Saturday, December 10, 2005

Too bad it takes a Woman to say it to be taken seriously

Never heard of this woman who writes commentary for the LA Times, but she is spot on for mentioning this.

Thank her for speaking out by writing her here, and write the Times congrats for running this piece here.

Below, the article, and following that, the commentary of Harry Crouch, who you can write here, if you think he is effin' brilliant, which he is, sayeth the Geezer.

Shouldn't men have 'choice' too?

FOR PRO-CHOICERS like myself, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s position regarding spousal consent for abortion seems like one more loose rock in the ongoing erosion of Roe vs. Wade. Even those of us who are too young to remember the pre-Roe era often see any threat to abortion rights as a threat to our very destinies. We are, after all, the generation that grew up under Title IX, singing along to "Free to Be You and Me" (you know, the 1972 children's record where Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda remind us that mommies can be plumbers and boys can have dolls). When it comes to self-determination, we're as determined as it gets.

But even though I was raised believing in the inviolability of a woman's right to choose, the older I get, the more I wonder if this idea of choice is being fairly applied.
Most people now accept that women, especially teenagers, often make decisions regarding abortion based on educational and career goals and whether the father of the unborn child is someone they want to hang around with for the next few decades. The "choice" in this equation is not only a matter of whether to carry an individual fetus to term but a question of what kind of life the woman wishes to lead.

But what about the kind of life men want to lead? On Dec. 1, Dalton Conley, director of the Center for Advanced Social Science Research at New York University, published an article on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times arguing that Alito's position on spousal consent did not go far enough.

Describing his own experience with a girlfriend who terminated a pregnancy against his wishes, Conley took some brave steps down the slippery slope of this debate, suggesting that if a father is willing to assume full responsibility for a child not wanted by a mother, he should be able to obtain an injunction stopping her from having an abortion — and he should be able to do so regardless of whether or not he's married to her.

Conley freely acknowledges the many obvious caveats in this position — the most salient being the fact that regardless of how "full" that male responsibility might be, the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth will always put most of the onus on women. But as much as I shudder at the idea of a man, husband or not, obtaining an injunction telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body, I would argue that it is Conley who has not gone far enough.

Since we're throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn't men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?

As Conley laments, the law does not currently allow for men to protect the futures of the fetuses they help create. What he doesn't mention — indeed, no one ever seems to — is the degree to which men also cannot protect their own futures. The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.

In other words, although women are able to take control of their futures by choosing from at least a small range of options — abortion, adoption or keeping the child — a man can be forced to be a father to a child he never wanted and cannot financially support. I even know of cases in which the woman absolves the man of responsibility, only to have the courts demand payment anyway. That takes the notion of "choice" very far from anything resembling equality.

I realize I've just alienated feminists (among whose ranks I generally count myself) as well as pro-lifers, neither of whom are always above platitudes such as "You should have kept your pants on." But that reasoning is by now as reductive as suggesting that a rape victim "asked for it." Yes, people often act irresponsibly and yes, abortion should be avoided whenever possible. But just as women should not be punished for choosing to terminate a pregnancy, men should not be punished when those women choose not to.

One problem, of course, is that the child is likely to bear the brunt of whatever punishment remains to be doled out. A father who terminates his rights, although not technically a deadbeat dad, has still helped create a kid who is not fully supported. And (in case you were wondering) there are dozens of other holes in my theory as well: What if a husband wants to terminate his rights — should that be allowed? What if a father is underage and wants to terminate but his parents forbid him? Should a father's decision-making time be limited to the first trimester? Should couples on first dates discuss their positions on the matter? Should Internet dating profiles let men check a box saying "will waive parental rights" next to the box indicating his astrological sign?

There's also the danger that my idea is not just a slippery slope but a major mudslide on the way to Conley's idea. If a man can legally dissociate himself from a pregnancy, some will argue, why couldn't he also bind himself to it and force it to term? That notion horrifies me, just as my plan probably horrifies others. But that doesn't mean these ideas aren't worth discussing. Though it may be hard to find an adult male who's sufficiently undiplomatic to admit out loud that he'd like to have the option I'm proposing, let alone potentially take it, I know more than a few parents of teenage boys who lose sleep over the prospect of their sons landing in the kind of trouble from which they'll have no power to extricate themselves.

And although the notion of women "tricking" men into fatherhood now sounds arcane and sexist, we'd be blind not to recognize the extent to which some women are capable of tricking themselves into thinking men will stick around, despite all evidence to the contrary. Allowing men to legally (if not always gracefully) bow out of fatherhood would, at the very least, start a conversation for which we haven't yet found the right words.

Actually, there's one word we've had all along: choice. We just need to broaden its definition.

Harry's comment follows:

Dear Editor,

Meghan Daum's insightful commentary "Shouldn't men have choice too" might
be enhanced with a bit of clarity.

Women's choices are pick a dad, abstinence, diaphragms, condoms,
spermicides, "The Pill", injections, implants, "Overnight Pill",
intrauterine device, abortion, adopt-out, keep baby, give baby away, sell
baby, auction baby, infanticide.

Men's choices are abstinence, condoms, invasive surgery, cash, credit
card, bankruptcy, prison, suicide.

Fairness and balance are long over due.

Harry Crouch
Director San Diego Men's Center

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Smokin' and Tokin' in Silly Seattle

This is fiction, at least for a few more days. Then it will be fact.

So, the Geez is in Silly Seattle, and decides to light up a fag*. Nope, not harassing gays, but that is what we called them in the days of James Dean, and Robert Mitchum.

Standing next to the Geez is a 60's leftover, toking on a "phattie", a large marijuana joint, for those who don't know.

Both of us standing in front of a closed business, showing our PC Seattle aloofness by not recognizing each other. Along comes a blue-gun thug, stops his trick ride with the huge Visibar, and enough lights to blind New York City, and gives me the old UAWMF. Up Against the Wall, Mother-Fucker, for those who missed the 60's.

I said WTF, that guy next to me is smokin' a joint!!!! I am consuming my LEGAL drug of choice.

Well, Sheriff Clem explains to me that since enforcement of marijuana laws is the LOWEST priority in Silly Seattle, that smoking a legal, tobacco cigarette, within 25 feet of a public place must take precedence in enforcement.

Welcome to the Peoples Republic of Seattle, in the FU-WA (feminist utopia of Washington)

The leftover hippie did finally recognize my presence, as he took a massive toke just as the cop car was pulling away, with me handcuffed in the back seat.

Oh, well.

The Geezer

Who also blogs at The Hate Male Post.

* Fag is not the only term we don't use any more. My kids don't believe that the Fun Forest at the Seattle Center was originally called the Gay Way. Never thought you'd get a history lesson reading my sheyt, did ya?

Monday, November 21, 2005

Everett Herald spins again on DV

The Geez was rudely awakened at Chez Denny at 5 ayem today by this article in the Everett Herald. Now, the Herald is generally sympathetic to the genderists that run the Everett Center for Battered Women, but this time they give props to the City Prosecutor.

My emailed response is below. Lets see if Ms. Reporter has the cajones to read it all the way through, and take me up on my gracious offer to spread some truth.

Email follows:

Hello, Krista

You may be new, or I may not be paying attention, but this is the first time I noticed your byline.

Unlike many who write, I will tell you my biases upfront. Got your armored underwear on? Good.

I have read the Herald since I was six years old, and now my youngest calls me the Geezer (affectionately) Ask Robert how old I am if you think it relevant.

I have twice been the victim of DV, even though I abhor that word. First time wife #1 chased me down a dead end hallway with a 12" bladed kitchen knife. No biggie.

Second time, wife #2 set the five bedroom house on fire, which I paid for with the 12 hour day I just worked, while I was snoozing in the Barcalounger® in the basement, after she left the house with the babies. That one kinda pisses me off when I think about it.

So, now you know my bonafides. I work with Families First of Washington, The Other Parent, and the Washington Civil Rights Council, helping non-custodial men and women, and the men and women that love them, battle the system that is so stacked against them in many areas, and DV, particularly in divorce or custody matters, is certainly the "silver bullet" and the "nuclear option" for moving a guy out of his house, guarantying custody, and a large court-enforced child support award.

Those are my biases. None of this is for publication, by the way, even though Robert Jamieson has written about me in the Pee-Eye Fishwrapper, without my name attached.

Now, on to the article.

First the sidebar on page one. Your source, the Center for Battered Women (NOT men) is known for spreading disinformation, and blatant untruths. I invite you to call me before you print next time, to get "the rest of the story" any time they tell you anything, particularly of a statistical nature. The number is XXX-XXX-XXXX, which is my cell, on 24X7, and I love to talk to the press. The sidebar does not refer to men, but I invite you to have a man call, and see what they do. Answer: One night's voucher in the roach-infested "no-tell" motel, which does zip-nada for a man fleeing an abusive and out of control woman, particularly with children. If a man has no children, they will direct him to a friends couch. Go ahead, find a guy to call them, I will wait...............

Of course, they will SAY they serve men (see above) but they count men that are railroaded into their "treatment" programs, which are not treatment at all, but a yelling session by the genderists (gender feminists, rad-fems, feminazis--take your choice, The boyz told me to quit using feminazi) called the Duluth Model. It is not about treatment, or anger management, and most men in there do not need it. It is simply old communist style indoctrination, using the "wheel of control" as a model. More on the wheel later.

In paragraph two, you talk about beating victims. Do you know that most DV is not about beating, but about loud domestic disagreements, often accompanied by drugs or alcohol? Do you know that it is NOT hard for men or women to leave, but that they actually have a model, or a need, for that heated kind of confrontation? I didn't think you knew that. More later on that, again.

As a reporter, I am surprised (NOT) that you didn't ask why 50 percent of the (you said defendant) plaintiffs failed to press charges in the old days. Actually it is the state that presses charges, IE The people VS. Mr. Smith. The alleged victim didn't press charges in the old days because they knew they were majorly complicit in the action, and were afraid of being busted themselves. Now, you think guys go from zero to "punching" in two seconds? No, women push, shove, kick, scream, and do other "encouraging" behaviors, and they know it, so they didn't show up to testify. Thanks to Sen. Biden, and the copious funding of VAWA, the "service providers", shelters, cops and persecutors (sic) smelled money, and created programs. What they had wasn't working so they created "no drop”, mandatory arrest and other questionable practices. They defined DV to include denigrating speech, yelling, and yes, even a discussion, no matter how calm, about financial spending habits. Yes, according to the laws of the FU-WA (Feminist Utopia of Washington), reigning in the little woman's out of control spending habits is DV!!!!! Check the "wheel of control" mentioned above.

Now, after millions of dollars, and 8 years, prosecution in the City of Everett jumped to 73 percent of DV cases. Hmmmm, Ms. Reporter, you compare that number to prosecution of other police reported crimes? Burglary? Theft? Assault (non-DV)? I didn't think you took the time to do that. You would find that way fewer of those cases are prosecuted, which you inadvertently point out, but only your most discerning readers would notice, by mentioning that DV is 20% of the city persecutors (SIC) caseload. Now, in the grand scheme of things, with the loosey-goosey definition of DV, why did you not mention that that seems out of balance?

And you neglected to mention that all DV crimes are already covered under assault laws!!!! So, why do we need special DV laws, special DV prosecutors, and special DV advocates training judges, police and prosecutors? And why do we spend so much on this type of assault instead of all assaults? IS NOT EVERY VICTIM OF ASSAULT IMPORTANT???????? Then why not prosecute some of the non-DV cases?

Lastly, lets take a look at the training the prosecutors, cops, and judges take. Let me give you a little snippet from a real judges training course.


New Jersey municipal judge Richard Russell actually urged his colleagues to violate basic constitutional protections: "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order," he told a judges’ training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don’t have to worry about the rights."

I would make a crappy reporter, because my editor would cut my stuff to shreds, because I am old school, and tell the WHOLE story, even the part that doesn't bleed, or otherwise titillate.


Now, I am old, and at home in cornfusion (sic), but when we got to where we talked about Lt. Olafson talking to the perps, I am unclear as to the bulleted comments "men seeking sympathy" and the meaning of the prosecutor and the genderist from the Battered Women's Center head nodding. The way I read it, the bulleted items were NOT viewed by the literati as DV, when, of course, all bulleted items, save perhaps the first one, ARE DV!!!!!

Now, it gets even foggier beyond that. Understand that the CBW makes a ton 'o cash from the "treatment" (NOT) that they provide, by charging these (majorly) men for that treatment, in a group setting, at between $30 and $100 per hour. Additionally, there was a recent US Supreme Court Case in the last couple of months that confirmed that the police are NOT obligated to enforce restraining orders or no contact orders, and therefore the prosecutor, Mr. Cox, is way off base suggesting he and the blue gunned thugs can or will protect supposed victims.

Cox's story of "taking all day" in court on a case, with the "victim" under oath stating that it never happened is over the top. Ask him how many non-DV assaults he has taken "all day" to present. And with the mandatory arrest policies, based on only "saying that it hurts", with no visible marks, and conflicting stories, it is very possible the "victim" was telling the truth!!!

Ok, enough. If you want to hear an up close and personal story about DV, call me. Three doors down is a "lady" who got her next door neighbor thrown in jail for attempting to speak with her about her abysmal treatment of her dog.

Within a week, she got her BF thrown in the pokey for DV, and later that day, admitted that she was the instigator, and that she intentionally yelled so that the neighbors would call the cops. Now, he got out, but can't go to HIS house, where she was staying, or drive HIS car, which she drives like a maniac, even though she has no ownership of the house or the car. Tell me how that is fair????????

Sunday, October 09, 2005

VAWA expired 9/30, let the mayhem begin!!!!

Well, VAWA expired on Sept. 30.

Congress failed to renew VAWA by September 30th, so society has now officially collapsed, and the patriarchs and their minions are in charge, and running wild in the street. Just look out your window right this very minute to gape at the ongoing atrocities!

Men everywhere are now taking advantage of this window of opportunity by punching, kicking, dissing and dousing their girlfriends, wives and any other stray females with gasoline and lighting them ablaze! They also are taking the credit cards out of their hands, and freely having “domestic issues discussions”, without fear of the blue gunned thugs breaking down their doors to haul them off to the hoosegow for making them feel bad, or in fear (of not buying the new shoes, I guess).

And wimmin’ everywhere are, geez, when I look out it seems they are carrying on as usual. Running about their business, walking down dark streets, going into supply closets with males and the like, totally oblivious to the sword of Damocles that hangs over their heads this very instant. Don’t they realize that RAPE and WIFE-BEATING have now been legalized??? They ought to be running-around in terror, screaming their heads-off.

But then the Geezer would ask them how that is different from yesterday.

Searching for evidence that this country has been ripped asunder by the rampaging mobs of testosterone-addled barbarians venting their pent-up maleness without anything standing in their way, the Geezer finds none.

Geez does take great joy in that hundreds of newly-graduated Wimmins’ studies majors will soon find themselves without job opportunities if federal support to Wimmin’s Centers dry-up.

Warning ladies---Brimstone is just up your street, and down your alley, soon to visit your house.


Thursday, September 08, 2005

I made some minor changes to a real Support Enforcement press release

SEPT. 9, 2005 NO. 69-69

Ben Dover, Division of Child Support, (360) 663-5445
Bum Focker, Ph. D., Division of Child Support, (360) 663-5050


OLYMPIA -- The public will have the opportunity cry and whine about increases to the state’s child support rate schedule that we are sure to make. We have employed the best spinners of data, known rad-fems, and the largest private child support collection agency to cook up data to guarantee that paying parents will be bent over even further. Even though our schedule now includes costs of health club memberships, and beauty salon treatments for custodial parents, we propose to now include that elusive pony that Mark Mahnkey, agency critic, always accuses us of having in the schedule.

The Child Support Workgroup, which consists of legislators, judges, public officials, NOW lobbyists and citizens (but citizens only after a bunch of whining from the dead-beat dad lobby) was appointed by Governatrix Christine Greg-wire’s corrupt head of OSE, and known father hater, Ray L. Weaver. Weaver’s appointments came as his last official act before being asked to resign under pressure, and being placed on the last train leaving Washington State. “This group was carefully appointed to include only those with a ‘dog in the hunt’,” Weaver was quoted as saying. “We wanted to be sure we only had folks on there whose next paycheck depends on fomenting additional dissent, raising support obligations to drive out the maximum number of delinquents, and to insure that new cases, particularly guys that would have paid anyway, would come under the system, allowing us to do major chest-thumping and backslapping as we crow about the huge increases in support that we are collecting.” This will make us look like we are actually doing something, rather than just building a bureaucracy and effin’ the dog.

The forums have carefully been designed to hear only the testimony we want to hear, and will be packed with the obligatory rad-fems, NOW members, and with substantial representation from the DV industry, who will be there to oppose shared parenting. It has scheduled the Seattle meeting for Sept. 19 and the Kennewick meeting for Sept. 26, both in an undisclosed location, to make it hard for the secret patriarchy of dead-beats to find it.

“These forums will provide an overview of the current Child Support Schedule, taking up the majority of the time, then allow the public the opportunity to comment on recommended changes for the last five minutes,” said Ben Dover, director of the Department of Social and Health Services Division of Child Support.

“The workgroup has spent several months scheming on how to increase the schedule to levels far in excess of half the cost of food, clothing, shelter, guidance and a hug, and far in excess of what we know it costs to keep a child, which would be the amount we pay for foster care, and now wants to hear from two carefully selected parents who do not work, and therefore can get there three hours in advance of the meeting to be first to sign up to speak, before the final recommendations are made, even though we know what those are, and will ignore any of those nasty dads who just want to get out of support, should they show up and bloviate,” he added.

The workgroup is reviewing the current rates and is scheduled to recommend changes to the carefully selected list of items which ignores the most egregious issues with the schedule, but is limited only to those items this group can see will help them build their bureaucracy. The schedule is supposedly used by courts and the state to set child support amounts, but we all know that the judges regularly blow it off, and do what ever they want, ignoring the law.

Interested persons may comment on the proposals by sending email to In your dreams or up your or by attending the forums. All such commentary will be shredded without reading, to make excellent bedding for Mr. Dover’s pet rat cage.

For more information contact the division’s Flackmeisters at 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

# # #

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Blue Code alive and well with Jim Fuda's sheriff's candidacy

As the fellow who surfaced this issue, let me comment.

First, full disclosure.

I am an acquaintance (not a "friend", as the Times said) of Greg Schmidt. I have three months off work, so have some excess bandwidth. For kicks and giggles, I made a public disclosure request of ALL the candidates, and got 500+ pages on each of the King County employees, Rahr and Fuda, and only 80 pages from Seattle PD, who employs Greg Schmidt. Hmmmmmm. Also, please note that Rahr allowed more than was required by law to be disclosed about her, to her credit.

So, I am going through this stuff, and find a couple of interesting things. First, Sue (Go Cougs) Rahr was busted on a petty charge of using company email for personal use when she was Chief in the City of Shoreline for sending a Clinton joke--a really good one--to someone. It was her second violation of the rule, and she took an unpaid leave day for it as a sanction. BFD. Interesting that the first time she was busted for mis-using company email, it was for replying with “thanks” to a fellow KC employee not in the sheriff’s department, who was not disciplined. So much for equity.

Why are they wasting time investigating this kind of petty crap, instead of using the resources to catch the puke that ripped off my $99 car stereo last month? If she would have picked up the phone, and told the joke on the company phone, it would have been ok. But I digress.

The only other interesting thing about the sheriff’s candidacy is her contributors. She certainly is plugged in to the Seattle elite. Folks contribute to campaigns, based on my experience as a three time elected official, because you can do something for them, or prevent what your opponent will do to them. Or, because you are just a friend wanting to show goodwill, and making a nominal contribution. Now, Rahr’s contributor list shows amounts way beyond that, from folks who, frankly, it won’t make a tinkers damn bit of difference to regardless of who gets elected. Big money folks contributed the max, way beyond what could be reasonably be expected. I mean old and new Seattle names, besides the Governatrix, a former Secy. Of State, former US Senators, small town mayors outside of King County that want to run for state senator, known rad-fems that and the like. Very interesting mix and lotsa bux.

When I had Fuda's file, I was reminded that in both our frivolous youths, just a year or two ago, that he was busted back to patrolman for a year, for a) filing a false expense report, b) lying to the prosecutor and c) failing to rat out his partner over $300 bucks in drug buy money that disappeared. The “blue code” seems to be alive and well with Mr. Fuda.

That suggests to me a lack of veracity, and brings questions to mind as to his suitability and temperament for the top cop job.

So, my index finger is turning red paging though all this stuff, when I come upon a Highline Community College transcript, where I note he got B and C grades. I also note that the Sheriff was inconsistent in what they redacted on various docs. Some places grades are redacted, some places they are not. Pretty sloppy work, as either they disclosed stuff they shouldn't have, or didn't disclose stuff they should have.

Anyhow, I get to a diploma from the prestigious Kingsfield University, which had a stench about it to my brilliant and observant mind. Turning bullshit filter up to "high", I made a note of this doc, and also noted that he went from an 'average' student to one who graduated Cum Laude, and with Distinction. Hmmmmmmm, I said, scratching the three hairs left on my head.

So, the next doc is the memo saying give the ol' boy a 2% raise.

Fine. I go back to my trailer court hovel, and crank up the squirrels that power the internet, and discover (on a German website, no less) that this university is a diploma mill, closed by the FTC in 2002-2003. I additionally note that three states who boldly identify "diploma mills" on their state's education website mention that this is one of those schools. Illinois, Michigan, and Oregon are the states, if ya wanna know.

Being an inquisitive fellow, I call a nice lady in the cop shop’s personnel department, and ask if the pay bump depends on it being an accredited university, and she assures me it does. When I drill down and ask how they check it out, she replies the HECB. Well, the HEC Board doesn't give a rat's about out of state institutions, and I mentioned that. Her response was that the guy who usually does the checking retired, and she gives me to some young fellow, who assures me again, it must be an accredited institution, and assures me that he checks them very, very carefully.


Trucking back down to the cop shop to re-review the disclosed documents and verify that I saw what I thought I saw, I got copies this time. The legal department’s AA, a very sincere woman named Michelle Monohon, from Tacoma, is sitting next to me, and for giggles, I hold it up, point it towards her, and say, “Hey, Michelle, you ever see a diploma mill diploma? You are looking at one right now.”

She, rejecting the ‘blue code’, and being a good public servant, but unknownst to me, tells her boss as she is required to do, and that kicked off the investigation.

Seems that Ms. Rahr’s management failed to write a good policy, as the requirement that the degree be from an accredited institution is NOT in policy. In fact, it is in the labor union contract, where it is not spelled out clearly either. Sloppy, sloppy stuff.

So, Mr. Fuda could skate on this one, even though the Sheriff’s spinmeister, Sgt. John U., says it could be fraud. Tough cop talk methinks, on his part.

Now, if Mr. Fuda thought it was "cool" to have this (non) degree, please ponder this: It is NOT listed on his campaign website,, even though his Highline CC degree is. How cool is that, as my young sons would say.

Ok, the Geezers fingers are tired, but thought you may want to know the rest of this story. I did not make the complaint as reported in the Times fishwrapper on Friday. Michelle did, rightfully. It was not my intention to cause that, in fact, I didn't even consider that she would be required to report, just trying to engage in social conversation with a person who showed utmost courtesy in delivering and facilitating my public records request.

Monday, June 20, 2005

Perry's wife on KING tonight

Made me darn near puke.

Shame on KING for talking to her, and more shame on her for her smirking denial of withholding visitation. "Why, he just saw his daughter six months ago", she said, with a smirk. The attitude was thick, and obvious, her joy unconcealable.

Bad man, quit his high paying job after the divorce, she says.

Visitation was NEVER withheld, she exclaimed.

We will never know.

What we do know is he wanted to support his kids, and his sandwich board claimed such, but in his own house.

The claims he states in the recent article in Spare Change are true. Peonage, constitutional deprivation of dad's rights, and the like.

Too bad he got so close to the edge with the flag burning, and his ultimate demise.

The pain must have gotten to a point where it was unbearable.

Next time you have the opportunity to give someone a mulligan, please do so. It may be the kindness that keeps them with us. Don't give up the good fight, though, and continue to press for the dignity and value of men and fathers everywhere.


Sno-Isle Library policy discounts men's issues

Detecting a "hole" in the Sno-Isle Library collection, I requested that they add Tom Ellis's book, Rantings of a Single Male to the collection.

I have not read this, just heard its promotion, and read reviews on Amazon.

It was rejected because it was not "professionally reviewed", therefore not meeting the library's policy.

I pointed out that that policy would have excluded the early writings of the civil rights movement, and the equity feminism movement, but to no avail.

Here is the email I sent to Mme. Director, who I count as my friend, and was my former employer.

To: Jonalyn Woolf-IvorySubject: Re: Rantings of a Single Man


It is not about this book in particular. I offered Fred Reed's books as an example too. He is not reviewed, but certainly is an accomplished author, having written the police column for a Washington DC newspaper, and currently retired, but writing a weekly technology column for them too. His past engagements include writing for the Stars and Stripes, Soldier of Fortune, and other mainstream publications. So, his recounts in article form, of his boyhood growing up in Virginia, would not count either.

The difficulty I have with the policy is that is causes a serious imbalance in the collection. This is particularly critical in the area of emerging movements, and in combating the "popularly believed, but purely urban legends" of the wholesale victimization of women, and the secret patriarchy that supposedly perpetuates that.

If this were applied in the late 50's to the 60's, you would have nothing about the civil rights movement, or the early movements of equity feminism in your collection, both of which I worked for and supported, as the roots of those movements and enlightenments were made up of ''yellers and screamers, discontents, and other folks who got no respect.....and no reviews".

Now, we have an emerging body who wants to raise consciousness of the dire straits that many men face in today's society, and the lack of respect and marginalization that they currently endure. They have been majorly disenfranchised, their children have been stripped from them, they are valued only for their "Human ATM machine" capabilities.

They take the most dangerous jobs (90+% of workplace deaths are men), die 7 years earlier, commit suicide 12X the rate of women, and yet my library tells me that those issues are not important enough to have a balanced collection for those who wish to explore the great untold truths in these areas.

I challenged you to punch some relevant search words into your own search thingy, which it appears you did not bother to do.

Well, let me share the results of my efforts in doing so.

Women's rights--199 hits
Men's rights--2 hits--of course, since men have no rights, that should not be a surprise

Women's studies--39 hits
Men's studies--5 hits

Women's issues 44 hits
Men's issues 3 hits

Women and Domestic Violence 43 hits
Men and domestic violence 10 hits

abused women 152 hits
abused men 33 hits.

Women whatever 477
Men whatever 53

Now, how on earth can you tell me that the collection, as driven by your current selection process, is without bias as to having resources for discovering this great emerging issue?????

Your process is driven to perpetuate the fallacies that men have it great, that the patriarchy is alive and well, and that wimmin' are still running around barefoot and pregnant.

I want a discussion on the board's part, since they are the sponsors of the current policy, as to how it perpetuates this huge imbalance in points of view in your collection, perpetuates the myths of woman as victim, and I want to find a way to get more balance in your collection on these emerging issues as to the status (or lack of the same) of men in this modern, woman dominated society.

I can give you reviewed statistics that would cause your jaw to drop on the dreadful way men are treated these days by society, and the conspiracy, via untruths and perpetuation of long ago debunked "facts" to further marginalize men in today's society.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Remember it is not people that we wrestle with but principalities behind the people

Just got an email that RIP---

Remember it is not people that we wrestle with but principalities behind the people.

I was just pondering that the other day. The peeps are no longer in charge, the bureaucrats are. Folks are so overwhelmed (see my conspiracy theory about traffic congestion) that they have little time to study the issues, and no incentive to see who is doing what, and react to it, due to the perception that this or that politician or regime will not give you much different results, so you may as well work, take care of family, not participate and get maximum efficiency in your life that way, rather than by taking the time to study issues and have input into the process.

So, what happens is the bureaucrats and other interested parties (see: Follow the money) act in their own self interest, in cahoots with the pols who rubber stamp their crap, as the pols have no time to study the issues or ask the questions themselves, being fully devoted to raising more cash to keep their jobs.

Sad state of affairs.

So, am I gonna be the last man standing, studying the issues, and calling out the bureaucrats, who will use their self-generated rules to strike down the nail that sticks up? Or should I go quietly in the night, put head in shell, to stay below radar, and get very, very selfish with my time and efforts, pay them their "protection" money, and go along with the sheeples?

Such a dilemma.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Short thoughts on the Patriarchy--and you thought I couldn't do short thoughts on anything!

Ya know, the more I hear about this Patriarchy thingy, the more appealing it sounds.

Like, I get to control all the money, the sex, everything around me, my whole environment. I can rape, pillage, denigrate and all those things that sound so fun.

Only trouble is, if I currently have all this privilege, how come I never see or feel it???

So, can one of you fine fellows tell me where the next meeting of these Patriarchy guys is? Must have a ton 'o them, to orchestrate all they are accused of, and a hella network for communications.

Removing tongue from cheek, I am, The Geezer.

Friday, June 03, 2005

Oprah--Naw, don't stop reading, this is good.

So, the quasi-squeezie poo call me up last night, and says, Oprah is going to talk about sex!

Yeah, I said, I like sex. She says, you should watch it before you go to bed.

Now, having visions of being chased all night by a corpulent Nubian blob, I deferred to agree to watch part of it.

So, I turn it on about 9:20 or so, and here is this pussified man, who hasn't had the ol' lady give it up in TWO FRIGGIN' YEARS, on there.

Oprah is not Dr. Phil, so I figgered it would be all his fault. To her credit, the ebony money machine did not pose that thought, but certainly did not analyze the situation, but instead sent them to a love spa, or somesuch.

Often, what is observed, but not said, speaks louder. Married 15 years, with a 7 year old kid, there was a depiction of the family watching the lobotomy box, he on one couch, and mom and the kid snuggling warmly on the other. 'Scuse me, why was the kid cuddling with mom instead of the ol' man?

Cut-----man driving pickup, obviously some kind of builder, probably in management. Ralphie works 14 hours a day........ No mention of momma working. He likes sex in the morning, which she refuses.

Geezer's observation, and filling in the blanks follow.

First, if he works 14 hours a day, he isn't up to boinking the cutie at night, he wants to rest. If he did, the quality would be inferior to what he would want to provide. Does she work, or get to stay home with the kid? Does she drive a paid for $2000 car, or does he buy her a nice ride with a big payment, hence have to work 14 hours a day?

The solution is obvious to me.

Here it is.

She gets a job, so he can work 8 hours a day, and have a life with the family she wanted to have.

Kiddy-kins moves to the other couch with the cat or dog, and mom and dad cuddle on the other couch.

They adjust their (obviously rich, from the house) lifestyle, so the poor schmuck doesn't work all the time, and doesn't have to generate the income she spends.

She serves him breakfast in a French maid's outfit every morning before work, and gives him an exquisite BJ for dessert. Ed note: Nothing like an exquisite BJ to improve MY outlook on life.

She is a spoiled brat, like that Jennifer woman who skated on her wedding. No need to go to a sex boot camp, just for some understanding. If your deal included your working yer butt off to support your family, while wifey-poo eats bon-bons, watches Oprah, and sucks up Diet Pepsi, she better have dinner on the table, be cleaned up, same with the kid, and give it up on demand.

Who trained this guy to put up with this, and think that it is OK for him to run himself into the ground, with no "compensating" effort from his partner?

Hell, he could hire what he is getting for much less.

Ok. Rant mode off. But just for a little while.

Greeners, Spotted Owls, Farmland and Mudflats

Well, the Greeners are as schizoid as can be. Want to preserve that farmland, yuppers.

So, 15 years ago, when I moved back to be a Snoho (oops, can't say that or I will be booted from the Snohomish School District), the county of my youth, there were 10-15 dairy farms from Lowell to Larimer, along the Lowell-Larimer Road. Now there are two.

Uh, now, if we invested in the barn, the land, the herd, and all, why would we shut it down, unless we weren't making a buck or two? Well, because we weren't making that buck. But should that stop the Greeners from insisting that we cannot use our land for a higher economic purpose? No, it appears not.

The Island Crossing area along I-5--Arlington - Silvana exit, for you townies, has not been farmed for some time, so ol' Dwayne Lane ("I'll take care of you") wants to move his Chevy dealership out of the pit of a facility in Arlington, to the freeway. But wait, the Greens say, that is farmland, so you cannot build there. Even though it hasn't been farmed for some time, is on the exit, has other freeway services nearby and the like.

Now, these are the same folks, who, six miles south, encouraged the abandonment of farmland just south of Marysville to build a, yup, mudflat!!!! The same ones who brokered the sale of the Beringer Berry farm to the east of the freeway, to the developers. Of course, it is for a higher purpose, they will tell you. Seems that folks who want to develop in the built up areas, can buy this swampland and use it for a mosquito breeding operation, instead of having the same on their property. And, as a generous parting gift, they can pay full commercial rates for it, even though it is useless except for farming or flooding.

So, on the one hand, if they can hold up the bad capitalists and sell them lowland farms for full price, it is ok, but on the other, the Island Crossing site should be preserved. Low lying land is low lying land.

Weller's restaurant property is for sale at the same exit and right next door to some land owned by "Fast" Eddie Goodridge, the young buck chair of the Stilly Tribe with the fast car, who is trying to get his illegal billboard site turned into trust lands. Are they gonna be politically incorrect, and fight the tribe when they want to turn farmland on the north side of SR 530 into a casino?

You heard it here first, folks. It will happen. So remember, natives good, unless you are a white native, like Dwayne Lane. Heck, all he did was take a sleepy Dodge dealership in downtown Everett, and build it into a large family owned business, employing hundreds, and contributing to every charity in town. So why should we cut him any slack? Wrong kind of native, methinks.

Oh, the Northern Spotted Owl.

Almost forgot about that rascal.

I was thinking of my friend in Forks, a fellow politician in recovery. He used to read (and disconnect) electric meters for the PUD. Spotted Owls put the formerly vibrant town of Forks on the ropes. Er, should I say NORTHERN spotted owls, the posterchild of the greeners.

Did you know there is a flourishing and growing species of Southern Spotted Owls? Nope, the mainstream press neglected to tell you about those. Genetically identical to the Northern owl, but living in the south. No shortage of owls, no threat of extinction.

Just a plethora of cockeyed science, clueless judges, bought off scientists, and disingenuous greeners who will purport to tell you to the square yard how much forest each of these mouse eaters needs.

Yaknow, if these guys were around in prehistoric times, we would still have dinosaurs, and would be dodging them while driving down I-5.

Monday, May 30, 2005

It's Father Bashing Time!!!

Well, I see our faithful persecutor of the county of King is cranking up for his annual father bashing on Father's Day.

Would the same thing be tolerated if directed to Muthas on Mutha's Day? I doubt it.

Starts with an innocent notice buried way inside the paper, about "child support amnesty" giving beatdead dads an opportunity to not take the new hot, younger woman to some tropical isle, and instead pay their back support in the next week or two.

Then we will come after you, it says.

Of course, most who can pay, do, and the ones that don't majorly have less than $10K annual income.

Nonetheless, some feminazi (I betcha) in his office dreams this up every year at this time, so that on / just prior to Father's Day, (s)he can parade some unfortunate men before the public, in a show of how effective the prosecutor is, going after those dads who abandoned their family, even though the wife is the one who filed the divorce, majorly.

They must have another professional athlete who used to make big buxx, and now works at the car wash, and has minimal income to pay his support obligation that was set when he was making megamillions, in the wings.

Sure wouldn't want to parade a bunch of barely English speaking immigrants who work hard, but have no money, out for the press now would we.

I wanna see them parade wimmin out who don't take care of the kids like this on Mother's Day, not to embarrass the Moms, but to stand back and feel the heat from the wimmin's industries, about how uncaring the prosecutor is.

I nominate two for next year. The mother who got her kiddy-kins carjacked, while she left the car running to run into the LIQUOR STORE at 10 AM, and the mother who unfortunately lost her two kids in Silverdale because she TOOK THE BATTERIES out of the SMOKE DETECTOR, because cooking set it off. Geezushkeericed, lady, maybe if you cleaned your kitchen, and watched while you cook, that wouldn't happen, and your two daughters would be alive.

Can't legislate against stupidity, and while I am no fan on state intervention in families, perhaps an example here or there may be helpful in having folks understand how important protecting your children is, as opposed to your selfish convenience.

Rant mode off, but not for long I am sure.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

The Geezer has a few questions for you!

Driving down the road in my rented Kia, and realizing I live in a trailer park, I got to thinking I may be turning into the personification of white trash.

That simple ponderance caused me to ask more questions.

Let us see if you, the reader, can shed some light, rather than heat and wind, on these.............

Just write your answers on apiece of electronic paper, and email them to

The one with the most correct answers can go on a tour of Olympia, and the newspaper's editorial offices, and share their brilliance with the dims, er, ah, Dems. Ready???

The gub'mint says both parents should support their kiddy-kins after divorce. So, when a guy can't do that because he is injured, or unemployed, and can't pay his child support we throw him in jail.

When wimmin' can't support their kids, because they don't have the money, we:

A) toss em in the wimmin's greybar like men

B) give them the money in the form of welfare and then make the man pay it back. If he can't, we throw his arse back in jail, where he cannot work to pay for his kids, and it costs the sheeples over $100 simolians per day to keep him there. Oh, yeah, and we take his drivers license, to make it easy for him to get to work and pay us back after we let him out, too.

See how easy this quiz is???? Makin' a ton-o-sense here, aren't I?

Next question.

The state always says it acts in the best interest of children. Fact: most child abuse occurs in single female headed households.

So, the state:

A) awards custody to single females 85% of the time, to act in the best interest of the children and keep them safe

B) finding no parental unfitness, awards shared custody and shared residential time to both parents, benefiting the kids by having additional adults in their life for guidance, and having them interact with their fathers, their natural protectors.

Now you rockin'!!! Keep going, as this is a lot easier than you thought.

The feminazis (and the Everett Herald) tell you that equally qualified wimmin' make 75 cents to a man's dollar. Tom Leykis (love em or hate em) has offered $20K for the last two years to any woman who can demonstrate she has been paid less than a man with equal training, education, experience, and output doing the same job for the same company, with no takers. Given that,

Name the entrepreneur who said, Whoa! If I fire all the men, and hire only women, I can save 25% of my labor bill, and kick the competition's ASS!!!!!

Sound transit and their ilk tell us that they deserve half or so of the "highway" funds, because the bozos on the bus aren't in their cars taking up space on the road. Good enough. Let's carry that one step farther. Until busses are full to standing room, they are still wasting money, so to encourage ridership:

A) They have a free fare policy during rush hour, to take even more cars off the road, and fill up the busses


B) Increase the fare during rush hour, thereby reducing the number of folks on the bus.

Note: It does not count as ridership when the gub'mint gives their employees free bus passes. That is just an additional fringe benefit. Ever notice how many folks have those gub'mint ID cards and ride free?

Taking care of our kids, and being expected to use a small dose of common sense is in the public's best interest.

So, if a parent either leaves their kid in the car while they run into the liquor store, and the car is carjacked because the engine is running, or if a parent removes batteries from the smoke detector because cooking (in a filthy kitchen, no doubt) sets them off, we:

A) Give comfort to the grieving parents, even though their over the top egregious behavior placed their kids in danger, or killed them


B) Prosecute them for terminal stupidity, and make them stand nekkid in a freezer for an hour.

Ummmmm, some of these questions don't seem to have answers, Geezer.

You puttin' me on???

Monday, March 07, 2005

Stonecipher thinks with the little head instead of the big head, and the Wimmin' once again get a big PASS

If ol' Harry agreed to the Code of Conduct, and it prohibited the behavior, then he should get the axe.

But that is not quite what the story said. It said, like Ron Popiel, "but wait, there's more!"

And then the trail went cold. Seems that if the company code of conduct applies to ol' Harry, it should apply to his "female executive" too, but, once again in the world, the Wimmin' get a pass.

There is an inherent danger in fishing in the company pond, and someone of his acumen should be aware of that. Of course, it is not our business, really, just between he and the missus as to what deal they cut.

I sure hope Tom Leykis is right, and that wimmin are attracted to money, power and prestige, because Harry ain't no stud-muffin, in anyone's book. Of course, have you seen what Boeing female execs look like? Don't check right before bedtime, or risk nightmares.

As far as how it will affect the company, it seems they have been chewing through top executives at a hefty burn rate, and I would be concerned that folks may not be ready to step into the job, at least internal folks, which they have shown a preference for.

Since Stonecipher came from M-D, I am certain that there are many at the lazy B who will not shed a tear.

New-Weasel and Probation Nation

I am a Cougar, and no fan of Slick Rick Neuheisel or the Dawgs, but Rick got whacked unfairly.

What does fellow coug call him? The fairly maligned, but unfairly fired.

Now, I don't suppose I care much about the NCAA having to give up the green, but I sure wish Barbara Hedges and Dr. Lee Huntsman had to write the check out of their personal account for the money that the UW pays him, because, of course, it is not the UW that pays for their errors, but you and I, via our taxes.

Barbara and Lee can continue to get their large pensions, and lounge on the beach sipping adult beverages, with no consequences for their egregious behavior.


Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Don't piss me off. Posted by Hello

El Gato comes by for a brushing, but I wanted to play first. Seems he took exception to that. Kinda snooty, for a stray cat, being cared for by a guy who doesn't like cats, don't ya think?

Of course, this is one special cat! Comes when you call him, doesn't have an attitude too often, and swaggers when he walks, just like our President.

Can't argue with that, now, can you?

Friday, February 25, 2005

The cool blue wave gives you the cool blue finger

Sound Transit, civility, and my love for raunchy jokes.

Ok, ya think for a minute the ol' fart lost it, looking at the headline.

Yuppers, I will admit it. My name is Bill and I', wrong pew, sorry.

I like the ribald and joke of questionable color as well as the next person.

But I know when to tell them, and when to tone it down.

Sound Transit does not.

They musta been watching too much of that blue humor on the WB network or somesuch, to think that their current crop of radio ads is consistent with the dignity of a gub'mint agency.

Now, catchy is good, edgy is an excuse for the borderline obscene.

"We wanted to be edgy, says their spinmeister, and you are the only one that has questioned the ads" he says.

Well, ok, I guess. I wasn't questioning them, just their appropriateness for a public agency.

If you haven't heard them, let me cut and paste fer ya.

Suggesting you can do stuff on the bus, or train, or whatever with the big blue wave on it, the commercial, suggests


Like reading something good for a change…

WOMAN 2: The Pirate of Desire.

WOMAN: Or, romance novels. Sound Transit. Ride the wave.

Now, that isn't the worst, but an old magazine and paperback distributor friend of mine called them romance novels in polite company, bodice rippers in not so polite company, and many contemporary common-taters call them what they really are, female porn.

Something good for a change, indeed.

But, you say, Mark, that ain't squat. Usually takes something really outrageous to gits yer goin'.

Ok, how about this one:

RIP--Reads in part, if you didn't get that the first time.

(REFINED BRITISH ACCENT) Presenting great reads in commuting history. This week we celebrate some of the finest bumper stickers on the road.

-Beer drinkers make better lovers.

-I need someone really bad. Are you really bad?

-Your kid may be an honor student, but you're still an idiot.

-I'm not your type, I'm not inflatable.

MAN: Horn broken. Watch for finger

So, how do you know my type isn't inflatable? Huh? Gubmint been in my bedroom again? My apologies to the hoochie chicks that they gub'mint may have seen there--I thought it was a secure crib, honest.

And horn broken, watch for finger? From a public agency? Gimmeafrigginbreak.

I asked if they ran this past any of the brass, and was assured that it was reviewed and approved by Ms. Earl, Vern Stoner, both very nice folks, and the Board Chair. Who gives a hoot what a Pierce County Lawyer thinks, though.

Lets stay with the very gracious Ms. Earl, who once sat in front of me at a taping for a TV special on transportation. Not being a big fan of the agency who gives you half of what they promised, for twice the price, yet tells you that they are "on budget", with a straight face yet, I found myself kicking her chair all during the taping. Not once did she turn around and give me a dirty look. Master politician, that woman!

And Vern Stoner, her deputy, has a great long record of public service. I worked closely with his peeps when he was running Employment Security. Fine gent, and a good solid public servant.

So, did they have simultaneous brain-farts when they approved this turkey?

Believe it or not, I am seriously offended by this total lack of taste.

The blue wave gives me the blue finger, indeed.

Kid again, purchasing his first car. More car tax stories for ya

So, the kid, being a chip off the old block-head, cuts a sweet deal on a car.

Didn't steal it, mind you, just found a willing seller. I drove the chick-magnet, and it was pretty sweet, however the clutch seemed near the end of its useful life. So, I tells junior, "Hey, maybe you want to mention it, and how $600-$800 bucks this soon after purchase is a bit much for the old college kid, yada, yada" Bottom line, will ya take $200 less than yer askin'.

It was really fairly priced, but Honda clutches are not, so it was a reasonable request, and a deal was struck between a willing buyer, and a willing seller.

Thas' what I learnt in economics class, as best my foggy mind recalls. A sale at arms length, between a willing buyer and a willing seller sets the price. Yup, musta been awake that day, instead of nodding off. How was I to know that tall slender drink-o-water teaching would return when we were both much older, to be president of the university????? WSU, for those who don't know.

So, junior gets an official bill of sale, all legal like, and trots down to his friendly local licensing place to make a legal and timely transfer of title. If ya gonna be a cop, you should set a good example, and the kid, having taken leave of his senses, made that choice.

The nice lady behind the counter, not appearing to be a tool of the gub'mint, says, hey, sonny, you got a hella buy on that pimp ride. Even though you paid $4200 dead presidents, the state-o-wa is gonna give you the privilege of unjustly enriching them by paying tax on $6400, or some such.

Uh, the kid sez, being of sharp mental ability like his ol' man, that would cost me over a hundred bucks more than it should. Wassup with that?

The state, enjoying bending over the sheeples to give them their just desserts, has a "range" for what cars should cost. Seems that bottom range for this ride is $4250. If he would have paid 50 bucks more, he could have saved more than $100 in sales tax. Now, how does that help the state???? Oh, yeah. Diane Sharpe's law--don't look for logic where there is none.

She gleefully explains that if he would have LIED, and had a bill of sale for $50 bucks more, it would be no sweat, and he would pay tax on the sale amount.

So, junior says, WTF (maybe I said that, junior is too polite to say that), and goes and finds the guy and gets a phony bill of sale.

Now, will the state-o-wa go to H-E-double hockey sticks for encouraging lying? I sure hope so.

It is that damn depreciation schedule coming back to bite yer butt, that is what it is.

Lets kill the sucker, and bury it so deep it doesn't rear its ugly head again, and thereby encourage our young that honesty pays.

Not that lying pays, which is the lesson of the bureaucracy.

Shame on them.

$30 tabs? Not for long!

Now, the gub'mint, they like that car tab tax. Along comes Tim-meister of Muk-a-muk, writes up a fancy initiative, and the sheeples tell the gub'mint no more expensive tabs.

Well, methinks that the sheeples mind not so much paying a reasonable amount for car tabs, but they don't like the gub'mint lying to them.

Reasonable, to my twisted mind, anyway.

This thing called the depreciation table, on which car tab tax was based, had about as much relation to reality as does Villi and Mary Kay.

It way overvalued cars, and their tax.

The sheeples said, horsepuckey, and be gone with you, and so it was in the territories.

Then comes the old smokey backrooms in Olytown, with the bureaucrats saying, "drat, the sheeples are on to us. But we are NEVER ever wrong, therefore we will find another way to bend them over".

Sure enough, under the guise of the poor cities and counties, and their crumbling roads, there is a bill to institute a local "option" car tab tax of only $25--this year that is, going on up to $35, once the gub'mint distracts the poor sheeples in a couple of years.

Yuppers, I am sure they can use the money, but have you taken a look-see at your property tax statement? The part that says "county road tax"? Go ahead and get it, I will wait.

You say, jumping gehosifat, there sure looks as if I pay them folks plenty for the potholes out in front of the house, howcome they need more money?

Well, this curmudgeon thinks that the gub'mint doesn't like to be told what to do by the sheeples, and this is the gub'mint's way of getting back in your pocketbook.

I report, you decide.

(apologies to Fox News)

Friday, February 18, 2005

Kid, Redux

Well, after trashing my baby yesterday about moving to Minn., and working at Wal-Mart, I must admit I did raise up a fine young man.

He showed the good taste to ask the old man to check out a car that he wanted to buy. Now, I am not a mechanic, but used to wash cars when I was 14 and 15 for my scoutmaster, who, convienently, owned the Ford dealership in beautiful downtown Gig Harbor. Ears open, mouth shut, and you learn some stuff.

Oh, and since the title says "gub'mint foibles", I should point out that no children were harmed in that activity, which you must be 18 to do now, nor was I harmed picking strawberries when I was 10 and 11, a fact which again, the gub'mint, in an effort to create and perpetuate the entitlement class, has prohibited to kids. Wonder what they know that they find they must protect us from about that. Oh, yeah, that work has its rewards. For if we all had a good work ethic, then there would be far fewer dispensers of our tax money employed, now, wouldn't there. But I digress, and rant.

So, the kid is now a proud owner, along with BECU, of a cute silver Civic, even has a hole in the roof. Not a chick magnet, furshure, but it should serve him well, and of course papa is happy that he thinks enough of my opinion to ask me to check it out.

Thursday, February 17, 2005


Yea, even though they are 21, they are kids.

So, my baby tells me today that after 4 years of college, he wants some "time off", and is moving to Minn. for reasons unknown.

Wants to be a street cop, but instead, is gonna go play with the hoochie-chick, and do what? Work at Wal-Mart?

Ah, children. But as the boy sez, "Don't parent me! I don't need parenting. You do".

Thas' 'm boy.

Gotta love 'em.

The Geezer hisself--A man's place is in the kitchen

The Geezer Posted by Hello

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Working Poor in the 2/9 Pee-Eye Fish-wrapper

Now, we all remember some time when we were the working poor, but I suspect we "owned" what we were doing, and had a plan for a way out of where we were.

This would have been an even better article if they took that poor Lake Stevens single mother (which is NOT a badge of honor, by the way) and made her more accountable. Hell, if her old boyfriend is paying the rent, and you and I are paying for her daycare via welfare, then why the hell doesn't she get along well on the 21K she claims to make for the rest of her expenses?

And since when do those ER tech folks make less than 12-14 bucks an hour, which, full time like the rest of us work, comes out to more than the 21K she claims to make.

Nowhere is the obvious solution for her mentioned, give the kids to their father to raise, if she can't raise them.

Nice sob story, but why on earth did the author of that piece not ask enough questions to get the whole picture?

Perhaps that poor single mother would not look so poor and downtrodden, if ya took the time to "do the math".

So, tomorrow they gonna explain why she has two young kids if she can't support them? Is she getting (tax free) child support, which would add another $6K (pre-tax about $9K) to her income? And how about the $ 3K or so in tax relief for being head of household?

Now, even giving a break for $21K being full time wages, add the $72oo the squeezie-poo pays for rent, the $3K tax relief, and about $6K (non-taxable) child support, and what--$4K in childcare relief, lemme see, that totals--enter calculator sound here--$37,200 per year.

If she needs financial advice on how to raise two kids on that amount, I will help her out, and show her how to live like a queen--no, welfare wasn't in there preceeding queen, but I know you read it that way anyway. Sorry, but nary a tear is shed here, as when you look at the rest of the story (apologies to you, Paul), she ain't rollin' in it, but she is a far cry from the "working poor".

And why does she need a "near new" car at 19% interest? Why couldn't she pay cash for a $1500 car, like I have been driving for the last three years, with great results?