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.
Geezer.
Monday, June 20, 2005
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
Jonalyn--
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.
Totals
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.
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
Jonalyn--
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.
Totals
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
