Families v Big Brother

We are on the verge of a return to big government interference in family affairs.

I am referring to the upcoming overturning of Roe v Wade by the activist , right wing majority on the Supreme Court. I think most of us would be very surprised if the McConnell majority does not decide that a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy no longer exists. One of the few (first?) times a SCOTUS has taken away a well established right.

Of course, as a practical matter this makes little difference. The SCOTUS for years has turned a blind eye to the real elimination of this right, state by state. For all practical purposes abortion has been illegal for years in many states, at least for poor families. Chipping away, slowly, until the right to abortion exists only in theory, not practice. Especially for poor families.

Notice, I hope, that I write “families”.

This ongoing attack on the right to an abortion has been seen by the left as a “woman’s issue”. It is. But it is much more than that. By ignoring the wider implications of the attack on abortion rights the liberals have played into the hands of the right wing. Yes, women get pregnant. But the abortion issue is not just about women.

The left needs to wake up and see the issue in much wider terms. They need to aggressively demonstrate the fundamental importance to men. To families.They need to frame the issue in a different way.

In the final analysis the argument breaks down to this.

Who has the right to determine how many children a family can have? Is it the family or is it big government? Should mom and dad decide, or should they be controlled by a law made by the state legislature? Who knows better ? Who should decide how may kids a man or woman can support, the family or big brother?

You would think that conservatives, who have panic attacks when asked to wear a mask, would be on the side of the family. But they are not. This is one area where they care not for “freedom” from big government. They demand big government. They demand the suppression of family rights. They show their true, authoritarian, colors.

In Germany in the 1930s the Nazis demanded that “Aryan” women have more babies. For the fatherland. The state decided how many babies a family could have. It is called authoritarianism.

In communist China in the 1960s the government demanded that families in cities limit themselves to one child. Only one. If the first child was a girl many families committed infanticide, hoping for a boy next time. The state decided how many babies a family could have. It is called authoritarianism.

In the USA today we have the same attitude .The state should decide how many children a family will have. Not mom. Not dad. Big brother. The only true function of a family is to add babies. No matter the emotional or economic cost. It matters not what the family wants. Authoritarianism.

So, if a man or woman s working hard to make ends meet and does not want another mouth to feed, too bad. The state will decide. If a woman has a medical condition that may put her in danger with another pregnancy, too bad. The state will decide. Authoritarianism.

Families no longer have rights .These same folks who whine and cry about “freedom” from vaccines or mask wearing seem to care little about the freedom of a man and woman to plan their family size.

This is where the “pro-choice” movement has missed the boat. For the most part they have left fathers and families out of the equation. They have allowed the right wing to ignore family rights and men’s rights when it comes to the issue. They have been unwittingly complicit in focusing on this as ONLY a woman’s issue. It is much more than that.

Abortion rights need to be more clearly described for what they are. The right of a dad and mom to decide for themselves how many children they want. A fundamental right of a family to choose . Ending the right to an abortion eliminates the right of the family to determine it’s own destiny. Authoritarianism.

Hiring Amy

I was looking for a contractor to dig a new foundation the other day and I came across Amy Coney Barrett. Contractor extraordinaire. Referred by Don the Con Construction Advisory Panel. So I had her come in and do an estimate.

Me: Hello Amy, I am happy to see you. So, what is your experience as a contractor?

Amy: I am certified as a contractor by Home Advisor and the Federalist Society.

Me: OK. So, need you to provide some references.

Amy: Certainly, just look at my website. It is all about me .

Me: I did that already. Yes, well your website says you are a contractor and that you are an honest contractor. No examples of your work. But, do you have any references from places you have done work for in the past?

Amy: That is a good question. I am well aware that references exist and that references are something that all contractors should have. However, divulging references at this point may prematurely influence your decision to hire me. However, at some time in the future I may or may not divulge references.

Me: I see. Well how many foundations have you dug and what kinds of materials do you use?

Amy: Excellent, thoughtful question. As you may or may not know, there are many types of foundations. It is important to find the type of foundation that best fits every individual’s needs. Some foundations are better than others. There are a variety of styles of foundations. As well as sizes.

Me: Ok. So what kind of foundations have you constructed in the past.

Amy: I would like to answer that question as fully as possible. I am certified to build foundations of many types and styles. At this time I cannot really commit to any one foundation, although I can assure you that I will faithfully build a foundation. Foundations are the foundation upon which buildings are built. Before I can discuss a foundation I will need you to sign my contract. Here is my contract.

Me: (Reading the contract). Hmm. Ok, it says here that I am hiring you for life. That is a pretty big commitment.

Amy: Yes. Before I can start to explain what a foundation is and what I may or may not build, I need a lifetime commitment from you that I will be the sole contractor you ever hire. And I will be paid regularly, of course, for the rest of my life. Whether or not I actually build any foundation is not the issue. It is the lifetime guarantee of employment that is important.

Me: I see. Well, so, can you tell me what you plan to build the foundation out of, before I sign the contract. And are there any guarantees on my end?

Amy: That is a good question. I would like to explain to you exactly what I do and how I will do it. However, to do so may influence how I make my foundation building decisions in the future. Certainly that would be unfair to any future construction. Premature. Just sign.

Me: Well, what about guarantees? What if the foundation collapses or leaks?

Amy: Interesting point. In the past there have been some contractors who would guarantee their work. In that case there is a guarantee. In other cases there is no guarantee. I feel it is premature to discuss any guarantee until you have signed and returned the contract to me. At that time I may, or may not, discuss guarantees.

Me: What about foundations you have dug in the past? Can you give me some addresses so I can look at them.

Amy: A very astute question. Which I think I already answered. Delving into the past is not needed. Whatever I may or may not have built in the past is not important. What is important is the future. I keep an open mind on each foundation I dig. If I dig foundations. Which I do. Or maybe I don’t .Can’t discuss it until the contract is signed.

Me: So, you want me to give you a job for life even though I have no idea how you are going to build a foundation or if you will guarantee your work. Or even if you will show up at all?

Amy: Well, to be clear. As I said in the past and I will say in the future. A contract is a contract and a guarantee is a guarantee. That said, I cannot commit at this time to the actual building of the foundation until the contract is signed. At that point I will open to discussions of all contractual arrangements.

Me: What if the foundation collapses and harms or kills my wife or kids.

Amy: That is a good question and I would like to discuss it now. However, any discussion of possible damages or injuries may be premature. There is nothing in the original Constitution that requires me to build a foundation that will not collapse. I refer you the the original document.

Me: Ok. Sounds like a good deal to me. I will give you a lifetime contract. You will not answer any questions about your past foundations or plans for building my foundation. You accept no responsibility for faulty work. I guess I could sign.

Amy: Good. Sign here and here and here. Ok. I will be back sometime in the future to perhaps perform a function for which you will pay me for the rest of my life. As for now, I have another appointment. Don’t call me, I’ll call you.

Me: Thanks Amy. Sure is good to know I am in the hands of an honest professional.

Contestant #2: Dr. Rand Paul’s Prescription: Take A Vague and See Me in the Morning

(This is the second in a series of biased reports about the potential candidates for the presidency. As these giants among men proclaim their desires to be the most powerful human being on the planet I will attempt to file a short report on each).

Rand Paul, son of former Texas congressman Ron Paul, announced today that he was willing to serve as president of the US. A major surprise to all Buddhist monks still alive in Tibet. To anyone else, not so much.

As with all candidates the best thing to do is to start with their own websites. On his website Dr. Paul stresses the fact that he is a doctor. A doctor of ophthalmology and that he does good works. That is very noble. And humbling. But for some reason in his bio he fails to mention his board certification. Dr Paul was certified once to practice his “doctoring” by the ABO (American Board of Ophthalmology). But something happened. And he let that certification lapse. So, he was then certified by the NBO (National Board of Ophthalmology), a group NOT recognized by the (ABMS) American Board of Medical Specialties, the national group that certifies the legitimacy of boards. Why not? It was just a board made up by some doctors. UH. Actually, Rand Paul was the president of the group that certified Rand Paul, with Kelly Ashby Paul (Rand’s wife) as vice-president of the group and Rand Paul’s father-in-law as secretary. But, he WAS certified to practice, at least by his kinfolk. (For some reason that NBO was dissolved in 2011).

So, what would a Rand Paul Presidency look like?

Rand Paul’s’ website (www.randpaul.com) has about 16 issues. I will focus on only 4. You can read the rest. Good luck.

Sanctity of Life. Rand believes in the sanctity of life. Well. That is good news! He defines “life” as existing at conception. He says that American women have murdered over 50,000,000 CHILDREN since Roe v Wade. (Did I forget to mention that he is doctor, yet he thinks an embryo is a child?). He opposes all abortions. Period. He thinks states should be able to make any laws they want in this regard . So, I guess you might say that Rand is not a real fan of the US Constitution. A Dr. Rand Paul presidency would not enforce Roe v Wade. I think. He is vague on that point.

Health Care. Dr. Paul wants to repeal Obamcare. And replace it with…. what we had before Obamacare…only better. A market driven system. He knows that a market driven system works because…uh…it left 40,000,000 Americans (real people this time, not embryos) without health insurance. He is rather vague on details. But a Dr. Rand Paul presidency would put the patient first, by eliminating the ACA.

Taxes. President Dr Paul hates taxes. He will institute a 17% tax rate for all businesses and people. His plan is called the EZ Plan. It is EZ to understand because he has no other details. It is EZ Vague. Would current tax breaks for corporations remain? Would breaks for agribusiness remain? Personal deductions? Long on vague, short on details. But, the plan does call for the elimination of Social Security taxes for the middle and lower classes (Not sure where the income levels fall on middle class. That part is…uh…vague). So, no more payments would be going into Social Security from younger workers. So, depending on his exemption plan, a Dr Rand Paul presidency would see a significant decrease in taxes for the super rich. Not so much for the poor.

Which leads us to….
Social Security.
Dr President Leader Rand Paul has a plan for Social Security.

He wants to fix Social Security by increasing the retirement age and means testing. OK. I’ll bite the means testing. I agree that millionaires like John McCain should not be dipping into the pot. Postponing retirement? Doesn’t that just prevent younger workers from getting started? This would apply only to younger workers, so us old fogeys would still get our benefits. …But…wait…In Dr President Excellency Paul’s TAXES plan (see above) he called for eliminating billions of dollars in payments to Social Security. How does that work? Billions less coming in but more going out? Does Mr Dr His Holiness Paul know how Social Security even works? Does he know that payments made today go to today’s retirees? By what magic will SS take in billions less and pay out more? THIS is how he “fixes” Social Security? With magic?

Dr Paul’s lack of real solutions comes through loud and clear. He attacks the “Washington Insiders”, of which he is a part, but offers no real alternatives. Lots of “plans” and ideas and slogans.

All in all, Dr Mr Rand seems to have the same “prescription” for America as other GOPers. Not all that different. Gives homage to the religious right. Wants freedom from paying taxes but not freedom for women to control their own bodies. Has magical thinking when it comes to Social Security financing. A man who will keep it vague in hopes of not exposing the shallowness of his thought processes. Or, who has a real agenda he refuses to share.

Once, in order to be “certified” to practice medicine Rand Paul simply created his own certification board. I suspect the only way the doctor will ever be POTUS is if he “creates” his own country. Then his wife could be vice president again.