas #1 being the patriarchy itself…

Tired of the bullshit ‘facts’ thrown around, I decided to waste some of my time researching the actual FACTS from two major sources, that of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the NCI (National Cancer Institute).

Oh sure, I already knew that there was a significant disparity, but I wanted ALL THE FACTS. The how many’s and how muches, so to speak.

As with any “official statistical gathering”, there is always missing years. Why? I haven’t a clue. We are in 2008, yet there is very little concrete numbers more current than 2006/07.

Anyhow, without further ado, here is what I have found. By the way, I took the time to find this information, if you want to argue it, feel free, but look it up yourself. I aint your research bitch.

ACTUAL AND REAL NUMBERS on the disparity in research, education and treatment of two prevalent gender specific cancers; Prostate Cancer and (Female) Breast Cancer specifically.

Information from the 2006 NCI (National Cancer Institute) Fact Book:

Total budgeted dollars spent from 2002 - 2006 overall:

Male – 1.4 Billion
Female – 2.78 Billion - Almost twice the amount.

**Research dollars spent in 2006 alone on two gender specific cancers:

Male Prostate Cancer – 293.2 Million
Female (only) Breast Cancer – 584.7 Million - Again, almost twice the amount.

Estimated Incident rates of cancers for all races for 2007:

Male – 766,860
Female – 678,060 - Over 100,000 more cases in males versus females estimated

FYI: that from 2000 to 2004: Incident rate was 2.3M/1.7M Male/female – a difference of 600K more men.

Estimated Mortality Rate for all races 2007:

Male – 289,550
Female – 270,100 - Over 10,000 more male deaths estimated

FYI: that from 2000 to 2004: Mortality rate was 1.2M/807K Male/ female – a difference of about 400K more men.

** In most of their data sheets, 2006 was the latest numbers.

And for those that do not like to read, here is a cute little graph from the CDC showing the top 10 cancers - incident rate in 2004 for male/female (all races):

And here is the top 10 cancer mortality rate in 2004 for male/female (all races):

Please note the CDC’s reason for 2004 being the latest information:

“Previous versions of United States Cancer Statistics have been updated with 1999–2004 cancer cases as reported to CDC as of January 2007, and as reported to NCI as of November 2006, and made available through the SEER Program public use file.”

Notice that although not the #1 killer, prostate still KILLS MORE MEN OVER ALL RACES than breast cancer kills women... yet where is the research? Where is the $$? Where are the walkathons, the cans in the 7-11, the ribbons, and the stamps?! Where? Shit, even testicular cancer gets more media attention... and that is only because recently, a few public figures (Lance Armstrong for example) have MADE IT A MEDIA ISSUE. And that isn’t even in the top 10 cancers with just over 7 thousand new cases and 380 deaths in 2007.

Cute little tid-bits of info:

In 2006 alone, our government “granted” (gave) foreign countries: 28.16 Million dollars for cancer research. No stipulations or explanations as to where it actually went. Nice to know we have that sort of cash to just give away for…well… who knows?

In 2005, an additional $2.9 million was received by the NCI from the US Postal Service’s sale of the Breast Cancer Stamp. This is not calculated in the total dollar amount of breast cancer monies above.

In 2006, an additional $6.9 million was received by the NCI from the US Postal Service’s sale of the Breast Cancer Stamp. This is not calculated in the total dollar amount of breast cancer monies above.

So let us summarize:

Although the prostate is the #1 cancer site, we as a country spend almost double the amount of money on research, care, education and program moneys (USPS Stamps) on breast cancer (specifically women’s breast cancer – yes girls and boys, men can and do get it too).

Although prostate cancer is the #2 overall cancer killer of humans (sorry girls you are not the primary victims this time), breast cancer gets more media attention, funding, donations, educational programs, and of course donations.

Although prostate cancer doesn't differentiate between common men and political leaders, there have been recent politicians that have had a battle with prostate cancer... Yet, they continue to perpetuate this financial discrimination, I call it 'gray discrimination', upon all men. why?

Tell me again why we need a Federally Funded Women’s Health Commission as well as an International Women’s Health Commission (read – our tax dollars) whereas none exists for men?

FOR the people, OF the people, and BY the people.. eh?

TMOTS

---Here's my letter - How about yours?

2008-02-18T10:46:00.007-05:00

Honorable Michigan State Parole Board,

I am writing to you in the hopes that you will revisit your recent decision to deny parole for William J. Hetherington. Also, I apologize if I may in advance for my rather lengthy letter.

William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for over 20 years for the alleged crime of ‘spousal rape’. Coincidently, in 1986, he became the first man “convicted” under this new law. A law that was created, in my opinion, for no other reason than to vilify men in a court of law with no hope of fair and equal treatment under said laws. But that is not really at issue here. And even now, 20 years later, he is still incarcerated well beyond that of a ‘normal’ rapist all based upon the “he said – she said” model that has been proven time and time again to be the case when a divorce is in process.

In reviewing the parole hearing notes, your notes, it is clearly evident that William does not accept guilt for a crime that he believes he did not commit. Furthermore, it is quite clear that based upon your own notations, he does not propose a threat upon society, has bettered himself in many ways, has medical issues that require a specialty physician, and has been virtually a model prisoner. Under normal circumstances, these points alone would garner a pedophile or dare I say murderer, a chance to continue on with his life outside of a cell…

Yet you continue to deny this man parole. The question remains, why? For what reason are you denying this man his right to reasonable due process? Incarceration is supposedly used for two reasons, punishment and rehabilitation. Reverting back to your notations once again, it is apparent that the sole reason is that the "prisoner denies the offense".

Rehabilitation can only beget in the event of acceptance of guilt, for which William categorically denies to this day, over 20 years later. Since when is release from incarceration upon completing the ‘required’ amount of time dependent upon ones admission of guilt?

Punishment on the other hand should fit the crime should it not? If not, it should at least fit the guidelines set forth by the law in and of itself, should it not? The state of Michigan stipulates that the sentence for ‘spousal rape” is to be set at 1 to 10 years incarceration. Yet, without showing just cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years which is more than twice that of the average convicted rapist in Michigan.

As for the case itself, there are so many discrepancies; it boggles the mind when attempting to understand how this man was found guilty. I would dare to imply that it is that of made-for-TV movie on Lifetime. I would like to highlight a few indicators that I believe had merit alone to question the validity of this case and apparent gross miscarriage of justice. To whit;

Hetherington, a Vietnam Veteran, was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.
Linda Hetherington is not and has never been a battered wife. She herself, under oath, testified that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage.
Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. As previously stated, this case was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he claims that they had consensual sex, she claims it was rape. The presiding judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
For which if cross examination had been allowed, the fact that Linda had on two other separate occasions, made claims of rape against William only to rescind these claims later. Under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, “a person has a right to face their accuser”. If one cannot question the validity and/or the possibility of serial false accusations, how is one to get a just and fair trial? Rhetorical, of course.
No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Only her words were enough for this man to be found guilty of the heinous crime of rape.
The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... His histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
Evidential photographs of the alleged victim were never disclosed to the defense and were incorrectly handled. Specifically, ten years after conviction, Jeff Feldman, under the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of the five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage.
The rape case was coincidentally prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case. This action alone put William in the middle of a ‘rock and a hard place’. Since the divorce court had frozen all his (their) assets, he had no money to hire a lawyer or to even make bond. Yet, because of his listed assets, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent (or poor enough) and refused to provide him with a court appointed lawyer.
A four page report submitted with a sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 by an acclaimed forensics photographer. John Valor, utilizing new and modern techniques, stated that the pictures of Linda showed no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, absolute. Furthermore, he states that marks would have been identifiable and clearly visible if there had been any at all.
This brings to the forefront an additional discrepancy that, under the law, if a witness (in this case a government witness) gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but William Hetherington has yet to receive one. In the least, the witness should be charged with perjury.
The State of Michigan’s sentencing guideline for this new offense at the time was 1 to 10 years yet, without cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years.
At sentencing, the prosecutor, one Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and maliciously accused William of beating Linda with no evidence to support his wildly false accusation. Coincidently yet again, Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the feminists and gender-baiters.
Additionally, this particular point has all the components and indicators of William being ‘Nifonged’. A reference to the railroading of three innocent boys at Duke University by a rogue DA and a stripper and drug addict; Ms. Chrystal Gail Mangum.
For more than 12 years, the court has refused to provide William with court transcripts. Of course, without funds, he was unable to purchase one. Thus, he was effectively denied his right of appeal, an inalienable right supposedly granted to all accused. And to this day, no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.

No physical evidence, a Judges gross misconduct and political motivations, no legal representation, denied due process, denial of appeal, false testimonies, and blatant lies have kept this man in prison for over 20 years. All the while his estranged wife Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets. This achingly rings true to many men that find themselves in a bitter divorce and custody battle today.

For example, a few years later, a letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had babysitter for Linda. Suchy stated that Linda told her she made up the whole story about rape because she was pregnant from her boyfriend. And of course in true ‘victim speak’, she claimed that her boyfriend had pushed her to press rape charges, saying that “he wouldn't take care of the baby” if she didn’t "get rid of Hetherington."

Or course, Suchy's letter is justifiably considered hearsay, but it has the ring of truth considering the atmosphere created by the Domestic Violence and Divorce Industries. Yes, they are indeed part of an industry… A billion dollar industry.

It is my opinion that a good man's life has been sacrificed for no other reason but to show the women of Michigan that the new law is “tough on rape and DV”, nothing more. It mattered not if he was innocent or guilty. It matters not that his punishment has already exceeded that of a ‘real rapist’, threefold. The system must protect its own. And most certainly it must never-ever-ever admit its errors, let alone correct them.

Three innocent children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists and their lackeys who have lobbied for such slight-of-hand laws that punish GOOD MEN for such ‘gray-area-rape’ similarly to that of a rape or murder committed by a stranger. In creating this law, GOOD MEN are denied the right to cross-examine his accuser and have solidified a system that states a woman never lies, must always be believed, contrary to evidence and similar serial accusations… And the man… well the man is always guilty, isn’t he.

Coming full circle, let me just state that regardless of his guilt or innocence, the constitutionality of his case is sorely lacking and errs on the side of false imprisonment without due process; a human rights issues if I ever saw one.

In closing, I urge you to take a serious look at William J. Hetherington’s case. More importantly, I urge you to re-evaluate your decision to deny bail yet again.

If you believe he is guilty, then he has completed his time. And if you believe that there are too many discrepancies to ignore this man’s plight, please do what is right and release him. Give him a chance to have a life; a chance to be a father, a chance for his children to know this man. At least as their father if not moreso, an innocent man.

Supplimental Information:

I again urge my readers to write to the Michigan Parole Board at the following address.

Michigan Parole Board
C/o Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909

Letters should mention Mr. Hetherington's name and his inmate number of 186155.

Mr. Hetherington likes copies of letters sent to the parole board to be mailed to him as well. His address follows:

William J. Hetherington #186155
Boyer Road Carson City Correctional Facilities
PO Box 5000
Carson City, MI 48811-5000.

Remember, this could happen to you!

---Redefining and redirecting... A feminist Mantra

2008-01-14T08:44:00.000-05:00

So, once again the femikooks are all in a tither over what is or is not rape. I submit to you, a new term - "gray rape". Funny how I, an MRA/FRA have never heard of this term until a feminist mentioned it....

Supposedly, "gray rape" is like not 'real' rape, but rape none-the-less. Like when a guy and a girl start going at it and then she all of a sudden decides, for whatever reason, to withdraw consent. To me, this IS a gray area. If two people are already in the throws of intercourse, as in he has penetrated her, or in the supposed case below, oral sex has begun, and she wants it to stop, and he doesn't well... by definition, it is rape. But is certainly is a little gray wouldn't you say?

Read the alleged "rape" story:

The young woman calls what happened to her something akin to “gray rape,” a term she learned from an article in Cosmopolitan written by Washington Post journalist Laura Sessions Stepp. Hunter admits she initiated the encounter. But she eventually withdrew her consent, she says. “The whole thing was very confusing to me, and I didn’t know what to do about it for such a long time,” she says.

His mattress was on the floor pushed up against a wall, she says. “I’m sitting up against the wall on his mattress, and he’s standing over me,” she continues.

“It started happening, and then he, like, twisted his fingers around my hair and started pulling it and being just kind of violent. I started choking because he was just, like, pushing my head.… I started gagging and choking, and I couldn’t really breathe.”...She says she started pushing on Shaw-Fox’s abdomen to tell him to stop. “And he was like, ‘Yeah, that’s right, choke on it.’”

Now, I ain't no rocket scientist, but since when is giving a blow job called "it started to happen"? He is standing over her, she is performing oral sex on him. That much is very clear. So instead of stating that SHE was performing orally on him, the story teller (or the writer herself) chose to minimize her part in this "ordeal" by using cutsie worlds like "it started to happen"... Can't make "the victim" look like she was somehow responsible - at ANY level... right?

So if you femikooks have issues with terms like "gray rape", why is it that you have no issue with a woman sucking a cock and defining it as "it started happening"? What if HE used that term? "Your honor, I don't know what happened... I was standing over her with my cock out, and "it started happening". Uhuh... Thought so.

Getting back to the alleged "rape", he started acting like an ass by grabbing her hair & head (most women don't like that BTW pal) and shoving his penis deeper into her mouth. So far that she was having problems breathing. She got scared (understandably IMO) and tried to push him away...This is disgusting and pathetic, yes. But "rape"? Honestly, I am not sure.

Now, notice that the story doesn't go any further. Did "the deed" stop there? Did actual intercourse happen? Who knows. What we see is an example of an asshole, no doubt. But I would have a serious problem with trying this as a "rape" case. Especially if we find out that intercourse did actually happened AFTER the BJ. But I will err on the side of caution and assume that it went no further than this act.

So what do we have here then? We have an allegedly consenting adult woman blowing an allegedly adult male, he becomes crude and forceful and now he is a rapist? I think not. Again, an asshole? You betcha! But a rapist. No.

This IMO, IS an example of an asshole. And if there is such a thing as "gray rape" by definition, then this "COULD" be considered it; I am just not sure.

But let's go one step further just for the hell of it. Let's say that intercourse happened AFTER the blow job. Is this still rape? Is it a "gray rape"? Not at all in my opinion. Nothing more than a bad sexual experience... no more, no less.

Now let's look at a feminist's view on this:

"Rape can be confusing, it doesn't make it "gray." Feminists have long fought to dispel the myth that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you. In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker when he forced her to perform oral sex on him."

Notice? Anyone? Can you see the ever so slight twists and turns? Here, let me help you...

First we have this nice little example of redirection....

"...that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you."

Notice the implication that he somehow did 'something else'. It's not just the BJ that happened according to this femikook. Or maybe it's that there IS IN FACT more to this story, but she chose to omit it... nawwwwwww... nice empowered, educated, and strong women don't do that sort of thing right?

Was she there? Does she know what this supposed "victim" consented to? I mean really! She is sucking his wee wee! Obviously she was at least consenting to that particular part of this so-called intimacy! DUH!

Follow me here....

The femi goes on to say;

"...In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker..."

First, we have the typical knee-jerk conviction. "Eventual-attacker"... WTF is that shit? It was inevitable that he was going to "rape" her? Is that what she is implying? I guess so, since he does in fact have the patriarchy patented tool that is called the penis!

Then she goes even further in her redefinition of the supposed event(s). To whit;

"...when he forced her to perform oral sex on him."

Uhm.... "He forced her"? Is she reading the same thing I am? According to the alleged victim, "it started happening". Remember? There appears to be no actual responsibility on either party according to her account...

"It started happening"... You know, like rain and snow. A force of nature 'en all.

Pathetic. Feminists always appear to be right on top of these sort of things (pardon the pun) but in reality they are only on top of it long enough to redefine and redirect responsibility.

I would gather that if women like this femikook had their way, any and all actual ejaculation would be considered rape. Pull out and spooge on her? RAPIST! Spooge into the condom when she "is not ready"? RAPIST! Oh! And if you dare to spooge IN HER MOUTH when she said that she didn't want you to... that is the new and improved UBER RAPIST!

Ever wonder why men are getting more and more tired of this sort of crap? Constantly redefining terms and words to fit their dementia...er I mean ideologies... Constantly redirecting responsibility so that it is ALWAYS the man's fault... Think about it ladies.. and I use that label lightly, one plus one actually does equal two. Not sometimes three, or in a leap year, five.....

This is a clear case (based on the small amount of information given - intentionally I am sure) of a sexual encounter with a creep. Yes, I said it. He was a creep. He was so into his own personal pleasure that for some ungodly reason, he 'forgot' that if you clog the throat of someone, they just might have a problem breathing. He was so into what he was doing that he made crude comments (at least to her) like "Yea, that's right, choke on it!". Asshole? You-betcha!

But "rape" it is not.

...and there ain't no gray here either....

TMOTS

---Ah yes...Only men are pigs

2007-12-19T11:42:00.000-05:00

Here's one for the records....

Tue Dec 18, 4:05 PM ET

DANBURY, Conn. - Santa Claus says that a woman who sat on his lap was naughty, not nice. A Santa at the Danbury Fair mall said the woman groped him. "The security officer at the mall said Santa Claus has been sexually assaulted," police Detective Lt. Thomas Michael said of the weekend complaint.

Sandrama Lamy, 33, of Danbury, was charged with sexual assault and breach of peace. She was released on a promise to appear in court on Jan. 3.

Police quickly found and identified Lamy because the woman was described as being on crutches, said Capt. Bob Myles.

A call seeking comment from Lamy was answered by a recording Tuesday morning. A woman later called back and said: "It's a false report and I don't have any idea."

Police did not give the name of the disconcerted Santa, but they said he is 65 and felt badly because children were waiting to see him. "He was apparently shocked and embarrassed by the whole incident," Myles said.

A man who teaches hundreds of prospective Santas a year — "Santa Tim" Connaghan, president of RealSantas.com — said he's never heard of a similar incident, though it's not unusual for adults to want to pose with Santa.

"I've had some very nice ladies sit on my lap," said Connaghan, who did not train the Danbury Fair Santa. "Once in a while they'll say 'I hope Mrs. Claus isn't going to be upset.' You have to be discreet and kind and say 'Oh no, she'll be OK. You can sit here, but only for one photo.'"

A spokeswoman for Cherry Hill Photo, the company that coordinates Santas for Danbury Fair, declined to comment Tuesday.

Imagine if the roles were reversed? Imagine the public outcry! Imagine all the little chillens that would need years of therapy!

TMOTS

---UPDATE!

2007-11-08T07:27:00.001-05:00

As of Nov 4th, at 12 midnight, on Fox network.... this PSA, that was supposedly "removed in good faith", is still running.....

Uhuh....

TMOTS

---Where Would You Hide...The TRUTH!

2007-08-18T11:06:00.000-05:00

Not sure if any of you check out YouTube, read my blogs, SYG, or even know who I am but...

A while back the MSPCC (Massachusetts Society for the something or other) put out an very defaming PSA about fathers and child abuse. This ad, brought to the attention of many readers by Glenn Sacks and MND, essentially implied, once again, through MISinformation, that all fathers are brutish abusers; specifically that of children.

Note that Glenn & Co. called for the removal and he and a few other men of noteworthiness through their own channels were able to get the PSA removed from the television. I comment him for his victory for lack of a better word.

BUT! The damage is done…

And, of course this garbage is still prevalent on the internet.....

Furthermore, Glenn called for us MRAs NOT to bombard them with emails etc because they "had done the right thing" by removing the ad.

Maybe so, but let’s say a person drove over your favorite pet, caused by their own stupidity or recklessness and not just an honest accident. They, “doing the right thing” paid the costs ensued and even went as far as to purchase you a NEW pet…

Would you be all cuddly and palsy-walsy with them now? Of course not. You would still have anger, sadness, and feel angst towards them at some level. In other words, the images of your pet being killed at the hands of a reckless act (such as the likes of MISinformation) is STILL embedded in your mind. The feelings are still in your heart. The pain and anger is still there. Sure, time will heal but…. The image(s) are now there…true or not.

The damage is done…..

By the way, did you notice how I used non-gender specifics above? See? It is actually quite easy to do!

Back to my tirade. I for one disagree with Glenn. Respectfully of course, but none-the-less disagree still. If just one person saw that ad, believed the bull, and now views all fathers as the prevailing child abusers in the home, then the ad did what it was supposed to do and we are once again evil monsters. And I truly believe that this WAS what the intention of the PSA all along.

Sure, one could say that the ad was really about child abuse as a whole. But when the gender of the perp is specifically a male actor, specifically labeled a “father” or “dad”. You get the message. It would have been very easy for them to just use the word “parent” and still get the message out. Yes, this message needs to get out, I do not argue that point what-so-ever. But they chose agenda over the children, per se instead.

The damage is done….

Arguably, this PSA was geared specifically towards Massachusetts. The numbers, albeit slightly correct (for that year), were seriously lacking and MISguiding. As we all say, ‘cherry picking’ to prove your point painfully to an agenda. And taking that side intentionally to MISlead when the overall facts are COMPLETELY different is dishonest in the least. To ignore the real facts, because they support the opposite of your agenda, in the least should be criminal. How many ways can I say it…

When I see media like this, I battle within myself as to what I should do about it. I want to be active because I care; and yes, sometimes, angry about it. But I also have very little time to pee, let alone do these videos that I must confess, are a tad cumbersome to produce. It’s the researching part that gets to me. I get so downtrodden when I read, re-read, and yet read again how fathers are monsters and mothers are better than sliced bread! It gets to me. I get angry, depressed, and then angry again…. Vicious cycle. A cycle that I place myself within time and time again because I feel that if one doesn’t do SOMETHING, then they have no real basis to piss-n-moan.

Anyhow, this one was just a days (ok evenings) work and I believe well worth the effort. I already had the REAL facts, all I needed to do was recreate the “slides” and do a little remove/insert action. Adjust the timing, add a few additional CORRECT facts, tape myself playing twinkle twinkle on my keyboards, compile it and viola! Remember, this was an easy one!

Legally, I am probably wrong by using THEIR PSA with my CORRECT and easily locatable data. But sometimes, ya just gottah say fuck it. They need to be called upon their lies. Sure, it was removed from the Television, but it is still all over the net…. And folks are touting this as fact with epic proportions! BULLSHIT I SAY!

So that is my tangent. Here is my response video to the Massholes, and to those on YouTube that tout this garbage as fact…. Enjoy.

TMOTS

---Lest we forget!

2007-07-16T18:09:00.000-05:00

The Duke University List of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" Professors...

One down, many, many more to go! Well, at a minimum, 87 more. Remember them. Repeat their names. Remind everyone you know that this is what true bigotry looks like…

Just look at their “titles”. WTF is a professor of “Romance Studies”??? “Dance Program”??? Are you kidding me? Is this what passes as a “Professor” these days? God save our children!

Abe, Stan (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
Albers, Benjamin (University Writing Program)
Allison, Anne (Cultural Anthropology)
Aravamudan, Srinivas (English)
Baker, Houston (English and AAAS)
Baker, Lee (Cultural Anthropology)
Beckwith, Sarah (English)
Berliner, Paul (Music)
Christina Beaule (University Writing Program)
Blackmore, Connie (AAAS)
Jessica Boa (Religion & University Writing Program)
Boatwright, Mary T. (Classical Studies)
Boero, Silvia (Romance Studies)
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (Sociology)
Brim, Matthew (University Writing Program)
Chafe, William (History)
Ching, Leo (Asian & African Languages and Literatures)
Coles, Rom (Political Science)
Cooke, Miriam (Asian & African Languages and Literatures)
Crichlow, Michaeline (AAAS)
Curtis, Kim (Political Science)
Damasceno, Leslie (Romance Studies)
Davidson, Cathy (English)
Deutsch, Sally (History)
Dorfman, Ariel (Literature & Latin American Stds.)
Edwards, Laura (History)
Farred, Grant (Literature)
Fellini, Luciana (Romance Studies)
Fulkerson, Mary McClintock (Divinity School)
Gabara, Esther (Romance Studies)
Gavins, Raymond (History)
Greer, Meg (Romance Studies)
Glymph, Thavolia (History)
Hardt, Michael (Literature)
Harris, Joseph (University Writing Program)
Holloway, Karla (English)
Holsey, Bayo (AAAS)
Hovsepian, Mary (Sociology)
James, Sherman (Public Policy)
Kaplan, Alice (Literature)
Khalsa, Keval Kaur (Dance Program)
Khanna, Ranjana (English)
King, Ashley (Romance Studies)
Koonz, Claudia (History)
Lasch, Peter (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies & Latino/a Studies)
Lee, Dan A. (Math)
Leighten, Pat (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
Lentricchia, Frank (Literature)
Light, Caroline (Inst. for Crit. U.S. Stds.)
Litle, Marcy (Comparative Area Studies)
Litzinger, Ralph (Cultural Anthropology)
Longino, Michele (Romance Studies)
Lubiano, Wahneema (AAAS and Literature)
Maffitt, Kenneth(History)
Mahn, Jason (University Writing Program)
Makhulu, Anne-Maria (AAAS)
Mason, Lisa (Surgical Unit-2100)
McClain, Paula (Political Science)
Meintjes, Louise (Music)
Mignolo, Walter (Literature and Romance Studies)
Moreiras, Alberto (Romance Studies)
Neal, Mark Anthony (AAAS)
Nelson, Diane (Cultural Anthropology)
Olcott, Jolie (History)
Parades, Liliana (Romance Studies)
Payne, Charles (AAAS and History)
Pierce-Baker, Charlotte (Women's Studies)
Pebles-Wilkins, Wilma
Petters, Arlie (Math)
Plesser, Ronen (Physics)
Radway, Jan (Literature)
Rankin, Tom (Center for Documentary Studies)
Rego, Marcia (University Writing Program)
Reisinger, Deborah S. (Romance Studies)
Rosenberg, Alex (Philosophy)
Rudy, Kathy (Women's Studies)
Schachter, Marc (English)
Shannon, Laurie (English)
Sigal, Pete (History)
Silverblatt, Irene (Cultural Anthropology)
Somerset, Fiona (English)
Stein, Rebecca (Cultural Anthropology)
Thorne, Susan (History)
Viego, Antonio (Literature)
Vilaros, Teresa (Romance Studies)
Wald, Priscilla (English)
Wallace, Maurice (English and AAAS)
Wong, David (Philosophy)

---Lets you and them DUKE it out…

2007-04-12T09:25:00.000-05:00

So some 390 plus days later, the AG of Durham NC states what this man, as well as many thousands of other already knew:

“The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges, today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges. We believe these cases were a result of a tragic rush to accuse and failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies in the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.”

Funny how the MSM is now showing Crystal Gail Magnum (or is it Mangum?) for the liar she is. Furthermore, they… well most of the MSM, are actually posting her image and name! Finally!

The sad point is that the AG will not charge her, the FALSELY ACCUSED will not (at least at this time) be suing her or anyone else for that matter. So nothing really is going to happen to a woman that has cost the families over 3 million dollars, the county or Durham at least that much, and the reputations of these young men. Where are the pot-bangers, the women holding signs calling for the castration of these boys? Where is the Duke 88? The Mangina of a campus prez? Huh? What’s that? I cannot hear you!

Once again, the message is loud and clear, that women can make FALSE ACCUSATIONS with impunity. Once again, the system has shown that a man is cannon fodder: unimportant.

During the press conference, Seligmann stated that the entire experience was a "dark cloud of justice," saying, "Today marks the end of a yearlong nightmare that has been emotionally devastating for all of our families."

Ehhhh. So what… You are just a bunch of privileged white boys… Right? What about the lying hooker…err I mean victim? What about poor widow Cwistow Gaiwl Mangum? What about the ka-bazillion women raped every single nano-second of the day that will now be shamed into not coming forward? Oh? What is that? You mean that is not a true statistic. Really? What?! Approximately 50% of the rape accusations are proven unfounded or completely false. No way! Women do not lie. Especially about such an ‘orible thing like rape!

Seligmann further states; "The Duke lacrosse case shows has shown society has lost sight of the most fundamental principles of our justice system." Gee, what ever could he be alluding to? That annoying innocent until proven guilty thing again?
He also tongue-lashed the media for the "hurtful words" and "outrageous lies” perpetuated against them. Oh, but they are protected as well, by “freedom of speech” don’t-cha-know.

"Truth is the best vindication against slander," Seligmann said, quoting Abraham Lincoln.

That may be a real nice touchy-feely retort there buddy, but it still does not get you a job in the real world now does it. It will not put all those asshats like Katie C, Wendy Mac, Vanessa V, Amada Marcrotch-rot, and their ilk in their rightful places, now will it? Funny how all these femikooks are now more quiet that the crickets. Not even will they try to justify this travesty in justice, let alone attempt to defend their previous comments.

Sue them all guys. Make a nice living suing every single fucking person that ever made a slanderous comment or implied your guilt without a single legal grain of evidence. You are “well off” now, just think how “well off” you could become if you held these folks accountable for their words. Do the names Rush Limbaugh or Don Imus ring a bell? They were crucified for saying hateful and bigoted things, and rightly so. What is the difference? Because the “victim” is a black person? Or is it because she is a woman? Or is it both. I call shenanigans…

Evans even went so far as to address MSM’s comparing the lacrosse players to Hitler, an analogy he said was one of many made in the days after the allegations surfaced, as reported on Fox News website.

"My family and I can sleep at night knowing I did everything I was supposed to do. I never lied … and I can walk with my head held high and I can sleep at night knowing I couldn't have done anything else to prove my innocence."

Yes, and it is a good thing you had the money to defend yourselves. As one of the boys stated, this would have never ended this way if they had not had the resources to combat against the charges. All is very telling indeed. This is what is really irks the likes of the femikooks. This is why they are so silent now. The femi-regime had a calculated plan. Chrystal was their savior. Their reason for pushing for such ridiculous laws like VAWA, the new and improved I-VAWA, and the DV industry as a whole. They needed a new poster child to show the Patriarchy’s™ stronghold on the world. The evils that are male must be put in check and in the least shamed into submission.

ABC’s website stated, "Fresh eyes would have ended this case before it began," said Larry Pozner, a defense attorney for 33 years and former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "This is a travesty. This is a tragedy for the woman and the team and the individual defendants."

And thereeeeeeesssssss your sign. Notice how even in the eyes of legalese, a lying stripper, twice over is still the victim. Oh the tragedy. This poor woman. HUH? Excuse me? The only place this skank was being portrayed for what she really is, a lying skank hooker, was the internet. Even then, the sites that willfully stated her name under the guise of fair and equal justice were far and few. This Man On The Street, or course, being one of them.

The family members of Mangum told FOX News that she is "almost relieved" the case is over. Family members had earlier told FOX News that she has wanted the case to end for some time, especially since she expected charges to be lessened — if not dropped completely — since Nifong removed himself from the case.”

Well shit me a brick! Of course she did! Because the lie was falling apart right before her eyes. She knew what she had done, and now that the rest of the world was beginning to see what was so painfully fucking obvious from the start, she made it all up. The reason? Who the fuck cares! No excuses skanky nappy headed hoe! Yes, I said it. Got a fucking problem with that? Tough shit! I am free to say what I want and no Sharpton-esque assclown is going to silence me.

The family also said, “That they're poor and black, whereas the players and their families are "rich and white," and that the attorney general's office has looked upon the players as "golden boys”, according to Fox News.

Oh, it most certainly was about race. However, not the way you perpetual victims want it to be. It was about misandry, misandrist laws, and racial peddlers. Comments like “dead man walking” spoken by one of the New Black Panthers towards Evans, ON the DIKE errr DUKE CAMPUS, are nothing more than HATE SPEECH. Why is this acceptable? Why was this threat ignored? If I were Evans, that son-of-bitch would have been charged immediately! Come and say that to me Mr. toughie-tough “gangsta”. I will blow your fucking head off before the rest of your nappy-headed wanna-be-cops pals can say “black power”. You and your ilk are nothing but thugs. And thugs belong six feet under.

In addition, before any of you pussy-whipped liberal pansies call me on my language or my “racial remarks”, remember this, I have just as much right as you to say what I want, when I want. If you do not like it, practice what you preach. When you retract your garbage against my sex and my heritage, then, and only then will I give a fuck what you think or say.

The Man On The Street

---Breaking The Lies - 3 Feminists is jes Qwazzy!

2007-03-05T20:05:00.000-05:00

---MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This was so damned easy, I let my dog edit and compile it....

TMOTS

---Tennis Anyone?

2007-02-26T13:01:00.000-05:00

Yet another example of Gender equality....Femikook style...

This weekend, I was discussing this Wimbledon crap with a female friend of mine. A real friend, mind you. I was somewhat surprised to see that she believed that the so-called "equal pay" plan now in place was equitable the right thing. I argued the simple point (as we all know) that women play almost 50% less time than the men and thus, should not be getting the same payout for less work.

Her argument, although she is most certainly NOT a femikook, was that it is economics. Women’s tennis brings in the same amount of revenue that the men’s do and should be paid accordingly. I disagree with that as well, but I digress. No amount of arguing was going to sway her. I was somewhat taken aback at her apparent femikook argumentative style…. I just couldn’t understand how an obviously intelligent woman couldn’t see this for what it really is. Bullshit gender politics with a dash of bullshit, mixed in a pot of misandry.

Anyhow, while traveling through the blogosphere today, I came across an individual that took the time to analyze this a little further. Interestingly enough, when you break it down to the nuts-n-bolts of it all as he did that women, in fact, are NOT paid equally; they are paid MORE THAN THE MEN for less work! Therefore, by raising their purse to the supposedly higher purse level of the men conveniently extends the already HIGHER PAY FOR WOMEN to and even HIGHER rate for less work. I know, I know; it is just so difficult to understand that three is less than five. So once again, we are using the feminists’ “new math” to remove the mythical pay disparity. Kudos to the femikooks, once again!

As for his belief that women cannot play to the level of the men or should I say Venus Williams, I call shenanigans. Women can play just as well and as long. I have seen them do it!

Anyhow, have a look (Linked to his original post above & edited for typos only.)
___________________________
So a few notable women have started bleating how its "unfair" that men are paid more than women, and the male winner's purse at Wimbledon is "£30,000 m ore" than the women's purse. Sadly, Tony Blair has now backed this.

Before everyone starts losing their heads over this feminist machine, do we care to even analyze the figures? Lets do that:

1) +Total Prize money for men = £5,197,440
+Total Prize money for women = £4,429 440

2) Male winner's takings = £655,000
Female winner's takings = £625,000

From the above figures, without any other factors, yes it looks like women are getting a bum deal, however, if we assume same number of entrants (128 men and 128 women as with this year's) and no tie-breaks are played:

3) Maximum number of sets played by men = 5
Maximum number of sets played by women = 3
Minimum number of sets played by men = 3
Minimum number of sets played by women = 2

4) Total prize money per set (male) = £1,039,488
Total prize money per set (female) = £1,476,480

Is it me, or did anyone just notice the ladies purse perset get dramatically larger (by almost £450,000) than the men's? Lets carry on.

5) Male winner's taking's per set (of 5) = £131,000
Female winner's takings per set(of 3) = £208,000
Male winner's takings per set (of 3) = £218,333
Female winner's takings per set(of 2) = £312,500

So we can clearly see, by playing fewer sets, women are in fact currently getting paid MORE to do less work. As this is these players main income, i.e. what they do for a living, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of women today currently protesting about unequal pay to male counterparts for doing the same amount of work in the same job? Let's hear what Venus Williams has to say:

(Start of Quote)
"Women and men should be treated equally. This is an amazing sport and there is as much interest in women's tennis as there is in men's. Just because we can't play five sets because of our genes, what can we do?"
(End of Quote)

So its settled then, I guess she means IF by some physical advantage (that no one has control over) men are subject to do more work, then pay is irrelevant and women should be REWARDED for their GENETIC INABILITY to do the same work, or better yet, men should be PENALISED for their UNCONTROLLABLE ABILITY to do more work, amount of time playing should not matter, and number of sets played should not matter.

I am sorry, but this sounds like the feminist machine wanting to turn a situation COMPLETELY in its favor whilst penalizing men, and at the same time, protesting in the name of "equality". Note how the "equality" angle only refers to pay, not the amount of work done to earn that pay. Seems very convenient isn't it. What do you all think?
__________________________
Welcome to the new world order of Equalllleteeeeeee! WHEW! I am just so glad that THAT injustice was corrected, aren’t you!

TMOTS

---Dear Fox News

2007-02-08T11:23:00.000-05:00

Dear Fox,

First and foremost, let me state that I start my morning with a cup (or pot depending on the amount of sleep) of joe and Fox and Friends. Pssst! I miss E. D. Anyhow, I watch your program due to the "Fair and Balanced" prospective I feel is present for the most part. That is until these past few days.

Lisa Nowak is supposedly the story. The 'other woman' is supposedly the story. Why is it that when you reference this whack-job, you keep putting William Oefelein's image up? Is there some rule that says that a male has to be shown? So he was playing two women. Big whoop! SHE IS MARRIED, SHE ATTEMPTED MURDER (allegedly), and SHE is the one that supposedly did something wrong.

If anything, place the other woman's face up (whose name escapes me now - wonder why that is) as well! Oh, wait SHE is the VICTIM. Well, news flash (pun intended) so is William! HE is the victim of MSM gone awry. He has done nothing wrong. Yet anyone with two grey matter particles to rub together can easily recall his name. WHY? I could care less if William was/is "into Lisa" or not. SHE IS THE STORY, remember?

What exactly did William Oefelein do? He is divorced so he was not cheating; he was seeing these two women OUTSIDE of the "office", so he was not "using his position of power to manipulate these women (a tried and true argument used against men ad nausea). He did not force her to do this (sure, MSM is doing their best to put the blame on him or her husband). Just what is the angle here? I expect this sort of anti-male bull from MSM such as ABC, CNN, CBS and their ilk. "Fair and Balanced"? I used to think so. Nevertheless, you are starting to appear like the rest of the garbage news programs that cherry-pick their tasty tid-bits based upon what some statistician or PC Police researcher claims that people want to hear, and not the facts. William has done nothing wrong. At least for now, that is. Give MSM some time to digs hard enough - deep enough - to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING and they will place the responsibility and blame where it rightly belongs, on the male. Trust me, they will.

Shame on you.

Oh, did you know that Lisa Nowak is married? Are you aware that Lisa Nowak is the one charged with attempted murder? Did I mention that the alleged fight and subsequent separation was hmmmm, how should I put this so that even your most idiotic researcher can see it, most likely caused due to HER HUSBAND DISCOVERING HER INFIDELITY? It does not take a rocket scientist (pardon the pun once again) to see that. On the other hand, maybe it does.

Maybe you need to verify your stories prior to reading them from the teleprompter. I know, I know, there is no anti-male conspiracy in MSM. Of course not.

Here is a clue, women can and are just as evil as males. I know it is hard to fathom, but it is true. If your little researchers dig hard enough, they might even find one of the more than 200 studies that say so. Put the blame and responsibility, as well as the constant barrage of imagery where it rightfully belongs, on Lisa Nowak, and Lisa Nowak ONLY!

Put the fact finders on the correct trail; looking into the why NASA allows this person to be a part of what used to be considered the most elite of the elite; the cream of the crop in military personnel.

How is it that someone that is so obviously psychologically unstable (particularly with men) is allowed to be cooped up with others in a tin can for months on end. Their psyche evals (most assuredly lowered under the guise of equaleteeee) have failed miserably. Furthermore, how is it that she is out on such a pathetic bail level for ATTEMPTED MURDER? How is it that she is able to leave the state? If she were male, honestly, do you believe that he would have been given such an obvious pass? Seriously? After more than 40 years of space travel, we have yet another "woman firster". I, as an American, am just so proud.

I could go on, but I am sure that even the most feebly minded e-mail reader on your staff could understand the points I raise. I can only hope.

The Man On The Street

---Gee! I wonder if she is married?

2006-12-10T09:14:00.000-05:00

From FreeRepublic.com
Little Miss Adventure: Bachelorette Gone Wild
Posted on 11/06/2006 2:04:18 AM CST by 60Gunner

Last night a "GDFD" (get drunk, fall down) was brought into the Emergency Department by aid car. She arrived, as most drunks do, bellowing obscenities and calling the staff vile names. And this young lady was also a spitter. Nice.

The law allows us to restrain a patient who poses a threat to himself or to staff, and our MD, a particularly excellent one, wasted no time in decreeing that it be made so. Security is always down there, so we summoned them to help us put the leathers and a spit sock on the young lady. We then shifted her over to our bed and unceremoniously strapped her down.

While all this was going on I was getting report from the very beleaguered-looking aid car crew. It seems that the patient was with her friends at a bachelorette party and the patient had a little more than her share of the alcoholic beverages, and when the staff decided that enough was enough about four shots of Jaegermeister ago, they cut her off. Little Miss Adventure got up to voice her dismay and wound up on her backside, having struck her head on the way down and picking up a nasty hematoma on the back of her head for a souvenir. "Thank God she's not bleeding so we don't have to sew her up," I thought.

It is interesting to note that although the young woman was maybe only 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighed perhaps a buck-five soaking wet, she fought like a wildcat in a burlap sack with a snake in it. Some people hold their liquor; with others, their liquor holds them. This lady was simply awash in the Nyquil-like stench of Jaeger.

The staff got Little Miss Adventure settled in (read: strapped down), and I obtained IV access (in this case with a big ol' 18-gauge in her antecubital fossa- that's the inner elbow for you laypersons) and drew blood for lab assays.

Oh, yeah. Little Miss Adventure was also a biter.

Now, we needed to get a urine toxicology screen as well. Since I am male, and this woman was in her twenties, obviously I was not the one to go in and do it. But I did inform her that yes, Nurse So-and-So was about to put a catheter down there.

"The ---- she is!" declared Little Miss Adventure.

Three minutes later, Nurse So-and-So walked out with a sample of urine, which she held up for me with a flourish, and I began charting.

Suddenly, someone behind me says, "230."

Then I hear, "Naw. She's tiny. 180."

Suddenly, numbers are being called out around the Nurse's desk as if it was the set of The Price is Right.

A brief explanation is called for here. Any time we get a GDFD into the Emergency Department, an informal bet about the blood alcohol content (BAC) immediately forms. It usually starts by someone saying, "249" (or 0.249). So without fail, within thirty seconds the entire front staff of the ED has a number except for me. After some prodding and some quiet consideration, I call out, "310."

"Get out!" says Nurse So-and-So. "She's maybe a hundred pounds soaking wet."

"No," says I, "I will bet you a pizza it's at least 300."

"Okay, Boy Wonder. What makes you so sure?"

"I think she's got a tolerance, that's what. Anyway, 310 is my number and I'm sticking with it."

"Have it your way," says Nurse So-and-So with a dismissive wave.

So all the while, Little Miss Adventure is screaming, kicking, spitting, and offering her pointed and graphic opinions about the lineage and sexual orientation of every staff member she who dared enter her room, even the poor little housekeeper who came in to change the linen bag. (It's a good thing she doesn't habla the Ingles, or at least much. Still, the darling woman came out of the room shaking her head and muttered, "#$%#$% drunk b----."

About a half hour later, the labs came back. Yes, I was wrong. But we were all shocked. Her BAC was 0.418. What that means is that this little firecracker had herself a helluva tolerance for booze. I've seen worse, but not in a little chicky boom-boom as small as Little Miss Adventure. Her tox screen also showed THC. That's the groovy stuff found in marijuana.

Also around this time, a couple of the patient's girlfriends filtered sheepishly into the ED. They all seemed genuinely concerned, a little anxious, and shockingly underdressed for the weather. I averted my eyes, causing Nurse So-and-So to snort. At last, one of them pipes up in a nasal, whiny tone that would have been stereotypically applied to a stripper, "Can we see [the patient]?"

"And you are...?" I asked, looking over my computer screen.

"We're her friends. And we work with her. She was at my bachelorette party," says she.

"I'll tell her you're here. What's your name?"

"It's Nikki. With an I." she says, spelling her name and holding out her hand.

"Charmed," I answer, shaking her hand and stiflng the urge to guffaw. I went into Miss Adventure's room and told her she had some friends here, and asked if she would like to have them in- one at a time.

"Oh, pleeeeeeeeze?" She whined.

"Sure." I exit, motion to Nikki-with-an-I, and tell her to go in alone, to speak quietly, and that she has only five minutes.

Well, of course, the moment Nikki-with-an-I enters the room, the Boo-Hoo Fest begins. Miss Adventure escalates, Nikki-with-an-I feeds the fire, and pretty soon they're both bawling and screeching. I removed Nikki-with-an-I. Miss Adventure called me more names. Nikki-with-an-I looked a little shaken.

"Wow, she's really plowed, huh?" says Nikki-with-an-I.

"Like Farmer Brown's back forty," says Nurse So-and-So from behind me.

"How long will she be like this?"

"I dunno. Depends on her. It'll be awhile. Can't really tell you much more than that."

Well, do you think she will be able to work Monday?"

"Well, I don't know. What does she do?"

"Oh, we're both kindergarten teachers."

I have never heard the entire staff of my Emergency Department fall completely silent before. It was as if the breath had been sucked out of our lungs. But Nurse So-and-So, of course, recovered first:

"Thank God I homeschooled."

___________________________________

Now if it were me, i'd have made damn sure that somehow, someway, that little tidbit of information made it's way back to the Board of Education...

TMOTS

---What Men are saying about "Women".: One prime example is the comment "As least men are good for something",

2006-12-06T18:04:00.000-05:00

What Men are saying about "Women".: One prime example is the comment "As least men are good for something",

This is good stuff guys!

TMOTS

---Breaking The Lies - Ain't It Funny? Part 1

2006-11-21T16:38:00.000-05:00

Commercials are just getting more and more anti-male. Here is my reaction to on particularly misandric ad....

Click the Title Link to download.

TMOTS

--Breaking The Lies 1 - The Gentler Sex Offender

2006-11-03T07:49:00.000-05:00

If you have trouble reading the text, just click on the Title Link above and download it!

Thanks!

TMOTS

---All Men are pigs!!!

2006-09-24T09:46:00.000-05:00

Well, unless they have alleged power and can make me look good that is….

Before I could address this, I had to wait for the chaotic blog wars to die down. My reason? I like to stir shit up with the femikooks as often as I can.

So here is a tale. A tale of southern fried chicken in Harlem, ex Presidents, liberals, femikooks, alleged racism, “beautiful blue eyes”, and cat fights. So sit back, get a couple of beers and relax… this get’s long-winded….

Oops, forgot boobies! Yes, boobies!

But first, let’s set the stage a little shall we?
_______________________________________
Briiinnggggggggg…..

TMOTS: “Hello?”

Caller: “Hi The Man On The Street, this is Senator Joseph Biden…”

TMOTS: “Really…”

Biden: “Yes, TMOTS.” “May I call you TMOTS?”

TMOTS: “Sure, everyone else does…”

Biden: “Let me get to the point of my call….”

TMOTS: “Please do.”

Biden: “I am having a gathering of sorts, a luncheon if you will and I would like you to be a participant.”

TMOTS: “Uhm, ok.”

Biden: “You see, I have been invited to chair a luncheon discussion group in Harlem NY…..

TMOTS: “Harlem? As in Harlem NY?”

Biden: “…er, yes. Anyhow, I was wondering if you’d be available to join our little get together on the 17th?”

TMOTS: “Why would you want me there?”

Biden: “Well, you see David Duke is setting this up…

TMOTS: “DAVID DUKE?!”

Biden: “Yes… Let me explain TMOTS.” “David would like to get a group of like minded thinkers of the blogophere to discuss….

TMOTS: “Wait!” You want me, to come to a dinner hosted by David Duke, where you are the guest of honor?”

Biden: “Yes. We would……

TMOTS: “..and you think that I am liken to you and David Duke?”

Biden: “Well, you do publish a blog that speaks from the white male point of view and we think….”

TMOTS: “Whoa! Wait a minute there Joey boy!” I do in fact speak from the white male prospective, this is true. But to insinuate that I would have any similarities to YOU or David is ridiculous!”

Biden: “I just thought…….”

TMOTS: No, you didn’t think there Joey. You see, I recall what you did to ALL MEN in 2000. I recall what you pushed through congress and the Presidency on two separate administrations…. I recall what VAWA stands for. And I am not it. As for David; Sure I do in fact believe that the EEOC and set aside laws for people of color are wrong. But I most certainly do not believe as Mr. Duke does when it comes to blacks in America.”

Biden: “But TMOTS, you are “one if us.”

TMOTS: “No, I am me. I believe in fairness for all, not just certain groups. I believe in the constitution that states fairness and equality for ALL, not just protected classes. You sir have bastardized what it means to be white and male in this country. You do not represent me, nor do you represent men or whites…. In the past, you have committed exactly what your ridiculous laws were claiming to fix. No Joey boy, you two do not think like me or most of the white males in this country. Good day sir!”

_____________________________________
Now, if this were a real conversation… What it wasn’t? Oh wait, nope, it wasn’t. Ah well, let’s take a look anyhow ok? You see, although Mr. Biden is a powerful man, and no doubt would put me on the elite list just by being seen with him, I have my principles. I would no less sell my soul to the devil than play with a person that represents all that I fight against.

No different is the feminist writer wannabe who would sit and rub elbows with a KNOWN liar, adulterer, and sexual harasser... Just for starters. You see, supposedly feminists are against “the man”, the patriarchy ™, and the evil that men do like rape, oppression, and using ones power to get da poon tang. But I digress.

That is where the crux of this little ditty comes in. You see, Jessica over at Feministing had the “extreme pleasure” of doing just that. She sat at a luncheon with an elite few bloggers, all of the severe left of course, with none other than William Jefferson Clinton. That’s right folks! Ole Jessie-poo got to sit with Billy-bob and chit-chat about god knows what.

Actually, just what in Sam hell COULD they have talked about? Women’s rights? Nope. He has used his power to get pussy. Equality for all? Nope. Only whites were present at this little shin-dig. But wait! It was held in Harlem. You all know Harlem right? A predominantly BLACK and LATINO city in New York. Yea, THAT Harlem. Ah well, they did have fried chicken though. OOPS! That was a racial something-or-other wasn’t it. Oh well, so sue me.

And for your visual enjoyment, here is the crew in all its glorious wonderfulness! Please note that there are two pictures. And notice also, that there are subtle differences as well as similarities… But we’ll get back to that later, mmkay?

Ahhh, can you say “Photo op!? Sure, I knew you could! Who would have thought that such a wondrous collection of bloggers could be had - all in the same room! With none other than the king of hypocrisy, the mangina himself, Billy-bob Clinton! WOW! I have goose bumps! I think I might even have a hard on, but I am not sure. Can you imagine? Being in the same room with such a great sexual har… er man? Me neither! Can you see Jessica just oozing at the crotch, basking in the glory of such greatness? I think she might even be quivering at the knees too! Reminds me of the time that I met Andrea Dorkin… Nope, that was dry heaves; never mind.

Oh, wait, I’m sorry. You don’t know which one is Jessica? Take a wild guess. There ya go, I knew you could. That’s right. The one in the middle with the true blue wonder bra push-up stance that only a woman of babalicious status or a model could pull off. Can you just hear the song in your head? “I’m a model you know what I mean, when ah do mah little dance on the catwalk… yea the catwalk…” Can you hear it? Yea baby! That’s gold!

See? I told you this gets long-winded….. Stay with me though, it gets better!

So Jessica, all weak in the knees, wet in the crotch, and a twinkle in her eye comes (or is that cums) home and immediately blogs about her near miss with fame, power and status. And in true form of the feministing crew, they all gather their wagons and bask in Jessica’s greatness. Ahhh, all is right with the world. Once again, all the little people are green with envy at her obvious superiority over them. Feminists far and wide are now all singing the praises of Jessica Valenti, the EXECUTIVE EDITOR of Feministing, the owner of the prestigious Masters degree in Women and Gender Studies. WOW! Can you smell it? Can you feel it? That there is some good ole fashioned power right there!

Sorry. I got caught up in the moment for a second. So anyhow, while the minutes pass, and all the a-listers at feministing are gushing over Jessica, someone else has noticed her brush with fame. A fellow feminist! Surely she will bask in Jessica’s greatness as well, right? OOP! Guess not.

You see, over at Ann Althouse's blog, Ann has a slightly different take on ole Jessie’s brush with fame. While everyone is touting the envy-line, Ann is strumming a different tune. You see, Ann is one of those “real feminists”. You know the ones that tow the femi-line no matter what. No matter the hypocrisy, the silliness, the blatant bigotry, or even the consequences. Ann is a true feminist. I can respect that. She sticks to her guns, elitist or not.

Ann essentially gets on her femiStep and begins to berate Jessica because she feels that Jessica is a sellout. She is in the presence of a known sexual harasser, and appears to be posing somewhat seductively or sheepishly girly (not sure), propelling her special women only card, the BOOBIES! Yes, all this fervor is about the boobies! How could a feminist allow herself to be photographed in an obviously male appealing pose? How could a feminist be so… Hmmm what’s the word I need here? Patriarchal ™! She is the only one of the group that is actually POSING in a cutesy manor. GASP! Girlishly! Naughty, naughty Jessica.

So true to form, all the manginas and femikooks comes to poor widow Jessica, the victim’s, aid. Turning what Ann was pointing out into the typical women making mean about another woman’s appearance. Nothing could be further from the truth, but in true FemiSpeak, if you can’t argue a point, change it. Ann was merely stating that Jessica is a sellout. She is not commenting on her looks per ce. Sure, she mentions the obvious push-up bra and the come hither model style stance versus everyone else in the photo. But that isn’t her point. Even a male pig such as myself could see what Ann was referring to. Look at the two pictures again. Notice the arched back, the half turn stance, the left foot in front of the right to enhance her figure. Yes Jessica that is what and why models do that. It enhances their figure and enhances their hips and curves. But of course, you know that didn’t you Jessica.

So Jessica gets wind of Ann’s comments and of course, goes right for the ‘twist it to make Ann look bad’ formula. You know it. You’ve all see it a million times. So instead of me explaining the conversation, I decided to just show it to you. Mind you, I am not going to make this already long bit even longer by posting all of it… just the juice parts… hehehehe

Jessica Feministing returns and says:
It's a picture; people pose. And I'm not sure I understand your logic anyway. If I "pose" for a picture (as opposed to sulking and hunching over?) then I deserve to be judged for my looks? I don't see anyone talking shit about the other bloggers smiling pretty for the camera.

Ann States:
Provoked, I decide to actually give her a small dose of the kind of judgment for brains she seems to demanding:

Jessica, I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.) I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don't know why people who care about feminism don't have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don't assume you're the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog....

Making this colloquy into this new blog post, I actually click over to Jessica's blog, and what the hell? The banner displays silhouettes of women with big breasts (the kind that Thelma and Louise get pissed off at when they're seen on truck mudflaps). She's got an ad in the sidebar for one of her own products, which is a tank top with the same breasty silhouette, stretched over the breasts of a model. And one of the top posts is a big closeup on breasts.Sooooo... apparently, Jessica writes one of those blogs that are all about using breasts for extra attention. Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?

See? Ann clearly explains what her issue is with this image. But alas, a blog (oh, that’s a different blog, sorry) is about free exchange of ideas and discussions right? Well, only if you tow the correct party line that is, apparently. And said rules apply to movements as well I guess.

Well, if pissing off a fellow femikook isn’t enough, we have an additional spice to add to the mix; the ever-popular racial card. Yep. We all know that liberals, especially those of the feminists flavor are all about equalllleteee don’t we. Well not according to quite a few ‘progressive’ liberal bloggers such as this one (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/09/about-meeting-clinton.html).

It seems that a predominant liberal bloggers get-together doesn’t consist of anyone of color. Hmm, as a white male fascist pig, I even noticed this discrepancy. Now why would that be? How is it possible to invite a bunch of liberals to a pow-wow with such a great man (cough – blowjob – cough) and not have one person of color present? Are you kidding me?

Sure, the managed to have a femikook or two, a couple of mangina, an aluminum hat wearer or two, and more than likely a person of choice (read gay) in the mix. But not a one Black or Latino, shoot not even someone with a mixed heritage! As a matter of fact, now that I look again, not even an Asian! Why not add a Muslim and an illegal Mexican to the list to round it out nicely. Nope. Not a one. Ah well, I guess the Arian race is alive and well in Bill & Hitlary’s land.

Anyhow (again), There are many speculations as to why this is. There are, of course in true liberal damage control, many excuses as well. From “well, we invited one but they declined” to “this just the first of many…. Blah blah…” You know the drill. You see, liberals don’t like it when they are called on their faults. Especially when you use their own canned arguments to prove it.

Maybe they just didn’t want people of color present. Maybe they thought that a black person would be insulted if they showed up and was served ‘southern fried chicken’. Maybe they DID IN FACT invite a Black blogger or two and when they discovered that ‘southern fried chicken’ was the chow de jour, they WERE insulted. Ever think of that? Sure, in my little world, I could care less about stereotypes. I happen to like the traditional white male foods like steak & mashed potatoes. But if you’re a liberal, you cannot fight the devil and ignore the stereotypes (perceived or otherwise). So of course, the ‘southern fried chicken’ part would piss at least one Black person off. Tell me I’m wrong.

Or could it be that Hitlary has hired none other than Peter Daou. Yes, you heard correctly. THAT Peter Daou. The one that was just hired by Hitlary for god knows what... You see Peter was in charge of gathering all of these intellectually special folks.

Nope, feminists are not opportunistic… Feminists are not into power and … dare I say, selling out!

At least be consistent Jessica. Swooning over a man that has treated women the way that you claim to be fighting against, is just bad PR. Even for a feminist.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble.....

TMOTS

---Just a little something other than "The Duke Fiasco".

2006-09-10T18:26:00.000-05:00

The Passing of a Man’s Man and his Man
Aug-2-2006
The Man On The Street

Mickey, Mike, Velda, & Besty; if you know the names, you know who they are.

It is truly a sad day in my life. Specifically not because the man that essentially created what was once, if not still called ‘the hard-boiled mystery genre’, but because it is two weeks after his death, that I learn of his passing.

When I as younger, I penned my protagonists to the likings of Mike Hammer, Spenser, and Sam Spade. Whenever anyone reads one of my stories, they almost always say that it reads like a Hammer novel. To me, that is the best compliment I could ever receive. I have fulfilled my goal.

One of the highest points of my life was when I was able to meet Mickey, Robert Parker, and Sue Grafton at a Mystery Writers convention years ago in Boston (home of Parker and his alter ego, Spenser). To have these folk’s autographs, to me, are probably the most treasured articles that I own. Mickey signed my first printing hard cover of I, The Jury, and Parker signed my first printing hard cover of The Godwulf Manuscript, his first Spenser novel. I was not able to get Grafton’s autograph, due to lack of time. Now if only I was around to get Agatha (Christie) and Dashille’s (Hammett), I'd have the essence of who I am and whom I mimic my writing style. But, alas, I wasn’t even a twinkle in my father’s eye during their time.

Mickey was a great writer, one of a kind. Sure his stuff was very popular way before I was even born. But I was able to read his stories growing up mainly due to his character's staying power. And even though the mainstream world had pretty much blackballed him during the 70’s for his “violent and sexual content”. His primary character, Mike Hammer was revitalized once again in the 80’s. The reprinting of I, The Jury, his first Hammer novel originally written in the late 40’s, was the pinnacle rebirth of Mike Hammer. Followed by the full compliment of reprints of all the Mike Hammer novels, as well as many compilation hard covers such as Hammer Strikes Again.

Even his goofy personas in the Bud Light commercials were ladened with his tough guy – blonde bombshell – film noir feel. The ending statement of these commercials’ “Ohhhhh Mickey!” by Blondie was atypical for the likes of Mike Hammer’s creator and Mike himself. Who said there ‘aint nothing good come from the 80’s’.

Three versions of his Hammer character were made into television series, with Mickey himself staring on the first version in the 50’s. Stacey Keach took the role in the 80’s. Several TV adaptations from his best novels were also made into made-for-TV-movies. In my opinion, they never did Mickey justice. The restraints of television would never allow his (Mike) to be who he really is, as Mickey wrote him. Sadly, today, in 2006, with society the way it is with gender neutrality (read woman = invincible / man = dumbass), we will most likely never see another Mike Hammer episode again. Thus, the second reason for my sorrow. Mike hammer, by today’s ‘rules’ of gender, is a dinosaur. He would never survive, sadly.

Goodbye my Mentor. Goodbye Mike. Dinosaurs or not, I shall miss you both dearly.

TMOTS

---Part II: What a tangled web we weave.

2006-07-22T20:21:00.000-05:00

In part one, I spent a few paragraphs ranting about… well, ranting anyhow. Not sure what it was all about. But those that know me know that I tend to run all over the place. If I wrote pieces like this instead of technical documents, I guess I would need a few pointers and reminders of proper article structure. Eh, who cares? You all know the game. And it is a game. Just like the spider that plays with her web. Bouncing it up and down, teasing the fly that has sadly been the poor recipient of the spider’s translucent agenda….err web. DINNER!

Lets take a look at the specifics of the case. Actually, lets look at the case as reported and, in essence tried, by the media.

First off, to better understand the situation, we must take a look at the supposed timeline of events as reported… by the MSM of course. This timeline is supposedly based upon images that our illustrious DA has gathered.

Also note that I took the time to correct a few inaccuracies. For example, where it said “the victim” I put the false accuser’s name, Crystal Gail Magnum and where applicable, the other liar, Kim Roberts. Other corrections are noted by TMOTS in parentheses.

12:00:12 to 12:02:16 – Crystal Gail Magnum and Kim Roberts were partially naked, dancing in the living room surrounded on the 3 sides by dozens (TMOTS: Just how many men are on this effin team? Oh, that’s right 1000) of men sitting on couches and chairs. Crystal Gail Magnum was missing a shoe already. One guy in the last picture of this 2-minute set was giving the thumbs down.

Midnight: Kim Roberts is sprawled on her stomach on the floor, as Crystal Gail Magnum stands over her. Students are watching the show but not grabbing or attempting to touch the women (TMOTS: You me whores don’t you?). Bruises are clearly visible on the legs and thighs of Crystal Gail Magnum.

12:01:16: Kim Roberts is lying on her back on the floor with the Crystal Gail Magnum kneeling over her.

12:03ish - the women stop dancing possibly because of the alleged broomstick comment (TMOTS: Ah yes, the magical broomstick comment that never was).

12:03:57 - the women leaving, and going towards the back of the house. The guys say that's when the girls locked themselves in the bathroom. Crystal Gail Magnum was supposedly in there fixing her nails, and Kim Roberts was getting dressed preparing to leave. The guys were on the outside the door telling them to leave.

12:03:57: The strippers are leaving the room after performing for four minutes. The photo clearly shows that Crystal Gail Magnum left one of her shoes behind as she departed.

27 minutes go by while both girls are in the bathroom.

12:10:39: One of the Duke students apparently is passed out on the floor, his head leaning against a sofa, a crushed beer can at his side.

12:30:12 to 12:30:47 - Crystal Gail Magnum is standing on the steps wearing a red and black lace top bodysuit and one white high heel shoe. She's smiling and holding a cell phone.

12:30:12: Crystal Gail Magnum is on the back porch. She has a shoe only on her left foot, as she appears to smile and apparently tries to get back inside.

12:31:26: Crystal Gail Magnum appears to be stumbling down the back steps of the house.

12:37:58 - 12:38:18 - Crystal Gail Magnum lying on stairs, cuts, and abrasions visible. Happened when she fell. Fresh nail polish was on the handrail. It wasn't on the other handrail pick before she went out there. All of her clothing is intact

12:37:58: A series of photos beginning at this time shows Crystal Gail Magnum lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. Pink splotches are on a wrought-iron railing beside her.

12:41: Crystal Gail Magnum is being helped into the car.

12:41:32 - leg of Crystal Gail Magnum hanging out of door. A man carried her out to Kim Roberts’s car.

Now, these are supposedly the initial images, read evidence, gathered from all interested parties. You know, the 1.7 million Lacrosse Players that were at the party. Truth be told, they appear to prove nothing with the exception that someone (mumble Crystal Gail Magnum mumble) is ah-fibbin’.

Now we get to the juicy stuff.

So finally, Crystal Gail Magnum finally gets it down to three players. I have to give her a break here, cause all us white folk all look the same ‘en all. TO top it all off, not even a real lineup. Pictures. FUCKING IDENTIFIED by pictures. Yes Alice, there is a wonderland, and it is Durham NC.

Well, these three young men, figuring that they are innocent, and that law and order will prevail, turn themselves in; silly stupid kids. Not for turning themselves in, but for actually believing that the legal system is going to give them an even shake, let alone the media. A Media that has already identified plastered their pictures, family information, shoe sizes, and status of circumcision for the world to see. Oh, did I forget to mention that they were also tried and convicted in the media.

Meanwhile, our pal Nifong, Mr. DA in sheep’s clothing continues to crucify these men in the media. Giving the media no less than 70 interviews, “press releases”, and “official statements”. This, of course, is all in the name of justice, nothing more.

Or is it. IT would appear the Mr. Nifong is running for re-election. Not being too impressive to the regular folks there, approximately 44% proportionately black, in his little wonderland. IT would also appear that loosing a case like this, you know the one. Where rich privileged white boys abuse the poor widow black woman just trying to make an honest living; yea, that one. Coming to Lifetime Television in the fall of 2007.

So being a good politician, he does what is atypical of any good sack of shi.. err DA would do. He has press conference upon press conference, flooding the media with nice little tasty morsels about these heinous rich white boys. No need to back anything up. He’s the DA! He is “the law”! He can take it all back later. He can just make another statement claiming that it was what the evidence told him at the time. Gill Grissom he aint, that’s for sure.

During one of these so called “keep the public informed” statements he tells us how his crack team of forensic specialists have obtained DNA from the scene and have garnered DNA sample from all of the Duke Lacrosse Team. Well except the one black guy that is. ‘cause our little dahlin’ claimed that it was three white boys. No no no. The rich ones! Yea, them three mista DA man!

Oh darn! My memory has once again failed me. Sorry folks. This Old Man On The Street keeps forgetting about pertinent parts of the story. The DNA came back, none of the players identified. Including the three she identified via pictures. A second batch is sent to a different lab, and wonders of wonders, they are “inconclusive”. In other words assmunch, it once again didn’t support your bullshit kangaroo station or the lying hooker’s story. But I digress. We will be back to our story after a few words from our sponsor.

Commercial Break:

A mother and daughter are walking hand in hand on a lovely beach in the south pacific.

The young woman states, “Mom, ever have one of those days where you just don’t feel fresh?”

To which mom replies, “What do you mean sweetheart?”

“You know, down there.”

“Ohhhhhh”, the mother proclaims. “You mean you smell like a tuna fisherman who hasn’t showered in months!”

Wait a minute! That is not how the commercial goes! Aw, to hell with it. Back to our story.

It’s no wonder this country believes that it happened. Why would a man put his career on the line with no evidence? No proof? He wouldn’t. Just as no woman would ever make up a story of rape either. Did I mention that I have this really nice plot of land overlooking the San Francisco bay area? It’s for sale! The only problem is a stupid bridge that is on it. Kinda an eyesore. Maybe you can have it removed after you purchase the land from me.

Uhm, extraordinary efforts? Arrests? What fucking efforts? He filed charges, informed them, they came in, posted bail and left. WHEW! Must have been a hard day at the office there buddy! You should take a break. Oh wait, there is an election going on, isn’t there. Silly me, I forgot.

Meanwhile, the public in wonderland Durham are frothing at the mouth at the prospects of lynch… er prosecuting three evildoers! All thanks to the due diligence of our wonderland DA, Mr. Nifong. Lets re-elect him; and they do.

It is any wonder why no one ever reads the newspapers anymore, with lovely tidbits like this:

Their arrest is the culmination of extraordinary efforts by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. Even before DNA evidence had been analyzed, Nifong launched a weeklong media blitzkrieg. By his estimate, he gave "some 70 interviews" with the common theme that he believed the 'victim.'

OK, OK. I confess. That is not from the NY Times. It is actually from our favorite feminist Wendy McElroy, but it was an ‘extraordinary’ quote right?

All right, here is a better one From WRL in Durham.

Part of the photo line-up process, experts say, includes fillers -- pictures of people unrelated to the case who look like the suspect.

"They, the police, only showed the woman just pictures of the lacrosse players," said defense attorney Joe Cheshire. "It's so constitutionally suspect it's extraordinary."

Durham police would not comment on the line-up because it is part of the ongoing investigation, but legal experts with the North Carolina Commission on Actual Innocence say if line-ups are biased, a judge will likely throw them out in court.

"The Supreme Court has said if a lineup is unduly suggestive it must be excluded from evidence," said Chris Mumma, executive director of the commission, which sets state standards for line-ups.

"If someone said, 'The person who attacked me was on a football team,' and they only showed me pictures of people on the football team, I'm likely to pick someone on the football team," he said.

Gee, ya think? Ya think that it was slightly.. Oh, I donno, lopsided? Ya think? Do you think that maybe, just maybe this whole ruse is nothing more than an opportunity? Not just for Nifong’s re-election, but Crystal Gail Magnum and Kim Roberts as well?

Sure, folks will say: “But Mr. Man On The Street (people always address me that way), what would Crystal Gail Magnum or even Kim Roberts expect to gain from all this?”

Well you see. First off, if you have to ask that question, then you are a fucking idiot. And secondly, to answer your idiotic question, M>O>N>E>Y! These boys are rich! Well, their families are, but what the hell! Money is money! She is already a whore, so how far must she step from there to a liar? Exactly!

“But.. but Mr. Man On The Street, why would she put herself through all of this? A woman would never lie about being raped!”

Yep, and Andrea Dorkin (TMOTS trademarked spelling) was a runway model too. But hey, empowerment comes in all shapes and forms, doesn’t it mon asshat.

Next up, Part III: The Facts come out, just not from Nifong.

---Part I: Where's The Beef?!

2006-07-08T08:52:00.000-05:00

This is part one of a five-part article on the Duke Lacrosse case.

Part I: Where’s The Beef!

Has anyone notice all the media coverage lately on the Duke case? No? Gee willikers! It’s everywhere! Oh wait, that was when every freaking MSM outlet was sure they did it, regardless of the evidence. They based their opinions, yes OPINIONS upon typical feminist logic (now ain’t that oxymoronic). They did it, pure and simple. Women don’t lie, especially about rape. Women are above reproach when it comes to these things, donchaknow!

Three rich white boys. Three privileged boys. These are just some of the labels the media has placed upon three young men that have apparently done nothing wrong other than being well off, white, and male. Yep, in other words, they are the epitome of the evil empire called “The Patriarchy ™”.

It is truly ironic to see the media just up and leave the story. No sound bites. No “breaking news” on the case. Nothing. Now why would that be, one would wonder. Why is it that the media has now all but forgotten about the case? Why, after all the constant barrage of “exclusive” tasty morsels has the media somehow forgotten that there are still three young men out there that are being railroaded for a crime they did not commit?

I will give props to a few outlets, such as Newsweek for example. In a recent article, Newsweek came out and stated that initially the story was a clear case of rape/racism. Yet, now that the facts (gosh golly! Facts! Imagine that!), have shed some light on the case, the accuser “may” be lying. OK. So I give them very small props. They still wont state her name, and they most certainly wont come right out and say that this is a clear case of FALSE ACCCUSATIONS. Why would they?

From their recent article; Asked for an interview last week by NEWSWEEK, Nifong declined, but sent an angry e-mail accusing the national media of getting spun by defense lawyers and sticking to his earlier comments to the press. "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially," he wrote. He lashed out at "media speculation" (adding, "and it is even worse on the blogs"). He said that he was bound by ethics rules against commenting any more about the case or evidence.

Now if that isn’t the most ridiculous statement ever made by this dolt. Truth be known, the asshat (Gonzo ™) made over 70, that’s SEVENTY, SEVEN ZERO, statements to the press during the initial weeks of the case. Why? Well, unless you have been living under a rock these past few months, you know the reason. You see, Mr. Justice was running for re-election as District Attorney coincidently. He needed votes. He had to show the overall BLACK population that he was strict on crime, even if it was “them thar Duke boys”.

Ethics? What are they? Because I am most certain that Nifong has no fucking clue what they are. He is intentionally pushing the case out beyond his re-election, sometime in the spring of 2007. Why? Again, it’s just simply logic. He knows, and knew from the start he had no case. He knew right from the beginning that if he didn’t tow the typical feminist and the race card, he would not be re-elected, plain and simple.

If he were to do what a DA with ethical values were to do (not even sure there is one but..) he would have continued with his press conferences as the facts came to light. Eventually coming to the conclusion that the charges must be dropped because of lack of evidence. This would have shown to the general public that he did his job.

Nope. Can’t do that. Instead, he is shut tighter than a clam out of water. He won’t say a damned thing about the case. Oh, wait, with one exception. He will state that the media is going too far speculating and judging the case; or to condemn the defense attorneys for the accused for leaking information about the case to the press. Sorry, that’s technically two exceptions.

Uhm, news fucking flash there pally! It’s called “damage control” in the legal world. They essentially have three young men convicted by proxy (white, rich, & male) BECAUSE of statements that YOU’VE made to the media. You fed the media, and the media fed the world. They are guilty in the eyes of a good portion of the population because YOU tried and convicted then in the media. The defense is now doing your fucking job. They are releasing, not leaking jackass, the information to the media to DISPROVE some of the assumptions and conclusions that have been made because of things that YOU’VE said. Anyhow, here we are. The Duke boys (and I affectionately call them), are still in a pickle. Sure they are not really in the spotlight as much, but the pickle still exists. Meanwhile, Crystal Gail Magnum still has the wonder-cloak of anonymity.

In closing this part of my article, I wanted to take a moment to explain something. I am not sure if you all have noticed, but I tend to NOT use their names. It is my little way of showing the MSM that I do not prescribe to their “choice” of splashing the accused all over the place and never ever, ever publishing the picture or even stating the name of the accuser. To protect them, donchaknow. And it IS a choice. Well, my “choice” is that if they are named, so should Crystal Gail Magnum.There is NO law stating that they cannot publish said information. For all you femikooks out there, let me give you a bit of fact. Rape shield laws state that a woman’s previous activities. Specifically SEXUAL, cannot be brought up during a rape trial. That is essentially it. Nowhere in that pathetic excuse of a law does it say, you will not divulge the identity of the woman. Nowhere! So get that “rose-colored glasses definition” out of your fucking heads.

Next up: Part II. What a Tangled Web We Weave.

TMOTS

---Update of sorts

2006-05-25T09:50:00.000-05:00

I have not given up this blog, nor have I forgotten it. I am merely leaving the post below for the world to see. I want it to stay on top for all to see. When these boys are cleared, and they will be, i'll post more topics.

TMOTS

---Crystal Gail Magnum, there I said it!

2006-04-19T08:22:00.000-05:00

What’s in a name? Allot apparently.

As long as there is great copy in it. And if you can plaster a shitload of pictures with it, well then that’s all the better.

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

It started with a whole team, 46 players. Or was it 54. 31? Eh, who cares anyhow? Then it went to three specific men, and then it went to two completely DIFFERENT men. Maybe a third, we’ll decide who that is later fuck you very much. Plastered all over the MSM. Their names, addresses, shoe size, and circumcised status are news! Good news. DNA? What's that stand for, Do Not Acquit?

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

Protect the victim, ALWAYS, and crucify the accused. That is how system works.

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

Well, that is not entirely true. Actually, when the crime is rape, and the victim is a woman (‘cause men are never raped donchaknow!) and the accused is a rich white boy. THEN, and only then is that how the system works.

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

So we have the MSN (Main Stream Media), every feminist in every corner of the world, the women firsters, and every single men=bad, women=good blog touting the feminist line. CASTRATE THE PRIVILEDGED WHITE BOY RAPISTS! Guilt is a given. Proof is irrelevant. Why in good goddess’ name would a women lie about such an atrocity? Women don’t lie dammit! Especially about something so traumatic as rape!

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

MSM is protected by the 1st amendment. The accused are supposed to be protected by the 6th. Well, part of the 6th anyhow. The trial by jury and such trivialities part that is. But what happened to the right to face ones accuser? Isn’t that part of the 6th?

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

To whit;

The Sixth Amendment, vital to prevent a justice system from railroading relatively powerless defendants, supposedly guarantees any accused the right to a speedy and public trial, and is assisted by counsel. It also is supposed to guarantee that they shall know the nature of the charges against them and be allowed to subpoena witnesses in their defense. Furthermore, it also says the accused "shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." In other words, face your accuser. (Note: in this case we will just leave the pronoun intact, no need for gender neutrality)

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

What does that mean, in this day and age? Nothing. Zip. Nadda. Well, if you’re a privileged white male anyhow. Having a well-to-do family is synonymous with the patriarch ™ and the KKK donchaknow. You are not in the “powerless defendants” group that the SC Justices as well as the original pens of the constitution were referring to. You are privileged.

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

In 2004, the Supreme Court of these United States voted in a 7-2 ruling, reiterated this. No. Really???? Yep. Crawford vs Washington. The Justices (now if that isn’t an oxymoron) barred such bullshit like secondhand information and hearsay testimonies unless the defense (accused) has had an opportunity to question the accusing witness.

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

Yea, well, so what! They are rich white boys! They deserve what’s coming to them! Especially that one that went to an all male elitist school ‘cause when boys are edumacated in this sort of environment, without the nurturing and positive influences of the wonderful world of feminism, they become racist evil rapist! It’s true! Just ask and professor of wymins studies!

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

So now what happens the original three men, or the rest of the team? How about the coach? What can be done about all the MSM and femi-speak that has all but ruined THEIR reputations? What about their rights? Rape shield laws, in principle, were meant to protect the victims from being keelhauled through the mud. A reasonable if not correct assumption, when looking at how MSM loves a good mud bath.

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

But what about the initially accused; or the second pass accused? Are they NOW not the victims? Are they not the victims of a lynch mob mentality? Are they protected by the constitution as AMERICANS just like the accuser? Is there such a thing as trauma for the falsely accused? How many retractions have you seen in the news lately? How many apologies to the remaining men have been printed? How many femikook sites that initially crucified the WHOLE TEAM, CITY, SCHOOL, and MEN IN GENERAL have said, “sorry” to the other team members… to the coach. Uhuh, thought so.

Crystal Gail Magnum & Kim Roberts

Proof? We don’t need no stinkin’ proof! What we need is votes! We need a conviction! We need to prove that we will protect the ‘innocent’ at all costs! Not the alleged, the “innocent until proven guilty”! The term “alleged” is just a term. It has no real meaning. It’s just a name we use when a mother, woman, or any other protected class is accused of ‘indiscretions’.

But, what’s in a name…

Crystal Gail Magnum, multiple felon, stripper, hooker, and liar. A name that should NEVER EVER be forgotten.

Kim Roberts, felon, thief, and liar as well. Looking for a good "spin" doctor.

TMOTS

---A Mothers Love knows no bound!

2006-04-09T07:43:00.000-05:00

So I am cruising the Internet reading, as I usually do at the wee hours of the day. Bored with the garbage emails that I appear to be inundated each day with and I come across this ditty:

Making fun of boys totally fair

Somewhat irritated, I search further and discover that COOLTOOLSFORMEN has covered this individual already.

reading further, I discover an additional morsel;

Gender divide is a royal pain

OK, now I am actually pissed off at this woman. She not only treats her son with such discontent, but she goes even further and uses him as a stepping-stone for ridicule and humor in her columns.

I e-mail her.

____________
From: TMOTS
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2006 3:21 AM
To: Shapiro, Treena
Cc: me
Subject: Nice articles

IT is so pleasing to see the equality that you hold so dear to your heart is being applied to your children. [/sarcasm off].

I wonder how Corwin, you know, that evil little male in your house, will feel as well as act towards women when he comes of age. I’ll give you a hint. You already called Sloane (nice name BTW) by the appropriate term, "princess". This poor lad is going to grow up will all sorts of issues when it comes to interactions with men and particularly women.

You are married as well. Funny how your mangina of a husband seems to just ride the feminist dogma wave and allows you to psychologically abuse this poor child. All in the name of equality eh?

Pathetic.

A father of a boy AND a girl.
____________

I expect nothing in return, as I usually do. They never respond to fork-tongued males. Amazingly, I DO get a response.

____________
I'm not interested in arguing whether I'm sexist or not, although I will defend my son. The column points out that I think he's smart.

The only reason I'm responding at all is because for the past week I've been getting hate mail from men who are threatening violence against me and since you seem to be more interested in written abuse rather than physical or sexual attacks, I'd really like to know where you read this. The column was originally published in January and has been taken off our website, so it's clear people are reading it somewhere else.

I know that you'd probably love it if these men actually followed through with what they're threatening, but I'm hoping that out of the kindness of your heart you might be able to tell me if they are reading this locally or in another state.
____________

Notice that she is so typical with her answers, any one of us could have responded identically. They never seem to have anything new to say. Same-ole, same-ole.

So I respond back.

____________
First and foremost, both of your columns are posted on the Honolulu Advertiser. Nice picture BTW. I can see the nurturing motherly instinct and love just oozing from that smile.

Sure you "say" that he is smart, but you treat him as a second class citizen, as you columns seem to imply. Instead of just telling him that Sloane can be king if she wants to, you blind the genders lines and belittle him by ignoring his pleas. Explaining to him that there is nothing wrong with her wanting to be king, AS WELL AS nothing wrong with HIM wanting to be king, I surmise, would have been more 'motherly' of you. But, you chose to "refuse". Thus refusing his feelings as well. This is sexist and you are sending him a message that a woman can do as she pleases and can do no wrong, but a man... well.... they smell, throw rocks at them.

This is what is wrong with the genders. When MEN & WOMEN stop this we are smarter or better or always the victim, then the issues that keep coming up between the sexes will subside. I truly believe that. Sure, they will never go away, but they certainly would crawl back under the rock from which they came from and belong.

Men and women are different. Fine. Men and women are pretty much interchangeable when it comes to doing 'things', fine. But belittling a male child all the while placing his sister on a pedestal does nothing but create contempt in that lads mind. If you truly believe in equality between the sexes, I should not have to tell you this.

So the Feminist Mantra comes forth. I, as a male, write you stating my distaste of your insensitive (almost abusive) parenting towards your son as well as your columns, and you immediately accuse me of the ATYPICAL feminist favorite. I am "abusing" you in writing rather than one of the other male-only goodies; physical and sexual. Gee, thanks. And you claim MEN have issues. You appear to be willing to raise the 'victims chalice' at any cost. As long as it is women who drink from it, I assume.

"Written abuse"? Hardly. If I wanted to abuse you (in writing) I would have. Insulted? Sure. Slightly angry that you would treat your son this way? Most definitely. But I tend to use a forked tongue rather than abuse in my writings. Being a feminist, you should be all too familiar with this type of writing. Whereas it is quite visible and apparent in your columns.

Lastly, I take exception to your insinuation that I would "love" it if these alleged men were to physically assault you. Where would you get an idea like that? Because I disagree with you? Because I am male? Because it is in the genetic makeup of all males? Thus, I must be a part of the "Patriarchy (tm)" that thrives secretly on the abuse of women? Come now, you appear to be somewhat learned. You cannot honestly believe that just because I disagree with your ideals, that I would want you hurt... That is just plain ole silly-willy emotionalism.

One last note, think about how your son will feel when he is older; old enough to go to the library and look up his mom's writings. Better yet, uses the Internet, just as I have. Ever think about how he will feel when he sees what he may have always felt or thought? You favor his sister based solely on her sex, and dislike him (based on his sex) so much that you use him as a tool for humor and ridicule in your columns. A mother’s love knows no bounds.
____________

It will be interesting to see if she responds back again.

Here is her email address: tshapiro@honolulu.gannett.com

---Evil, evil Men. Pack of wolves. Elitist boys. Rapists. All 54 of them.

2006-04-07T12:07:00.000-05:00

Those are just some of the names thrown around in the media as well as the blogsphere. Funny thing is, there are so many issues with this situation, one cannot seriously take the ‘victim’ side. Lets look at a few very simple and telling oddities….

First off, the ‘victim’ is a 28-year-old police psychology student at North Carolina Central University. Her parents said that she is trying to maintain a low profile to protect her children, ages 5 and 7. She works for Allure Escort Service. Yes, you read that correctly. She is holding a low profile yet she is a hooker. Uhuh… OK. Yes, that is what she is. Fact, deal with it

Then, supposedly, three of these young men had sexually assaulted this stripper/hooker.. er sorry ‘escort’.. Yet all 54 are paying the consequences for three (alleged) specific individuals. And there are consequences. They are being branded as rapist in class, by teachers, the media, and the town. Innocent until proven guilty eh? John Adams must be rolling in his grave right about now.

Not only that but, the coach has been pretty much beaten to a pulp to the point of resigning. Nice system. Oh, lets not forget that the media, in all its manipulative glory identify it as “a gang rape”. Thus implying that all 54 and their male cousins were involved. Nice copy that makes eh? Selling many papers lately?

Next we have the initial release of the allegations with the publishing of all the men’s names ad nauseum. Oddly, her name is nowhere to be seen. What happened to equal protection under the law? Facing ones accuser? nnocent until proven guilty? Oh wait, I forgot, protect the fema…er victim.

Enter the femishark frenzy in all its glory. Short of castration, these men, all 54 of them are guilty, plain and simple. Why? Because they are men, they are rapists. Young men from affluent families, but men none-the-less. Thus is the standard MO of the DV and rape industry. Yes, they are an industry, contrary to popular feminist dogma.

So now we start to look into this whole pathetic news story with a microscope. Mainly because the story is beginning to break down and the media has to somehow villify themselves by 'misdirection" and refocusing the story somehow. You know, to ensure that the victim is protected and the evil vile men are punished, at all costs.

Additional stories such as two women actually showed up, were contracted to do a strip tease act for the sum of 800.00 for a couple of hours, only to attempt to leave after 3 minutes.

This supposed event is again extended to a member of the team soliciting sex from the alleged victim for $300. She agreed, but later backed out for some reason. When the team member demanded his money back, she declined, and then requested $1500 or else she would claim she was raped. This would fit with the fact that she left the party, but was then convinced come back in the house.

Then there is the email claiming that they (the team) were going to get black dancers to the party for no other reason but to kill her (them). Notice now that it’s not just a rape issue, but also the tried and true, ace in the hole; race, has been brought to the table. Where is this critical piece of evidence? Has anyone see it? With Duke being virtually as ‘diverse’ as one can get, with approximately 47% black and 48 white (Fox News), you would think that the race issue wouldn’t even be brought up. If race was indeed so problematic at Duke, why is there not a cornucopia of stories with race being the center of the horn? But I digress.

Then we have the ole DNA angle. One would suspect that having all 54 men tested for DNA would either identify and thusly convict the proper assailants and vilifying the remaining 51 or so men (52 if you count the coach). But noooo. Gottah go forth with the new and improved Salem witch hunts. AP reported that the DNA results have been completed as much as 5 days ago. So why haven’t we heard the findings? Why are these men being raked through the coals? Why has their season been cancelled due to only three alleged assailants? Release the damned DNA findings and close this stupid case already. Incedently, the AP has also reported that a second battery of DNA test has been ordered... why? WTF was wrong with the first set? I know! They were 'unconclusive'. Translation, they proved that the men were not lying.

I wont even get into the part about the team, yess all of them, offered to take lie detector tests (actually truth verification tests) and the honchos that be declined. Again, why? Why would they not want to have this on their side during the trial as proof!? Hmm Maybe because it will once again prove that this is nothing more than a freakin witch hunt.

In my opinion, denying truth verification tests and holding back the DNA findings proves that there are issues with this whole thing. If DNA proves that the rape occurred, wouldn’t you think that they would want to get that information out, go to trial, convict, and then enable the poor victim “to begin the healing process”. Oh, and while we are at it, all the other men to get on with their lives too…If you don’t mind too much.

But wait! Just when you think this cannot get any more ridiculous than it already has, out comes a police report from 2002. According to a 2002 police report, the woman, a 27-year-old student at North Carolina Central University at the time, gave a taxi driver a lap dance at a Durham strip club. Subsequently, according to the report, she stole the man's car and led deputies on a high-speed chase that ended in Wake County.

Hold your horses now, there is more.. She claimed to have only doe this sort of employment twice! So cronologically, it must have been that one time in 2002 and then this time, in 2006. Yea! That's the ticket! Back to the facts...

Apparently, the deputy thought the chase was over when the woman turned down a dead-end road near Brier Creek, but instead she tried to run over him, according to the police report.

Additional information notes that her blood-alcohol level registered at more than twice the legal limit.

Wow! Now if that doesn’t make one wonder. Ponder for a second what the motives of this poor victim truly are. I’ll wait.

Now, I am NOT implying one single bit that these sorts of atrocities happen. But when an equal, and sometime more disturbing atrocity happens such as the media and campus conviction of these men without due process… well I have to call a spade a spade.

So far nothing is concrete with the exception of “no evidence has been found at the site of the alleged attack”, as stated by the local sheriffs office. Additionally, the prosecutors claim that 4 fingernails were found at the scene. Two questions, why did the local officials claim that nothing was found then. Secondly, she claimed to have scratched one of her assailants, which caused her fake nails to come off. Well, shoot, check the boys then! At least one of them MUST have some sort of superficial wound indicative of the supposed actions. Nope. No information on that either.
Oh and lets not forget this little nugget; “The identity of the 911 caller, however, is not yet known. She identified herself only as someone passing by the house, located on Buchanan Street near Duke. Although police generally have information about a 911 call location, as well as who placed it, a Durham police spokeswoman said Thursday they have neither in this instance.” Well, well, well, isn’t that convenient. Personally? I think that it was her gal pal that called the police. You know, to corrobera.... er protect her friend from the evil males.

So I ask you, why the filler busting hold up? Why are the DNA results being held? Why is there no corroboration of the supposed scratches of one of the assailants? What of the police that respond to a call where they somehow, unbeknownst to the whole freaking world, cannot verify who placed the call and from where.

There are just too many questions, with too many inconsistencies. Way too many PC angles with very little or actual investigative process.

With that, I leave you with the biggest question of all. If this supposedly happened, WHY HAS NOONE ACTUALLY BEEN CHARGED YET?

---Women are better parents because they are 'naturally' protective of children....

2006-03-26T07:50:00.000-05:00

Yea, right.

Ever notice how when a man abuses a child, it's all over the media? Now I am not saying that it shouldn't but I often wonder why it is almost always men. We know that women can be just as violent as men, it has been proven, regardless of what the femikooks say.

Lately we have been seeing a lot of "Teacher Has Affair With Child" stories. Of course, just by the title, one can assume that in this particular story, the 'teacher' is female. You see, when the story says "Male Teacher Molests 14 Year Old Student", you know what it's about. But when a woman does it, they (the media) somehow gloss over it like it's no big deal. Well it is. Molestation is molestation, and it is wrong. Call it an "affair" if you want, but it is still wrong. And by the way, it is no epidemic either. Just as rape (real rape, not the new catch-all version) is not and never was an epidemic. It is just being reported more.

This brings The Man On The Street to his next point. Homosexual parenting. Now, being a heterosexual and a non-scholar in the sexuality of homosexuals, I cannot in good conscience begin to explain how it feels to be a homosexual. I DO know in my small little male mind that it is not BIOLOGICALLY sound to label it as ‘natural’. But that is not the point of this post. You can argue until the sun comes up; it still isn’t natural, as in NATURE, as in a penis and a vagina, as in procreation. But as usual, I digress.

Some would say that a homosexual partnership is as solid an environment as any heterosexual partnership. Well, I have an issue with that. Two males will not, and CANNOT be considered a wholesome environment for a child, male or female. Why? Well, how is a young lad supposed to understand the whole biological prospective of procreation, as well as the sexual dynamics of male to female relationships if he has two male parents? Lets not even get into the concept of these two men bringing up a young girl.Granted, two males would more than likely be able to teach a child, male or female, sensitivity, caring, and respect. Any good household can do that, so I am not saying that there is something evil about them. No. I am merely stating that the sexual dynamics of male-female interaction would be an issue. If you do not find a woman sexually attractive, then how the hell can you teach a child (again, male or female) how to interact with the opposite sex? Would you? Or would you go as far as to say that heterosexuality is wrong, and homosexuality is right? Who knows? I am sure it can be done, but I assure you, it would be difficult. With my own children (a boy and a girl), I had a difficult time explaining that ‘birds and the bees’ stuff. When it came to homosexuality, it was a rough road to travel. It all came down to one sentence. Heterosexuality = biological = procreation, homosexuality = preference or choice. Agree to disagree if you’d like.

So that brings The Man On The Street to the real reason for this post. Lesbian relationships. To be more precise, lesbians as parents. We all know that old tired song and dance that women are more nurturing, caring, shit just plain ole better than any man could ever be, right? So it would stand to reason (based on the ridiculous assumption above) that lesbian parents, especially if one is the biological parent of said children, would be just as good, if not better an environment for children. Whether the children are male or female, right? Ahem. Please take a look at the following link. I’ll wait. When you are done reading it, come on back.

“But Mr. Man On The Street, it may be boring and I don’t want to waste the 2 seconds it takes to click on it”, you say? Well, here is a taste, a teaser if you will… Just to get you started.
__________________________

Four-year-old Jandre Botha disobeyed an order to call his mother's lesbian lover "Daddy''.

So the lover, Engeline de Nysschen (33), viciously assaulted Jandre while demanding that he must call her "Daddy".

Jandre died from his injuries, which trauma expert Professor Mohammed Dada said were similar to those of a person who had fallen from a double-storey building.

Yesterday Vereeniging Regional Court magistrate Rita Willemse found De Nysschen and the mother, Hanelie Botha (31) - who did nothing to protect her child - guilty of murder.

Jandre's father, Jan Botha, sat in court holding the hands of his fiancée, Yolanda Deysel, and listened attentively to Willemse, who, in her judgment, accepted evidence that among the reasons that led to Jandre's brutal ordeal was his refusal to call De Nysschen "Daddy".

Here is the link with rest of the story:
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=128&fArticleId=3171828
__________________________

How is that for ‘sexual dynamics’? Now that there is some good old fashioned nurturing type motherly love right there! Yep! No hatred of the male species either!

“But Mr. Man On The Street, it took place in South Africa! They have different morals and their culture is so different than ours”, you say?

Then may I direct your attention to the following?
__________________________

Two lesbian mothers in Ohio were sentenced to 30 years in prison on Tuesday for the horrific abuse of their five sons.

Mary Rowles, 31, the biological mother of the boys, and her partner, Alice Jenkins, 28, pleaded guilty to charges that they beat, starved, locked the children in closets for months at a time, and forced them to eat human and animal faeces.

The rest of the story:
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5663
__________________________

Again, some real old fashioned motherly love right there, eh?

Did anyone else notice the word 'girl' in there? Yep, 5 boys were abused and a girl... Was not. Notice how SHE wasn’t abused... Any guesses as to why?

I am so glad that only men are rapists, molesters, and abusive towards children. I am also VERY thankful that homosexuals, specifically lesbians, can be just as good at parenting as heterosexual parents… what with twice the amount of maternal, caring, and nurturing genes.

---Is There a Batterer in the US Congress?

2006-03-15T11:48:00.000-05:00

Is There a Batterer in the US Senate?
By Glenn Sacks

There is a batterer in the United States Senate. This abuser's spouse has suffered repeated violent attacks, yet there has been no condemnation of this Senator's violence. Ironically, this Senator, who is one of the most controversial people in American public life today, has somehow escaped reproach for the one thing that both detractors and admirers should agree is genuinely inexcusable--domestic violence.

Who is this perpetrator of domestic violence? New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

The evidence against Ms. Clinton is strong. According to Hillary's admiring biographer Gail Sheehy, author of Hillary's Choice, one of the domestic assaults upon Bill Clinton occurred in 1993, when Hillary slashed Bill Clinton's face with her long fingernails, leaving a "mean claw mark along his jawline."

The incident was first explained as a "shaving accident" and a subsequent attempt was made to pin the blame on Socks the cat. Because of the gouge's size, neither explanation was accepted by observers. Dee Dee Myers, the White House spokeswoman at the time, later explained to Sheehy that it had been singer Barbara Streisand's visit to the White House that had sparked Hillary's jealous, violent rage.

According to Christopher Andersen, author of Bill and Hillary, Hillary also assaulted Bill on August 13, 1999, after the Monica Lewinsky revelations. Andersen writes:

"...the President...weeping, begged her forgiveness. Much of what transpired next between Bill and Hillary Clinton was plainly audible to Secret Service agents and household staff members down the hall. In the past, Hillary had thrown books and an ashtray at the President -- both hitting their mark...Hillary rose to her feet and slapped him across the face -- hard enough to leave a red mark that would be clearly visible to Secret Service agents when he left the room. "

‘You stupid, stupid, stupid bastard,' Hillary shouted. Her words, delivered at the shrill, earsplitting level that had become familiar to White House personnel over the years, ricocheted down the corridor."

Sheehy's account of the incident is similar, adding that Hillary's friend Linda Bloodworth-Thomasen, who was staying with her husband in the private quarters nearby, "thought it was great that Hillary ‘smacked him upside the head.' "

The US Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime classifies these types of attacks--scratching, slapping, hitting, throwing objects, and inflicting bruises or lacerations--as "physical abuse" and domestic violence.

Bill Clinton handled the incidents in a manner reminiscent of the way many female victims of domestic violence did in the pre-feminist era. Ashamed, he tried to cover the incidents up, even ordering his representatives to publicly alibi his wife's violence. He probably blamed himself for "provoking" her, as if marital infidelity warrants physical assault. And he almost certainly never considered calling the police or formally charging his abuser.

The public's reaction has been of the "what did he do to set her off?" variety--a "blame the victim" mentality that would immediately be recognized and condemned were the genders of the perpetrator and victim reversed. Media coverage of the incidents has almost entirely consisted of jokes on late night TV and talk radio. In narrating these assaults, neither Sheehy nor Andersen mention ‘domestic violence' or even write disapprovingly of Hillary's attacks. Needless to say, the reaction would be quite different were it the president's wife who appeared in public with lacerations on her face.

Nor were the incidents mentioned during Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign. In fact, it was former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who was publicly pilloried as a bad spouse for his failing marriage, while the fact that his electoral opponent was a known abuser merited little or no mention.

The Clinton incidents demonstrate that, despite the overwhelming body of research which shows that men and women initiate and engage in domestic violence equally, the public still largely holds the outdated and discredited view that domestic violence is synonymous with wife-beating.

Ironically, Senator Clinton herself has spoken out on domestic violence on many occasions, and has supported the Family Violence Prevention Fund's $100 million anti-Domestic Violence campaign. The campaign's slogan is "There's No Excuse for Domestic Violence."

What's Senator Clinton's excuse?

---The 76-cent myth

2006-03-09T18:08:00.000-05:00

The 76-cent myth

Do women make less than men? The wage-gap ratio isn't the best gauge for pay discrimination, and overemphasizing it can undermine an important issue.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 21, 2006: 5:51 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - When you have a legitimate point to make, it can undercut your argument to rely heavily on a sound-bite statistic that easily can be misinterpreted.
When it comes to pay discrimination, the one statistic you hear over and over is that women make only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns.

To the average person, that ratio gives the false impression that any woman working is at risk of being paid 24 cents less per dollar than a man in the same position.

But all the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men who log at least 35 hours a week on the job, any job. That's it.

It doesn't compare those with equal work, equal training, equal education or equal tenure. Nor does it take into account the hours of overtime worked.

The wage gap, in short, "is a good measure of inequality, not necessarily a measure of discrimination," said Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
Unequal doesn't always mean unfair. Much depends on the reasons for disparity. And, Hartmann notes, "parsing out (the reasons for the gap) is difficult to do."

Factors may include: more women choose lower-paying professions than men; they move in and out of the workforce more frequently; and they work fewer paid hours on average.

Why that's the case may have to do in part with the fact that women are still society's primary caregivers, that some higher-paying professions require either too much time away from home or are still less hospitable to women than they should be.

However, while those factors account for a good portion of the wage gap, actual pay discrimination likely accounts for the balance, experts say.

Hartmann believes discrimination accounts for between 25 percent and 33 percent of the wage gap. Compensation specialist Gary Thornton, a principal in the HR management consulting firm Thornton & Associates, figures at least 10 percent to 15 percent does.

Whatever the breakout, there certainly are numerous studies that show discrimination -- however unconscious -- still exists. For instance:

A recent Cornell study found that female job applicants with children would be less likely to get hired, and if they do, would be paid a lower salary than other candidates, male and female. By contrast, male applicants with children would be offered a higher salary than non-fathers and other mothers.

A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that female job applicants who tried to negotiate a higher salary were less likely to be hired by male managers, while male applicants were not.
Then there's the phenomenon of wages going down when more women move into a field.
Take human resources, now a female-dominated profession. I asked Thornton if he thinks female human-resource managers today are paid as well as he and his male colleagues were 15 years ago. "Not at all," he said. He estimates that in inflation-adjusted terms they're paid about 20 percent less.

Why? "That's the million-dollar question," he said. "There are many things at play. But we still have a long way to go to change unintentional discrimination."

A few years back, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that its women scientists were routinely given less pay, space, funding and rewards than their male colleagues.
"Did anyone intentionally give them smaller offices and labs? Probably not. It's just one of those things (that) accumulate and add up to barriers and institutional discrimination," Hartmann said.

Even though discrimination may not be intentional, Hartmann said, companies should be intentional about regularly reviewing their compensation structures and promotion records to correct for patterns of discrimination.

But maybe there can never be absolute parity because often there are many non-discriminatory variables that cause a differential in pay. What determines someone's pay isn't just a title and job description, but also performance, tenure and market forces -- e.g., what it takes to get a desirable job candidate to accept a position.

And then there are situations in which a company may do well by a female employee but still be vulnerable to charges of discrimination and reverse discrimination.

In an article, Warren Farrell, author of "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It," tells of a company that promoted good women employees faster than men. But consequently the women moving into the higher positions often were paid less than men in the same position because the men had greater tenure at the company.

Or, Thornton noted, a man's request for pay equity is more likely to fall on deaf ears if he finds out a newly hired female colleague is paid more. But if a woman made the same request, it's more likely to be treated seriously, due to fear of a lawsuit.

If anything is clear cut, it's that pay equity can be a complex issue. And it's one that a single, overly generalized statistic does little to elucidate.

Please, knaw on that for a while......

---Making a stand against mysandry is not just men's work...

2006-03-08T13:13:00.000-05:00

Olympian Thompson rejects UNH award
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS & The Union Leader - Manchester, NH
Tuesday, Mar. 7, 2006

DURHAM (NH) – Swimmer Jenny Thompson, America’s most decorated Olympian, is rejecting a high honor from the University of New Hampshire to protest the school’s decision to cut its men’s swimming team and other sports.

Thompson is turning down the annual Charles Holmes Pette Medal, the highest honor given by UNH’s Alumni Association.

“How can the university honor me for accomplishments in an endeavor which they clearly do not respect,” said Thompson, who grew up in Dover.

The university also is eliminating men’s and women’s tennis and women’s crew as it tries to erase a $1 million shortfall.

Thompson said she could not have achieved her dreams if she had not had the opportunity provided by swimming teams.

“Having the men’s swimming team and other Olympic sports, such as crew and skiing, cut means less opportunity for people to achieve their dreams, not just for the current student-athletes but for future generations,” she said.

Thompson, a graduate of Stanford University, is studying at Columbia’s School of Medicine.
A group of UNH alumni, parents and students planned to give a copy of Thompson’s statement to Gov. John Lynch and House Speaker Douglas Scamman at the Statehouse on Tuesday.
The also planned a rally to protest the sports cuts.

_____________________

Good for you Miss Thompson. The statement you have made will help women AS WELL AS MEN in the long run. Sports are just as vital to education as the three r's. Sports teaches teamwork, dicipline, respect, and of course sportsmanship... Or in your case sportsWOMANship! Bravo Jenny!

---4th grade education is all that's needed to get into Yale evidently.

2006-03-06T12:16:00.000-05:00

Oh, and of course a minority or protected group, anti-American, liberal, femikook, and now, A Taliban Officer. NICE!

Can someone please tell me what the fuck is going on here? Does this even remotely make any sense? Yale wont allow Military Recruitment (ROTC) because of the "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy of the military. Straw man argument if I ever saw one. It's actually just a nice little way of not saying what they actually mean, which is "Patriotic Military MEN need not reply". Yet, they allow an individual that is PROVEN to be anti-gay and an enemy of the UNITED STATES in. Now if that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Thank GOD for John Roberts!

It would be one thing if this fucking rag head assassin asshat (yes, I said it, and he is) had at least finished primary and secondary school or even had taken the SATs, but to allow him for no other reason but 'diversity'. What the fuck is that? So a diverse environment within an educational institution (supposedly one of the best at that) means allowing assassins, killers, racist bigots, and evildoers in without the PROPER CRUDENTIALS all in the name of 'diversity'. Oh, wait.... as long as they are not white heterosexual men I guess.

Well, miss Ivy League, Here is what is supposed to happen; if you accept GOVERMENT MONIES, then you must follow the laws that the likes of you set into place. You know, those pesky non-discriminatory laws that you hold so dear to your blackened hearts. Here, let me remind you, non-acceptance based upon race, creed, color, sexuality (or choices thereof), and religion (now there is a funny one), is illegal.

Of course, you have bastardized the law with a 4 foot brush to translate in academic speak to actually mean "any other protected class (read anyone except while hetero males) that we deem such, is illegal"!

Read the excerpts below...

____________________________
Friday, March 03, 2006

Yale University: Taliban Yes; US Military No
by Jim Kouri, CPP

While most American parents can only dream of sending their kids to a first-tier university such as Harvard and Yale, a former ambassador for the oppressive and brutal Afghan Taliban is enrolled at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, even though he possesses none of the qualifications to attend such an institution for higher education.

"Yale University enrolls the Taliban's former spokesman as a student, but continues to prohibit other students from organizing a Reserve Officer Training Corps chapter on campus and also seeks to deny students the right to hear from military recruiters about employment opportunities," say members of the student group Young America's Foundation.

Under the guise of alleged sex discrimination as a result of the military's so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals, Yale and other universities have blocked their students from partaking of ROTC training on campus.

"Yet Yale University is allowing a member or former member of a group that not only discriminated against gays, but actually stoned them to death," says one outraged Yale student.

On February 26, the New York Times Magazine reported that Yale admitted Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the Deputy Foreign Secretary of the Taliban, into a non-degree program, with a chance to gain full degree status by 2006.

"In some ways I'm the luckiest person in the world," Hashemi told the Times. "I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale."

Prior to his arrival as a student, Hashemi was imprisoned at Bagram Air Base. He had been a member of the Taliban government, serving both in Afghanistan and in the United States as Second Foreign Secretary and Ambassador-at-Large. Yale has not commented on why the university, which accepts only ten percent of all applicants, granted admission to this former Taliban officer. One Yale official claims it's part of creating diversity on campus, but opponents of having a Taliban officer attend a premier college say that excuse has been used by colleges and universities to invite everyone including cop-killers to their campuses.

Hashemi possesses a 4th grade formal education, never took the SATs and advocated violence against homosexuals. As the mouthpiece for the Taliban, Hashemi advocated the oppression of women, gays and non-Muslims. The Taliban are known associates and allies of Al-Qaeda. Not surprising, one intelligence report indicates Hashemi attended an Al-Qaeda terrorism training camp in Afghanistan.

Yale alumnus, and former Army Captain Flagg Youngblood said, "That my alma mater would embrace an ambassador from one of America's declared and defeated enemies and in the same breath keep ROTC and military recruiters off campus shows where Yale's allegiance falls. Yale's actions show that they consider the US military more evil than the Taliban."
_______________________

Read the rest of the story by clickin on the title link above.

---VAWA protects women and children from abusive men, right?

2006-02-28T10:04:00.000-05:00

Uhm... OK..... So who is protecting the children from the abusive women (40%)?

From the Department of Health and Human Services

This bar graphs shows that approximately two-fifths (40.8%) of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.8 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 16.9 percent were abused by both their mother and father. Victims abused by a nonparental perpetrator accounted for 13.4 percent of the total.

Lets go on shall we? This is the FATALITY BY RELATIONSHIP statistics....

Come on femikooks! Dispute it! I dare ya!

---But...but... it's for the children, dontcha know!

2006-02-28T10:01:00.000-05:00

by Phyllis Schlafly
Posted Feb 27, 2006

When our supposedly compassionate federal government pokes its nose into areas that, under our principle of federalism, should be none of its business, the result is often unintended consequences, gross injustices, and of course massive costs.

A prime example is the 1986 federal Bradley Amendment, which mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see his children, or loses his job or suffers a pay cut.

The result of this incredibly rigid law is to impose a punishment that makes it impossible for any but the very rich to get out from under a Bradley debt. Thousands of fathers are sentenced to debtors' prison (a medieval practice we thought abolished in the United States centuries ago), and thousands more have their drivers license confiscated (making it extraordinarily difficult to get a job).

There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child's needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition). The Bradley debt is misnamed "child support"; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish men and extract money from them to support some mothers and a $3 billion federal and state bureaucracy.

Take the case of Larry Souter as reported recently in the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press. He was released after spending 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of second-degree murder. He was then summoned to court to explain why he should not be convicted of contempt for nonpayment of his Bradley debt that kept rising during his years in prison: $23,000 in back support plus interest and penalties that raised the total to $38,082.25. The ex-wife's attorney argues that Souter should pay because she "has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support."

Because the children are now adults, this case proves that the Bradley debt has nothing to do with child support. It has to do with court-ordered transfer payments from which the state gets a cut.

This case is not an anomaly. Clarence Brandley spent 10 years in prison before he was exonerated and released in 1990, whereupon the state hit him with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support debt that accumulated while in prison.

Many other cases prove that men cannot escape the Bradley debt even if DNA proves that they are not the father. The law even forbids bankruptcy to alleviate the Bradley debt.
Three years ago, a Maine court ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his. But Maine nevertheless demands that Fisher pay $11,450 in back child support and Maine took away his drivers license for failure to pay.

The Bradley debt makes no allowance for the growing problem of paternity fraud committed by mothers, estimated by some to be up to 30 percent of DNA-tested cases. Our compassionate government demands that a mother seeking welfare identify the father of her child and, like greedy lawyers, greedy women often target the man with the deepest pockets.

A few states have passed a recent law to end so-called child support if DNA proves a man is not the father, but that doesn't get rid of the Bradley debt accrued before DNA results came in. We haven't heard of any women being prosecuted for paternity fraud, and of course the man who was cheated doesn't get any refund.

There is no excuse for Congress and state legislatures allowing these injustices to continue. Court-ordered child support should not be final until DNA proves paternity.
Feminist defenders of the Bradley Amendment claim that the Bradley debtor could have reduced his debt by going into court and challenging the amount of support when his income decreased. That argument is legalistic cynicism taken to the extreme.Most Bradley debtors cannot afford a lawyer to advise them about and to defend their rights, yet they are up against government or government-paid lawyers; the system has built-in incentives to set the support as high as possible because collections bring bonuses to the state bureaucracy; and, according to the Los Angeles Times, roughly 70 percent of fathers in Los Angeles County are not present when the court (not biology) rules on paternity and irreducible monthly obligations are set in concrete.

President George W. Bush's initiative to promote marriage is a non-starter so long as the Bradley Amendment exists. Who would marry a man with a Bradley debt hanging over his future?

Shakespeare famously wrote, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." Since the author of the Bradley Amendment, former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., is still alive, he should tell his pals in the Senate to terminate his evil law before any more injustices take place.

---BTW, thanks for serving.....

2006-02-28T09:03:00.000-05:00

Wednesday, March 1, 2006
The Betrayal of the Military Father
By Glenn Sacks

When Gary, a San Diego-based US Navy SEAL, was deployed in Afghanistan in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he never dreamed that his service to his country would cost him his little son. Gary's son was not taken from him by a terrorist or a kidnapper. This 17-year Navy veteran with an unblemished military and civilian record was effectively stripped of his right to be a father by a California court.

Gary's story is not an unusual one. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, if a parent takes a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's presumptive residence after six months. Because a normal military deployment is six months or more, if an unhappily married military spouse moves to another state while the other spouse is deployed, by the time the deployed spouse returns the child's residence has already been switched. Since courts lean heavily in favor of a child's primary caregiver when determining custody, the spouse who moved the child is virtually certain to gain custody through the divorce proceedings in that new state.

Because of the strict restrictions on travel by active military personnel, the cost of legal representation, and the financial hardships created by child support and spousal support obligations, it is very difficult for returning service personnel to fight for their parental rights in another state. Many struggle even to see their children, much less remain a meaningful part of their lives, and the bond between the children and their noncustodial parent is often broken for years, if not permanently.

Gary has not been able to see his son, who now lives abroad, in nearly nine months. When he calls he can sometimes hear the three year-old ask "when daddy come?" and "where's daddy?" in the background but he is often prevented from speaking with him.

According to nationally-known family law attorney Jeffery Leving, author of Fathers' Rights , there are three solutions to the problems facing military fathers. First, the federal Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 needs to be amended to specifically prohibit the spouses of active duty military personnel from permanently moving children to other states without the permission either of the active duty military spouse or of a court. (The primary purpose of the Act, whose origins go back as far as the Civil War, is to protect active armed forces personnel by mandating that civil actions against them be delayed until after their return from service).

Second, California laws, which currently do little to prevent a custodial parent from moving children far away from the noncustodial parent, need to be changed to prohibit any permanent removals done against a deployed military parent's will. Third, the UCCJEA needs to be amended to state that the presumption of new residence does not apply if the children are taken in this wrongful fashion.

Gary has lost nearly $100,000 so far fighting for his son and may soon be forced to declare bankruptcy, which in turn will destroy the top secret security clearance he needs for his job. Worse yet is the emotional devastation wrought by his separation from his son and the knowledge that he may never see him again.

He says: "My love for my son cannot simply be brushed aside as the courts seem to believe it can. I can remember holding my little son's hand like it was yesterday. I can remember his cry. I hear it every time I hear another child crying." "Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life [in Afghanistan] for. I went to fight for freedom but what freedom and what rights mean anything if a man doesn't have the right to be a father to his own child?"

---Now that I've found the road less traveled, I want to take it!

2006-01-28T22:40:00.000-05:00

Now that I've found the road less traveled, I want to take it!

That about sums up what this Blog is all about. You'll notice on the right sidebar there are links to sites. Male Friendly Sites are of course, what the name implies; sites that are about, for, or by men. Although some of the content may or may not offend you, I could care less.

The second link of sites is that of places that Men Need Not Reply (tm). Typical Man=Bad/Woman=good, or is it "god" bullshit that makes my skin crawl. Although I detest even the idea of linking to them, I feel it is necessary to give you, the reader, a real taste of what the Mens Rights Movement & Men in general are dealing with in modern day earth. That's right, although I am in the US, this plague is world-wide.

Yes, you heard me correctly, feminism and the feminist doctrine is nothing more than a plague on this planet that requires eradication!