Now calling themselves Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, instead of the Center for BATTERED WOMEN, becuase they want to serve men, yeah, right.
Note this from the business pages. Operative part below:
Cost is $15 plus an unwrapped gift or gift card for a mother or child
Guess the men and their children they now serve get bupkis.
Geezer OUT!!!!
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20081027/BIZ/710279956&SearchID=73334242920869
Special eventsHelp the South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce take a bite out of domestic violence with a lunch donated by Outback Steakhouse, from noon to 2 p.m. Nov. 19, at 10121 Evergreen Way, No. 15, Everett. Proceeds benefit Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County. Cost is $15 plus an unwrapped gift or gift card for a mother or child. For information, call Julie Martin or Vicci Hilty at 425-259-2827. For information about Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, go to www.dvs-snoco.org.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
King County (Seattle) Sheriff Sue Rahr wants to hear from the sheeples, unless it is about DV
There was an article on Monday, in the Seattle P-I fishwrapper, about finding missing persons using cell phone records. Sorry, the on-line version was cut down and doesn’t have the quote about "we don't want to assist perps in finding their DV victims".
Now the story had nothing to do with DV, she inserted that little bait.
So, having a "relationship" with her Spinmeister, Sgt. John Urquhart, I wrote him a note, and copied her (text below) on what I thought of that.
I thought the note was fairly complimentary, but not the evil Sheriff Susan Rahr, who is in bed with the DV Divas, and their FLEAS© (That is Family Law Elitist Attorneys).
Bottom line, she thought she was replying to Herr Urquhart, but instead, sent it to the Geezer.
Now we know what the pols think of us, when we take the time to write at their invitation, and tell them what we think.
Oh, and that is really her desk phone number in her signature line.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rahr, Susan
To: The Geezer
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: Two things, two emails, this is the first
Who is this jerk?
Sue Rahr, King County Sheriff
516 3rd Ave.
Seattle, Wa. 98104
206-296-4155
From: The Geezer
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:49 AM
To: Urquhart, John
Subject: Two things, two emails, this is the first
Your boss did a nice job with the press on the cell phone tracking article this morning. No doubt due to your working with her, to give her just the right words.
You can tell her that I said so.
And I don't say nice things about her that often.
However, (a good friend told me to always ignore everything before the words however or but) her dragging the canard DV into it really detracted from the piece......from memory.....'we don't want to reunite an abuser with his victim'.......
So, I can make a public records request, or you can just tell me. How may times, over what time frame (last year or last two years) have there been requests that you determined were an abuser chasing down the victim of DV requesting you track them down via cell records??
Yeah, that is what I thought.
The Geez
FLEAS © Lisa Scott
Now the story had nothing to do with DV, she inserted that little bait.
So, having a "relationship" with her Spinmeister, Sgt. John Urquhart, I wrote him a note, and copied her (text below) on what I thought of that.
I thought the note was fairly complimentary, but not the evil Sheriff Susan Rahr, who is in bed with the DV Divas, and their FLEAS© (That is Family Law Elitist Attorneys).
Bottom line, she thought she was replying to Herr Urquhart, but instead, sent it to the Geezer.
Now we know what the pols think of us, when we take the time to write at their invitation, and tell them what we think.
Oh, and that is really her desk phone number in her signature line.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rahr, Susan
To: The Geezer
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: Two things, two emails, this is the first
Who is this jerk?
Sue Rahr, King County Sheriff
516 3rd Ave.
Seattle, Wa. 98104
206-296-4155
From: The Geezer
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:49 AM
To: Urquhart, John
Subject: Two things, two emails, this is the first
Your boss did a nice job with the press on the cell phone tracking article this morning. No doubt due to your working with her, to give her just the right words.
You can tell her that I said so.
And I don't say nice things about her that often.
However, (a good friend told me to always ignore everything before the words however or but) her dragging the canard DV into it really detracted from the piece......from memory.....'we don't want to reunite an abuser with his victim'.......
So, I can make a public records request, or you can just tell me. How may times, over what time frame (last year or last two years) have there been requests that you determined were an abuser chasing down the victim of DV requesting you track them down via cell records??
Yeah, that is what I thought.
The Geez
FLEAS © Lisa Scott
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Gasp! Did he really wear a pix of a pole dancer on his shirt to a public meeting?
-702733.jpg)
Here's a pic of one of the guys who is very supportive of children as well as supporting changes in the Washington Child Support guidelines and custody arrangements in
Who is he anyway? Looks kinda like that Geezer guy that runs this blog.
WSDOT pisses away more of your highway dollar. This time to save the little fishies
Dem boyz at the Transportation Department musta got a new shipment of fine weed and been inhalin'.
Now they spend $300K on lighting the path underwater for the little fishies.
Yep, lights under the PT ferry dock (or at least when it runs ferry dock) to keep the little buggers from being scared.
Read it in the top link. Really, this is so weird I couldn't make it up, really.
Here is what I think about it, and my response to their crowing and spinning.
Now they spend $300K on lighting the path underwater for the little fishies.
Yep, lights under the PT ferry dock (or at least when it runs ferry dock) to keep the little buggers from being scared.
Read it in the top link. Really, this is so weird I couldn't make it up, really.
Here is what I think about it, and my response to their crowing and spinning.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Seems the Geez outed some judges
Seems the Geez outed some judges
READ THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN THE EVERETT HERALD HERE
Stinky things been doin' in Snohomish County Courts.
Records kept in the Administrator of Courts, not in Clerks office.
Records deemed to be "administrative" and kept only 6 months, instead of six years
Records charged for as "real" court records, even though they claimed them to be administrative. They should have been charged for at "public records" rates, of a buck or two, not $25 each.
Records anointed as "not to be used as court records", yet the same court accepted them as court records.
Money for payment of copies (CD's) not receipted with numbered receipts--violation of state audit rules, and only cash taken
Handwritten petty cash fund checks written for "picnics", "camp fees", and "Nike athletic shoes", none of which is a legitimate expenditure of your hard earned tax dollars.
A commissioner's wife is the Court's public disclosure officer, and custodian of the CDs. No appearance of conflict of interest there, nosireebob.
Their response:
Ok, you caught us, we will move them back to the Clerks office and keep for six years.
No, we are not going to turn ourselves in for destroying court records without permission, and prematurely, tough.
We changed them back to be "real" court records.
We went neener-neener, and turned off the recording devices in the Commissioner's Courts, just for spite. No public policy reason, or no reason at all, or rationale, was given for letting the expensive recording equipment gather dust, instead of recording the public's business.
We have no concern about the appearance of conflict of interest in having the commissioner's wife be the public records office, and keeper of the CDs.
Important to note that they DO record Juvenile and Mental Health proceedings in front of Commissioners, but NOT family court.
Save for traffic tickets, the majority of Joe and Sally Sixpack's doings in the court are in family court. Yet your elected politicians will not engage with the great unwashed masses (me) in dialogue about their court administration, but instead send me to their patronage appointee who is the Court Administrator. He is accomplished at shoulder shrugging, and throwing his predecessor under the bus, but fairly worthless as to answering questions otherwise.
Do we not expect our friggin' JUDGES to follow the law? And to be accountable for their actions, and protect the public interest, by recording their courtrooms like thirty-seven out of the thirty-nine counties do?
I guess that is too much to ask.
Full letter to the editor published in the Everett Herald today, reproduced below.
The Geezer
Proceedings are no longer recorded
Jim Haley's excellent article on the issues in South County courts is only a part of the problem with Snohomish County courts. (Wednesday, "Court workers make discontent public.")
The same attitude is found at the Superior Courts, too. The Washington Civil Rights Council noticed that Commissioners Courts records were not being kept by the county clerk and were being destroyed after six months instead of six years, as required by law.
Several years ago, over Judge Wynne's signature, the court recordings were removed from the custody of the clerk to the court administrator's office, and deemed by fiat "administrative records" instead of the court records that they rightfully are.
When the Civil Rights Council brought this to their attention, the judges rightfully turned them over to the county clerk and pledged to keep them for the mandated six years.
The last few years of records were destroyed, contrary to state law, but the court is not concerned with this, according to a conversation we had with court administrator Bob Terwilliger.
In what appears to be retaliation, Judge Wynne turned off the recording machinery in the Commissioners Courts last month, leaving the good people of Snohomish County severely restricted in their ability to appeal the decisions made in Commissioners Courts. Upon inquiring of the judge why he did this, he did not have the courtesy to admit to receiving our communication.
Their hubris and lack of respect for folks who put these politicians in office, and their desire to keep their rulings in the dark and unavailable to the citizens, is repugnant and indefensible.
When added to their failure to issue numbered receipts when taking cash, as required by law, and their payment of public funds for disallowed uses such as picnics and athletic shoes, we also have serious doubt as to how these courts are run.
The Geezer
Director, Public Policy
Washington Civil Rights Council
Everett
READ THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN THE EVERETT HERALD HERE
Stinky things been doin' in Snohomish County Courts.
Records kept in the Administrator of Courts, not in Clerks office.
Records deemed to be "administrative" and kept only 6 months, instead of six years
Records charged for as "real" court records, even though they claimed them to be administrative. They should have been charged for at "public records" rates, of a buck or two, not $25 each.
Records anointed as "not to be used as court records", yet the same court accepted them as court records.
Money for payment of copies (CD's) not receipted with numbered receipts--violation of state audit rules, and only cash taken
Handwritten petty cash fund checks written for "picnics", "camp fees", and "Nike athletic shoes", none of which is a legitimate expenditure of your hard earned tax dollars.
A commissioner's wife is the Court's public disclosure officer, and custodian of the CDs. No appearance of conflict of interest there, nosireebob.
Their response:
Ok, you caught us, we will move them back to the Clerks office and keep for six years.
No, we are not going to turn ourselves in for destroying court records without permission, and prematurely, tough.
We changed them back to be "real" court records.
We went neener-neener, and turned off the recording devices in the Commissioner's Courts, just for spite. No public policy reason, or no reason at all, or rationale, was given for letting the expensive recording equipment gather dust, instead of recording the public's business.
We have no concern about the appearance of conflict of interest in having the commissioner's wife be the public records office, and keeper of the CDs.
Important to note that they DO record Juvenile and Mental Health proceedings in front of Commissioners, but NOT family court.
Save for traffic tickets, the majority of Joe and Sally Sixpack's doings in the court are in family court. Yet your elected politicians will not engage with the great unwashed masses (me) in dialogue about their court administration, but instead send me to their patronage appointee who is the Court Administrator. He is accomplished at shoulder shrugging, and throwing his predecessor under the bus, but fairly worthless as to answering questions otherwise.
Do we not expect our friggin' JUDGES to follow the law? And to be accountable for their actions, and protect the public interest, by recording their courtrooms like thirty-seven out of the thirty-nine counties do?
I guess that is too much to ask.
Full letter to the editor published in the Everett Herald today, reproduced below.
The Geezer
Proceedings are no longer recorded
Jim Haley's excellent article on the issues in South County courts is only a part of the problem with Snohomish County courts. (Wednesday, "Court workers make discontent public.")
The same attitude is found at the Superior Courts, too. The Washington Civil Rights Council noticed that Commissioners Courts records were not being kept by the county clerk and were being destroyed after six months instead of six years, as required by law.
Several years ago, over Judge Wynne's signature, the court recordings were removed from the custody of the clerk to the court administrator's office, and deemed by fiat "administrative records" instead of the court records that they rightfully are.
When the Civil Rights Council brought this to their attention, the judges rightfully turned them over to the county clerk and pledged to keep them for the mandated six years.
The last few years of records were destroyed, contrary to state law, but the court is not concerned with this, according to a conversation we had with court administrator Bob Terwilliger.
In what appears to be retaliation, Judge Wynne turned off the recording machinery in the Commissioners Courts last month, leaving the good people of Snohomish County severely restricted in their ability to appeal the decisions made in Commissioners Courts. Upon inquiring of the judge why he did this, he did not have the courtesy to admit to receiving our communication.
Their hubris and lack of respect for folks who put these politicians in office, and their desire to keep their rulings in the dark and unavailable to the citizens, is repugnant and indefensible.
When added to their failure to issue numbered receipts when taking cash, as required by law, and their payment of public funds for disallowed uses such as picnics and athletic shoes, we also have serious doubt as to how these courts are run.
The Geezer
Director, Public Policy
Washington Civil Rights Council
Everett
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Everett Herald lies about gender pay differences, AGAIN
So, a year or so ago, the Everett Herald spins that tired old story about wimmin' being paid less than men.
I went after them, they finally tell me that since it was a Job Fair section, it was advertising, not news, and that the content was written by Everett Community College.
Sheesh. So, they blow the Geez off, fine.
Now again, they see the AAUW report in the link above, and start salivating all over again.
Editorial opinion is opinion, fine, but I do expect those folks who buy ink by the barrel to do some research before forming their opinion.
So, the Geez takes electrons on fingertips, and writes some eloquent sheyt, as he is prone to do from time to time, to smack them down.
The editorial editor says, no, Geez, we have very important op-ed pieces coming up, and so you have to write a 300 word letter.
Their very important op-ed pieces included a verbatim Governatrix press release, which is spun daily and available on the Guv's website and a breast-beating puff piece by the Prez. of the Edmonds Community College. Either he is an illegitimate son of someone down at the Herald, or has some mighty fine pix of their dalliances, because he sure gets his oar in the water with his self-serving crap.
So, I write the publisher, who doesn't even give the courtesy of a reply. Just get a reply from the editorial editor that says you were way over in words.
Well, hell.
So, I thought you may enjoy that note to the publisher, which is below.
Enjoy,
The Geezer
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:16 PM
To: Allen Funk
Cc: Bob Bolerjack; Carol MacPherson; Elisa Teague-Cooper
Subject: Editorial policy at the Herald
Hello, Allen--
First, my bonafides.
I have been reading the Herald since there were block letters on top of the building, no Sunday paper and a row of VW Beetles out in front. Cruise the hallways, and you will see the picture still hanging in your building.
Second, you should know that I have been certified as a political gadfly by the King Co. Sheriff's Dept.
Occasionally I have a lucent and cogent thought.
The other day, after reading your editorial about women making 75 cents to a man's dollar came out was one of those times.
I fired off a smarmy letter, as is my habit, to Mr. Bolerjack, who, apparently in need of a round of verbal sparring, was considerate enough to ring me up.
As is my style, I suggested that his, and yours, by extension, analysis of the AAUW report was wrong, misleading and downright the result of drinking too much Kool-Aid from the misandric and hate-filled Wimmin's Industries.
I offered to write an op-ed, and was told, no, no, booked far in advance with too many very important articles for that. He did invite me to write a letter, which is very constricted to try and develop the issue. Nonetheless, I enlisted my colleague from the Washington Civil Rights Council, Elisa Teague-Cooper, and we knocked one out. It was not published.
I noticed over the next week that those very important pieces he had scheduled included a darn near verbatim press release from the Governatrix (new press photo here), which is available daily on the Governor's website and another breast-beating puff piece from Jack Oharah, who must be a stepson of someone down there, or if not, I want to see those pictures he must have of someone in your company!
Not what I would consider urgent issues of the day.
This is the second time the Herald has printed that (un)factoid. The first time was in a Job Fair supplement shortly after Ms. Iverson came on board, and when I tried to track that one down, the ad department didn't want to respond, and when they did, through Ms. Iverson's assistance, the deferred responsibility because that article was written by ECC folks. Of course, no where in the tab was there a disclaimer that it was a production of the ad, rather than news department.
So, turning smarmy mode off for a moment, hoping you are still reading, and understanding my warped sense of humor, let’s analyze that AAUW article that was used as the basis of your corporate opinion.
First, let’s apply Mark's acid test, shall we? If true, that you can pay a woman 75 cents to get the same work product you would pay a man to do, why hasn't an entrepreneur fired all the men, hired only women, and by the labor savings kicked the competition's ass?
Because, it 'taint true, Mr. Funk!
Now, running down the article, I offer the following, some of which I stole from those more articulate than I.
Equal Pay Day has become one of our annual rites of spring. This year the gender victimologists came armed with a new report from the American Association of University Women, Behind the Pay Gap, which purports to show that one year after graduation, women are paid 80% of what men earn.
The AAUW’s press release featured this startling statement: "Women earn less even when working in the same career field, likely due to sex discrimination." So no surprise, you trumpeted the 80% figure like it was revealed truth.
But women who are familiar with the AAUW’s long-standing gender agenda began to question the study.
Mary Kay Ham sardonically wondered why she, as a highly-educated columnist, should be paid less than a dime-a-dozen brain surgeon. To settle the issue, I suggest you download the report and see for yourself. I quickly noticed that the 80% figure is deceptive because it doesn’t take into account differences in work hours, occupational choices, commutes, danger (hence pay) of the job and other key variables.
When you do that, the wage gap shrinks dramatically. As the AAUW report finally admits on page 39: "The regression analysis of earnings one year after graduation for the combined sample of women and men shows a gender pay difference of 5 percent, controlling for educational and occupational choices as well as demographic and personal characteristics."
But it turns out the AAUW study omitted a number of important factors in its analysis, so even the 5% figure is exaggerated.
For example, many men coming out of high school enter the military and later go to college. These men command a bigger paycheck upon graduation. Likewise, men tend to accept big-city jobs with longer commute times. But the AAUW glossed over those facts.
Of greater concern is how the AAUW shoe-horned the many thousands of jobs into 11 broad occupational categories.
For just one example, take the medical profession which is evenly divided between the sexes, compared to nursing which is overwhelmingly female. The AAUW lumped all doctors and nurses into the same "medical professions" group. So you guessed it -- doctors are paid more than nurses, and that’s discrimination!
And women who major in business administration gravitate to HR, while men often specialize in finance. Employees who manage a corporation’s financial lifeblood tend to be paid well. But the AAUW put both groups into the "business and management" category. Yikes, more discrimination!
This isn’t the first time the American Association of University Women resorted to smoke-and-mirrors research to further its political agenda.
Back in 1992 the AAUW published the report, How Schools Shortchange Girls. The report purported to show that American schoolgirls were being kept down by the ever-present patriarchy. Man, they make those guys sound so powerful, I want to go to their meetings, and join up, but I just can't find them anywhere.
Diane Ravitch, former assistant secretary of education, took issue with that conclusion, saying flatly, "The AAUW report was just completely wrong. What was so bizarre is that it came out right at the time that girls had just overtaken boys in almost every area."
To redeem itself, the AAUW finally came out with a second report. Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children had to admit that "National data indicate that girls consistently earn either equivalent or higher grades than boys in all subjects at all points in their academic careers."
But that oops-I-goofed document could not reverse the hysteria generated by the first report, which fueled the passage of the Gender Equity in Education Act in 1994, a law that contributes to the boy crisis I first saw near the end of my 13 year service as a school board member, and that we’re now seeing fully developed in education.
Again, this pay gap myth is perpetuated by your editorial, as it was with the Job Fair insert. You demonstrated the same tactic that the misandric and hateful Women's Industry always uses, repeat the same lie, over and over, and eventually it becomes accepted as the truth.
See: Superbowl Sunday, Rule of Thumb, Hospital Emergency room admissions, the whole Title IX issue, and the like.
Is it too much to ask that you take more care in analysis and conclusions in your editorial positions?
And I know you buy the ink, not me, but is it unreasonable to expect that when a local boy has facts and figures that shine some light on the darkness of your conclusions that you do not print even a letter to the editor? A letter signed by me and my colleague from the Washington Civil Rights Council?
Thanks for listening.
I went after them, they finally tell me that since it was a Job Fair section, it was advertising, not news, and that the content was written by Everett Community College.
Sheesh. So, they blow the Geez off, fine.
Now again, they see the AAUW report in the link above, and start salivating all over again.
Editorial opinion is opinion, fine, but I do expect those folks who buy ink by the barrel to do some research before forming their opinion.
So, the Geez takes electrons on fingertips, and writes some eloquent sheyt, as he is prone to do from time to time, to smack them down.
The editorial editor says, no, Geez, we have very important op-ed pieces coming up, and so you have to write a 300 word letter.
Their very important op-ed pieces included a verbatim Governatrix press release, which is spun daily and available on the Guv's website and a breast-beating puff piece by the Prez. of the Edmonds Community College. Either he is an illegitimate son of someone down at the Herald, or has some mighty fine pix of their dalliances, because he sure gets his oar in the water with his self-serving crap.
So, I write the publisher, who doesn't even give the courtesy of a reply. Just get a reply from the editorial editor that says you were way over in words.
Well, hell.
So, I thought you may enjoy that note to the publisher, which is below.
Enjoy,
The Geezer
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:16 PM
To: Allen Funk
Cc: Bob Bolerjack; Carol MacPherson; Elisa Teague-Cooper
Subject: Editorial policy at the Herald
Hello, Allen--
First, my bonafides.
I have been reading the Herald since there were block letters on top of the building, no Sunday paper and a row of VW Beetles out in front. Cruise the hallways, and you will see the picture still hanging in your building.
Second, you should know that I have been certified as a political gadfly by the King Co. Sheriff's Dept.
Occasionally I have a lucent and cogent thought.
The other day, after reading your editorial about women making 75 cents to a man's dollar came out was one of those times.
I fired off a smarmy letter, as is my habit, to Mr. Bolerjack, who, apparently in need of a round of verbal sparring, was considerate enough to ring me up.
As is my style, I suggested that his, and yours, by extension, analysis of the AAUW report was wrong, misleading and downright the result of drinking too much Kool-Aid from the misandric and hate-filled Wimmin's Industries.
I offered to write an op-ed, and was told, no, no, booked far in advance with too many very important articles for that. He did invite me to write a letter, which is very constricted to try and develop the issue. Nonetheless, I enlisted my colleague from the Washington Civil Rights Council, Elisa Teague-Cooper, and we knocked one out. It was not published.
I noticed over the next week that those very important pieces he had scheduled included a darn near verbatim press release from the Governatrix (new press photo here), which is available daily on the Governor's website and another breast-beating puff piece from Jack Oharah, who must be a stepson of someone down there, or if not, I want to see those pictures he must have of someone in your company!
Not what I would consider urgent issues of the day.
This is the second time the Herald has printed that (un)factoid. The first time was in a Job Fair supplement shortly after Ms. Iverson came on board, and when I tried to track that one down, the ad department didn't want to respond, and when they did, through Ms. Iverson's assistance, the deferred responsibility because that article was written by ECC folks. Of course, no where in the tab was there a disclaimer that it was a production of the ad, rather than news department.
So, turning smarmy mode off for a moment, hoping you are still reading, and understanding my warped sense of humor, let’s analyze that AAUW article that was used as the basis of your corporate opinion.
First, let’s apply Mark's acid test, shall we? If true, that you can pay a woman 75 cents to get the same work product you would pay a man to do, why hasn't an entrepreneur fired all the men, hired only women, and by the labor savings kicked the competition's ass?
Because, it 'taint true, Mr. Funk!
Now, running down the article, I offer the following, some of which I stole from those more articulate than I.
Equal Pay Day has become one of our annual rites of spring. This year the gender victimologists came armed with a new report from the American Association of University Women, Behind the Pay Gap, which purports to show that one year after graduation, women are paid 80% of what men earn.
The AAUW’s press release featured this startling statement: "Women earn less even when working in the same career field, likely due to sex discrimination." So no surprise, you trumpeted the 80% figure like it was revealed truth.
But women who are familiar with the AAUW’s long-standing gender agenda began to question the study.
Mary Kay Ham sardonically wondered why she, as a highly-educated columnist, should be paid less than a dime-a-dozen brain surgeon. To settle the issue, I suggest you download the report and see for yourself. I quickly noticed that the 80% figure is deceptive because it doesn’t take into account differences in work hours, occupational choices, commutes, danger (hence pay) of the job and other key variables.
When you do that, the wage gap shrinks dramatically. As the AAUW report finally admits on page 39: "The regression analysis of earnings one year after graduation for the combined sample of women and men shows a gender pay difference of 5 percent, controlling for educational and occupational choices as well as demographic and personal characteristics."
But it turns out the AAUW study omitted a number of important factors in its analysis, so even the 5% figure is exaggerated.
For example, many men coming out of high school enter the military and later go to college. These men command a bigger paycheck upon graduation. Likewise, men tend to accept big-city jobs with longer commute times. But the AAUW glossed over those facts.
Of greater concern is how the AAUW shoe-horned the many thousands of jobs into 11 broad occupational categories.
For just one example, take the medical profession which is evenly divided between the sexes, compared to nursing which is overwhelmingly female. The AAUW lumped all doctors and nurses into the same "medical professions" group. So you guessed it -- doctors are paid more than nurses, and that’s discrimination!
And women who major in business administration gravitate to HR, while men often specialize in finance. Employees who manage a corporation’s financial lifeblood tend to be paid well. But the AAUW put both groups into the "business and management" category. Yikes, more discrimination!
This isn’t the first time the American Association of University Women resorted to smoke-and-mirrors research to further its political agenda.
Back in 1992 the AAUW published the report, How Schools Shortchange Girls. The report purported to show that American schoolgirls were being kept down by the ever-present patriarchy. Man, they make those guys sound so powerful, I want to go to their meetings, and join up, but I just can't find them anywhere.
Diane Ravitch, former assistant secretary of education, took issue with that conclusion, saying flatly, "The AAUW report was just completely wrong. What was so bizarre is that it came out right at the time that girls had just overtaken boys in almost every area."
To redeem itself, the AAUW finally came out with a second report. Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children had to admit that "National data indicate that girls consistently earn either equivalent or higher grades than boys in all subjects at all points in their academic careers."
But that oops-I-goofed document could not reverse the hysteria generated by the first report, which fueled the passage of the Gender Equity in Education Act in 1994, a law that contributes to the boy crisis I first saw near the end of my 13 year service as a school board member, and that we’re now seeing fully developed in education.
Again, this pay gap myth is perpetuated by your editorial, as it was with the Job Fair insert. You demonstrated the same tactic that the misandric and hateful Women's Industry always uses, repeat the same lie, over and over, and eventually it becomes accepted as the truth.
See: Superbowl Sunday, Rule of Thumb, Hospital Emergency room admissions, the whole Title IX issue, and the like.
Is it too much to ask that you take more care in analysis and conclusions in your editorial positions?
And I know you buy the ink, not me, but is it unreasonable to expect that when a local boy has facts and figures that shine some light on the darkness of your conclusions that you do not print even a letter to the editor? A letter signed by me and my colleague from the Washington Civil Rights Council?
Thanks for listening.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Thoughts about President Ford, and a story
I have been very fortunate to meet several US presidents. Ford, Reagan, Clinton, and shrub (lower case intentional)
I met President Ford when he was just a congressman from Michigan. He must have been some substantial congressman, as he was on a speaking tour, including Pullman. As fate would have it, a high school buddy, fellow Boy Scout, and pilot later to fly for United had been engaged to fly him around the state, first to Wenatchee, then to Pullman.
Since my bud had to cool his heels while Ford spoke, and since I was attending school at WSU, he called me up to entertain him for an hour or so.
I was at the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport when they landed, and debarked. John was gracious in introducing me, and Ford seemed like a regular guy, real genuine. Just before he was hustled off by the WSU folks, he turned to me and said, “Mark, when I was in Wenatchee they gave me a box of beautiful apples. I will be on the road for the rest of the week, so will have a difficult time carting them around. Can you take them back, and hand them out to your friends?”
Well, sure, like college kids don’t like to eat.
A simple gesture from a regular guy, which was much appreciated.
Perhaps that was before politics was the hardball game it is today, but I doubt it. I suspect that it was more an indication of the personality and graciousness of the man who was to one day become President.
The Geezer
I met President Ford when he was just a congressman from Michigan. He must have been some substantial congressman, as he was on a speaking tour, including Pullman. As fate would have it, a high school buddy, fellow Boy Scout, and pilot later to fly for United had been engaged to fly him around the state, first to Wenatchee, then to Pullman.
Since my bud had to cool his heels while Ford spoke, and since I was attending school at WSU, he called me up to entertain him for an hour or so.
I was at the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport when they landed, and debarked. John was gracious in introducing me, and Ford seemed like a regular guy, real genuine. Just before he was hustled off by the WSU folks, he turned to me and said, “Mark, when I was in Wenatchee they gave me a box of beautiful apples. I will be on the road for the rest of the week, so will have a difficult time carting them around. Can you take them back, and hand them out to your friends?”
Well, sure, like college kids don’t like to eat.
A simple gesture from a regular guy, which was much appreciated.
Perhaps that was before politics was the hardball game it is today, but I doubt it. I suspect that it was more an indication of the personality and graciousness of the man who was to one day become President.
The Geezer
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
The Geezer's holiday wishes for others
Mark’s holiday wishes.
Ok, this isn’t my Christmas list, let's be clear about that.
One thing the Geez always wants to do, but never seems to get to it, is to just do some reflecting on life, and things in general. No, you won’t see any rants here, but you will see what I “see”, and what I wish for those things that I see.
The Geez lives in a trailer park, he likes to say. It really isn’t a trailer park, and he doesn’t live in a trailer. He lives in a 4-plex which is located in a trailer park. But, it isn’t even really a trailer park, but instead a residential RV park. Only about three real house trailers in here, the rest are either powered recreational vehicles, or recreational trailers, not made with longevity in mind, or designed for constant occupancy. If you are wondering, let the Geez edumacate you. A house trailer has no holding tank, an RV does.
This is not, to borrow a Tom Leykis term, your “prime demographic”. Some work, most are on the dole of some sort. Some have issues, like my convicted felon drug dealer neighbor, or my level three sex-offender neighbor. Not unlike the folks you live around, mine just admit to it.
So, what for these folks?
For Val, no allergies, and lots of junk to sell. For Carol, take your meds, honey, and life will be better, and less of a struggle for you. Mr. Ed, with your house trailer that can’t be moved, may this place not sell to someone who wants to build something else on it. Hope the lazy B keeps you employed sweeping floors for them. Keith, and Mattie, thank for the Christmas card, it means a lot coming from my neighbors. Mattie is the 40 pound—or so it seems—cat that was a stray, called Mattie because the cat was just a huge hair mat before Keith took him/her in.
Larry, well, he will do ok. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a stash-o-cash somewhere, under his mattress. Laney, who just left us to run off to Nawrleans with a guy she only met in person once, a happy, mutually fulfilling life, free of using others, mutual or not.
Gerald, glad you finally got on SS, dude. Tough to be single, alone, but keep up a good face, after being a laborer all your life, then finding no one wants to hire you when you get to your late 50’s. Nick, bless you Nick. Hope I see you often at the library, and you continue to grow, learn and investigate as you pass age 85. You are special. You are the only person I know who still has, and uses, a rotary phone.
For El Gato, the formerly stray cat, may I be able to give you love, and return the love and companionship you have shown me.
So, those are the neighbors.
My dear friends and family seem to be moving forward, Karen and Guinn, like an old married couple. Well they are, sort of. Diane and Keith, getting married at, uh, “over 65”. And fie on that person who mentioned at the reception, “what number is this for Keith? 4? 5?”
Actually, I think it is five, but who cares. If they get along, and they do, very well, good for them. Of course, the fact that Diane is still “hot” at 65, well, the Geez never thought he would say that about a 65 year old.
Yes, some folks I know and my family are getting along well. You know who you are, and I have fond wishes for you, too, but you probably need a bit less praying, attention, or whatever from me. You will do just fine, you know how the game is played, and have the tools to play with.
Lastly, for all the kids who don’t have a strong, frequent relationship with both parents, regardless of their parenting skills, I wish you continued involvement with both. There are lessons to be learned, both from “good” and “less skilled” parents. May you recognize the benefits of their hard work, perseverance, self-reliance, and benevolence.
Ok, this isn’t my Christmas list, let's be clear about that.
One thing the Geez always wants to do, but never seems to get to it, is to just do some reflecting on life, and things in general. No, you won’t see any rants here, but you will see what I “see”, and what I wish for those things that I see.
The Geez lives in a trailer park, he likes to say. It really isn’t a trailer park, and he doesn’t live in a trailer. He lives in a 4-plex which is located in a trailer park. But, it isn’t even really a trailer park, but instead a residential RV park. Only about three real house trailers in here, the rest are either powered recreational vehicles, or recreational trailers, not made with longevity in mind, or designed for constant occupancy. If you are wondering, let the Geez edumacate you. A house trailer has no holding tank, an RV does.
This is not, to borrow a Tom Leykis term, your “prime demographic”. Some work, most are on the dole of some sort. Some have issues, like my convicted felon drug dealer neighbor, or my level three sex-offender neighbor. Not unlike the folks you live around, mine just admit to it.
So, what for these folks?
For Val, no allergies, and lots of junk to sell. For Carol, take your meds, honey, and life will be better, and less of a struggle for you. Mr. Ed, with your house trailer that can’t be moved, may this place not sell to someone who wants to build something else on it. Hope the lazy B keeps you employed sweeping floors for them. Keith, and Mattie, thank for the Christmas card, it means a lot coming from my neighbors. Mattie is the 40 pound—or so it seems—cat that was a stray, called Mattie because the cat was just a huge hair mat before Keith took him/her in.
Larry, well, he will do ok. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a stash-o-cash somewhere, under his mattress. Laney, who just left us to run off to Nawrleans with a guy she only met in person once, a happy, mutually fulfilling life, free of using others, mutual or not.
Gerald, glad you finally got on SS, dude. Tough to be single, alone, but keep up a good face, after being a laborer all your life, then finding no one wants to hire you when you get to your late 50’s. Nick, bless you Nick. Hope I see you often at the library, and you continue to grow, learn and investigate as you pass age 85. You are special. You are the only person I know who still has, and uses, a rotary phone.
For El Gato, the formerly stray cat, may I be able to give you love, and return the love and companionship you have shown me.
So, those are the neighbors.
My dear friends and family seem to be moving forward, Karen and Guinn, like an old married couple. Well they are, sort of. Diane and Keith, getting married at, uh, “over 65”. And fie on that person who mentioned at the reception, “what number is this for Keith? 4? 5?”
Actually, I think it is five, but who cares. If they get along, and they do, very well, good for them. Of course, the fact that Diane is still “hot” at 65, well, the Geez never thought he would say that about a 65 year old.
Yes, some folks I know and my family are getting along well. You know who you are, and I have fond wishes for you, too, but you probably need a bit less praying, attention, or whatever from me. You will do just fine, you know how the game is played, and have the tools to play with.
Lastly, for all the kids who don’t have a strong, frequent relationship with both parents, regardless of their parenting skills, I wish you continued involvement with both. There are lessons to be learned, both from “good” and “less skilled” parents. May you recognize the benefits of their hard work, perseverance, self-reliance, and benevolence.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
This Aussie has it right!
Aussie Christianj, who blogs at What men think of Women, writes with great clarity. Here is today's gem, which I believe should be spread far and wide.
He writes:
Well, men aren't stupid, despite near-constant whinging to the contrary by women.
Men look at some of these women and say "Let's see: she expects me to earn more than she does, be her knight in shining armor, do the cooking, the cleaning, dress in bespoke suits and tuxes to go anywhere, listen to her constant, endless bellyaching about every little damn thing like one of her girlfriends and if I should marry her, when she gets into some midlife funk, she's going to sue for divorce and take half of my life's work and any kids we have."
The male mind then turns the gears for a little while, netting this out on the bottom line of life:"Nope. No sale."
You can read the whole magilla here:
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2006/09/ally-mcbeal-clones-are-out-there.html
He writes:
Well, men aren't stupid, despite near-constant whinging to the contrary by women.
Men look at some of these women and say "Let's see: she expects me to earn more than she does, be her knight in shining armor, do the cooking, the cleaning, dress in bespoke suits and tuxes to go anywhere, listen to her constant, endless bellyaching about every little damn thing like one of her girlfriends and if I should marry her, when she gets into some midlife funk, she's going to sue for divorce and take half of my life's work and any kids we have."
The male mind then turns the gears for a little while, netting this out on the bottom line of life:"Nope. No sale."
You can read the whole magilla here:
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2006/09/ally-mcbeal-clones-are-out-there.html
Monday, August 28, 2006
The Gub'mint need to 'splain it to me
Ok, the Geez reads in the Pee Eye fishwrapper that it is illegal to listen to your IPod on headphones while driving.
Fair enough.
However, they give driver's licenses to deaf folks. Now, not dissin' deaf folks, but either you need to hear, or you don't, to drive.
So, which is it, FU-WA? That is the Feminist Utopia of Washington, Governatrix Greg-wire, proprietor, to the uninitiated.
Also, the Geez like to communicate with nature in the summertime, all three days of it. Goes for these torture tests called hikes, on rocks and roots called trails.
Geez sweats like a stuck pig on said hikes, and likes to cool down when he is done. So, he likes to stop at the country store for a "road coke" (beer, to the uninitiated) on the way home. That would be one of the about four brewskis that the Geez ingests per anum. Now, Geez busts the law all to heck, if he sips it goin' down the road, like a Coca-Cola, but it is legal to stop in a tav, and chug it.
A beer in yer belly, is a beer in yer belly, with the same net effect on yer drivin'.
So, nanny-state, 'splain that one to me too.
Geezer out
Fair enough.
However, they give driver's licenses to deaf folks. Now, not dissin' deaf folks, but either you need to hear, or you don't, to drive.
So, which is it, FU-WA? That is the Feminist Utopia of Washington, Governatrix Greg-wire, proprietor, to the uninitiated.
Also, the Geez like to communicate with nature in the summertime, all three days of it. Goes for these torture tests called hikes, on rocks and roots called trails.
Geez sweats like a stuck pig on said hikes, and likes to cool down when he is done. So, he likes to stop at the country store for a "road coke" (beer, to the uninitiated) on the way home. That would be one of the about four brewskis that the Geez ingests per anum. Now, Geez busts the law all to heck, if he sips it goin' down the road, like a Coca-Cola, but it is legal to stop in a tav, and chug it.
A beer in yer belly, is a beer in yer belly, with the same net effect on yer drivin'.
So, nanny-state, 'splain that one to me too.
Geezer out
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
President PaternityFraudDNA.com
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
President PaternityFraudDNA.com
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?
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.
Ready?
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????????
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.
Ready?
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.
NOT!
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.
NOT!
Thursday, September 08, 2005
I made some minor changes to a real Support Enforcement press release
SEPT. 9, 2005 NO. 69-69
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Ben Dover, Division of Child Support, (360) 663-5445
Bum Focker, Ph. D., Division of Child Support, (360) 663-5050
PUBLIC MEETINGS TO BE HELD ON GUARANTEED
INCREASES TO PAYING PARENTS CHILD SUPPORT SCHEDULE
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 @dshs.wa.gov or up your arse@dshs.wa.gov 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.
Ooooooooookkkkkaayyyyy.
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, www.jimfuda.com, 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.
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.
Ooooooooookkkkkaayyyyy.
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, www.jimfuda.com, 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.
Geezer.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
