We need to rebuild the Democratic Party.  We already have a Republican party so building a clone and calling it the Democratic Party never was a good idea ...

Oi vey. there goes the sloganeering again...

So, where exactly are the constituents for this brave new party being envisioned? Let's see, there are several TPMC posters, some other net-roots types... ok, maybe that’s about the percentage that voted for Nader. Ooooh. The halls of government are quaking. They’re really going to listen to a miniscule percentage of the population, of web surfing political junkies who are chronically idealistic, notoriously difficult and negative, and don’t agree much with anyone else in the coalition or themselves half the time.

Right. That’s how democracy works. Rule of the tiniest, most difficult, fractious, and uncompromising minority. Basic US Gov 101. Sure…

Reality check… any day now…

Waiting for somebody here to notice that Feingold pandered to a few net-roots types, didn't have the basic sense to inform anyone else in the party, and suprise suprise, nobody followed his lead. Gee, maybe pissing on the coalition and refusing advice isn't working for Feingold any better than it's working for Bush? Huh, maybe there's a moral there that transcends partisan politics? Something about leaders needing to compromise to bring people along with them maybe… that whole democracy thing…

Posted at March 16, 2006 9:10 AM in response to Molly Ivins for President

I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.... blah blah blah

Translation:  "My pet issues are being ignored because they've not enough popular support! Since I can't blame the people and maintain my populist creds I'll have to pretend the people are on my side and blame the pols! Woe is me!!" 

Notice nobody ever calls it "triangulation" when their issues are popular?  No, there are better euphemisms for democracy when it breaks our own personal way. It's only "triangulation" when someone is on the outs.

Jeebus, you’d think after being in the game for so long people would develop past schoolyard politics and learn to cope better when things don't break thier way. Maybe take a little responsibility even.

Posted at March 16, 2006 8:51 AM in response to Molly Ivins for President

I agree the example given was pretty outlandish in its extremity.

However, to be fair it was an exaggeration not a complete fabrication or unrealistic. Plenty of people do marry for money and certainly children become a component of that. It's not as though people never have children to attempt to save unsaveable marriages or never try and soak exes for payments later.

Let's not whitewash human nature or ascribe sainthood to either gender please.

Posted at March 16, 2006 3:10 AM in response to Father's Rights?

It's safe to say that yes, society is long past the single-mothers- are-better notion, and has been for about 15+ years.

 Actually I don't think society generally anyhad any questions. Some small part of radical feminists were the only ones questioning it and myquestionwas rhetorical as I still see pandering on the subject from prominant feminists, which was the point.

Most of the discussion here has centered around cases of deliberate deception by mothers. It seems very unlikely that these represent a substantial number of cases.

That's a bit of a whitewash. In fact many single parents were the result of that. "Accidents" that weren't exactly accidental. i.e. where the woman considered the possibility and let it happen becasue she wanted a child but not a commited relationship. Or maybe she thought a child would bring them closer togeather. Feminist ideology enabled and even encouraged that sort of irresponsible reproductive choice. In fact I happen to know quite since I live in San Francisco where that sort of radicalism was more prevalent than in other places, but I'm sure the same can be said of NYC and such.  I know a lot of guys who've been spooked by that and had close calls.

Failure to use responsible birth control by both parties is surely far more common a cause of pregnancy unwanted by fathers than is active deception by mothers

Not so. Pure accident is certainly the bigger part, but not overwhelmingly so, especially not since abortion was legalized in which many accidental pregnancies can be ended.

Letting fathers claim they never wanted the kid to get out of child support would open up a whole can of worms.

That is true, why it's not a simple issue. But whitewashing it and pretending that women won't abuse assumptions on thier behalf is equally false. Of course being careful is always good advice. Beyond that in regards to policy it's perfectly valid to question whether the current legal precedents are fair. 

Posted at March 16, 2006 2:49 AM in response to Father's Rights?

I don't know how we achieve equity for all involved, but I am convinced that the children's welfare needs to be very high up in the hierarchy of needs to be considered.  They didn't ask for the situation.

True. Nobody (smart) wants to penalize the innocent kids, especially considering that may perpetuate the cycle.

Having said that it’s important to be fair to the parents as well and try to strike the right balance. As Jerry pointed out, it’s unfair to make divorced fathers (or either working non-custodial parent) into an indentured servant, especially if the other parent is abusing that for revenge purpose.

OTOH, one  must also consider systems which disincentivize accidental pregnancy, single parenting, divorce, and other root causes of the problem. There is a error in trying to fix all penalties associated with problematic actions because doing so may actually creates more problems due to lack of feedback mechanisms to the acting individual.

Not saying I have all the solutions, just that there are several competing considerations and it's a very difficult problem.  It's certainly one of those issues where nothing is accomplished by looking at a single POV such as some posters are doing. (not saying you are, just saying in general) 

There goes purplestate with the rating abuse again.

Posted at March 15, 2006 8:08 PM in response to Father's Rights?

Your comments above exhibited several qualities typical off your posts.

There was the knee-jerk straw-man argument where you repeatedly missed the point and tried to put words in Ridgeway’s mouth. You also peeled off several emotional, pissy, and argumentative comments with no point but to troll Ridgeway. Your posts are also filled with presumptions which you never substantiate.

Posted at March 15, 2006 8:04 PM in response to Father's Rights?

Ahh no, I give you 1s for making simplistic knee jerk comments. I gave you a 2 when you managed to include a half-baked argument.

Express your opinions more reasonably for a change and I'll be happy to rate you higher.

Posted at March 15, 2006 7:56 PM in response to Father's Rights?

It seems to me that without ever having the pleasure of getting laid, the taxpayer ends up being screwed.

Very simplistic, as usual.

The state has an interest in seeing the child become a healthy member of society and not perpetuating mistakes or making new ones. Many teen pregnancies for example come from parents who were children of teen pregnancies. In addition poverty can lead to stressed and neglecting or abusive parents which can lead to other problems like crime and drug use. So the state does have a great interest in helping carry the burden for the good of society.

Having said that, concurrent is the state obligation to taxpayers to try and proactivly and preventativly reduce the problem by disincentivizing the need of government support.

Posted at March 15, 2006 7:53 PM in response to Father's Rights?

I think both sides should be heard in these matters so I appreciate Jerry's comments.

Unfortunately the courts have swung towards many a radical feminist agenda, especially in CA due to fairly powerful lobbying groups that don't have much opposition to balance them since they operate under the radar and people assume they're doing good for feminism in the equality/justice sense and not the gender war sense. (btw, not trying to disparage the entire feminist movement, just the unfortunate cranks and radicals every good cause has it's share of.)

A good example would be the tough on crime conservatives alliance with gender war radical feminists, which as the Kobe case illustrated makes a man accused of rape essentially guilty until proven innocent. Let alone a black man and white woman. Had he not been wealthy he without doubt would be in prison now despite the shoddy evidence. Why? Radical feminists pushed the meme in the 70s that women never lie about rape and that anyone saying otherwise was a fascist paternalist, using the “slut” defense, etc.

Posted at March 15, 2006 7:38 PM in response to Father's Rights?

But they should be afforded the same rights that women have to forfeit their parental rights should they desire.

I'd say that's one side of the argument which is under served unfortunatly. However, it's also has some errors of simplicity glossing over the "momentum" of pregnancy which a man helps to create but has an easier time walking away from.  Also there isn't exactly an analogue between adoption by a willing 3rd party (including the government) and abandonment.

One can make a logically consistent argument the father should be able to give his parenting responsibility over to the state for "adoption" just as the mother may. Hence the state support argument. However, that fails to account for the relative ease a man has in creating pregnancy. (which is what purplestate is trying to say so poorly)

Therefore, it's reasonable to say if society seeks to discourage unintended pregnancy then it must place heavier burdens on men to incentivize greater responsibility.  Otherwise they may too easily walk away from responsibility, placing an unfair burden on women and society generally. A similar argument can be made in many disproportionate risk/burden arguments, take for example violence between parties of disproportionate size like many domestic cases. If a large man hits a smaller woman he takes less risk and may potentially do more damage, hence society needs to disincentivize it further.

Having said all that, society often swings to opposite extremes rather than finding a happy medium. It’s a very complex issue.

If we were a perfectly rational species we'd be damn sure to control pregnancy and avoid errors, or have binding "pre-sexual" contracts similar to prenupitals.

Posted at March 15, 2006 7:24 PM in response to Father's Rights?