Julia, The 2012 American Woman

I try not to post the work of others here, mainly to avoid tarring them unwillingly with my own views, but I’ll make an exception now for an article that finally put in “mainstream” print what I’ve been saying for the past twenty years.  It deals with a critical aspect of the Obama Administration’s campaign to win the 2012 election – by specifically courting the nation’s largest and deciding voting bloc, for the first time openly and in living video.  The New York Times Op-Ed piece below concerns what in my mind is the greatest social disappointment of the past century – American “feminism” – which sadly has become nothing but an exercise in Buying Elections For “Me”.

While everyone complains about “big business money” buying elections, the simple truth is that there is nothing that can trump huge self-interested lobbies that deliver lots of money AND enormous numbers of VOTES.  Now, instead of lurking in the shadows via women’s lobbies, social media, magazines and TV talk shows, this simple fact is finally a major open aspect of liberal campaign politics: How our super-majority of women voters systematically sells its votes in order to trade dependence on fathers and husbands for cradle-to-grave dependence on Big Daddy Government.  It’s a bended-knee-with-giant-diamond-ring offer that can’t fail, one with all the rights and none of the responsibility, buying many tens of millions of women votes at every election.  It is the single greatest force pulling the political “center” in America inexorably further left, while running the country straight to bankruptcy.  There is nothing in the following article that has not been the background underpinning of both “feminism” and liberalism for the past thirty years; what is new is a campaign eager to bring it out in the open for all to see.  In America, NOTHING can trump the power of “Julia”.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

The Party of Julia

By Ross Douthat, Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times, May 5, 2012

A week ago the Obama re-election campaign unveiled a slogan for the fall campaign — its answer to Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America,” Bill Clinton’s “bridge to the 21st century,” and other successful re-election pitches.  There were reports that the slogan-writing process had been a struggle for the White House, and the final product bore those rumors out. “Forward,” the Obama campaign will be declaiming to Americans, which feels like a none-too-subtle admission that a look backward at the Obama economic record might be bad news for the president’s re-election prospects.

But maybe the White House doesn’t need a slogan.  After all, it has a person instead: a composite character who’s been the talk of Washington these last few days, and whose imaginary life story casts the stakes in this presidential campaign into unusually sharp relief.

Her name is Julia, and she has the lead role in an Obama 2012 slide show that follows what’s supposed to be an American everywoman from childhood into retirement, tracking everything the Obama White House’s policies would do for her and everything the “Romney/Ryan” Republicans would not.  The list of Obama-bestowed benefits includes Head Start when Julia’s a tyke, tax credits and Pell grants to carry her through college and low-interest loan repayment afterward, guaranteed birth control when she’s a 20-something and government-sponsored loans when she wants to start a business, all of it culminating in a stress-free retirement underwritten by Medicare and Social Security.  ((Most of these welfare programs favoring our majority women, of course, have been in place for a half century, so long, in fact, that they have become permanent dependency crutches simply taken for granted.  And, of course, once such a foundation is firmly in place and accepted as “normal”, then the automatic next step is to demand even more.  Now they can add the very beneficial “Obamacare” program, very heavily underwritten by healthy young men, to the list.  Next up:  Taxpayer funded pre-school.  It’s all about “someone else” picking up the tab for the free choices and elective behavior of our “very special” women, our very own “entitled” elite class.))

All propaganda invites snark and parody, and the story of Julia is ripe for it.  She’s an everywoman only by the standards of the liberal upper middle class: She works as a Web designer, has her first child in her early 30s (the average first-time American mother is in her mid-20s), and spends her golden years as a “volunteer at a community garden.”  (It will not surprise you to learn that the cartoon Julia looks Caucasian.)  ((1))

What’s more, she seems to have no meaningful relationships apart from her bond with the Obama White House: no friends or siblings or extended family, no husband (“Julia decides to have a child,” is all the slide show says), a son who disappears once school starts and parents who only matter because Obamacare grants her the privilege of staying on their health care plan until she’s 26. ((2))  This lends the whole production a curiously patriarchal quality, with Obama as a beneficent Daddy Warbucks and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan co-starring as the wicked uncles threatening to steal Julia’s inheritance.

But if the slide show is easy to mock (and conservatives quickly obliged, tweeting Julia jokes across the Internet), there’s also a fascinating ideological purity to its attitudes and arguments.  Indeed, both in its policy vision and its philosophical premises, the slide show represents a monument to certain trends in contemporary liberalism.

On the one hand, its public policy agenda is essentially a defense of existing arrangements no matter their effectiveness or sustainability, apparently premised on the assumption that American women can’t make cost-benefit calculations or indeed do basic math.  In addition to ignoring the taxes that will be required of its businesswoman heroine across her working life ((but her costs will be a LOT less now with everyone else picking up most of her tab)), “The Life of Julia” hails a program (Head Start) that may not work at all, touts education spending that hasn’t done much for high school test scores or cut college costs ((3)), and never mentions that on the Obama administration’s own budget trajectory, neither Medicare nor Social Security will be able to make good on its promises once today’s 20-something Julias retire. ((4))

At the same time, the slide show’s vision of the individual’s relationship to the state seems designed to vindicate every conservative critique of the Obama-era Democratic Party.  The liberalism of “The Life of Julia” doesn’t envision government spending the way an older liberalism did — as a backstop for otherwise self-sufficient working families, providing insurance against job loss, decrepitude and catastrophic illness.  It offers a more sweeping vision of government’s place in society, in which the individual depends on the state at every stage of life, and no decision — personal, educational, entrepreneurial, sexual — can be contemplated without the promise that it will be somehow subsidized by Washington.

The condescension inherent in this vision is apparent in every step of Julia’s pilgrimage toward a community-gardening retirement.  But in an increasingly atomized society, where communities and families are weaker than ever before, such a vision may have more appeal — to both genders — than many of the conservatives mocking the slide show might like to believe. ((5))

Apparently someone in the White House thinks so, which makes the life of Julia the most interesting general-election foray by either campaign to date.  Interesting, and clarifying: in a race that’s likely to be dominated by purely negative campaigning on both sides, her story is the clearest statement we’re likely to get of what Obama-era liberalism would take us “forward” toward.  ((6))

++++++++++End of article.

My Comments:

While America steadily crumbles into Third World status, this humongous herd of useless self-involved whining leeches just keeps demanding ever more for “very special me”.  

And, of course, their obedient short-sighted politicians just keep giving it them – by stealing from everything else and handing the bills to the rest of us, our children, grandchildren and their grandchildren.

It’s important to keep in mind that no one and no thing in America is requiring, or ever has required, American women to do anything.  Their free choices are solely their own.

Along with her many millions of needy “grown-up” infant sisters, plus many dozens of supremely arrogant politicians, all sucking constantly from birth to death on government teats, “Julia” is simply the most repulsive “American” in history.

If we can accept an 18-year old man’s responsibility for his choice to go off to foreign war, and also hold him fully accountable for his actions in that war, then we can damned well hold an 18-year old woman responsible for the choices she makes in the safety of America.  And, if we can’t, then there’s something really really twisted about our whole damned society.  There is NO “special” in equal.

1.  These are the new American middle class “families” and “children” – where almost 60% of women between 18 and 48 has never been married and never had children; These women are the spoiled children who constitute most “families” today.  (You never hear how many of those who purchased homes with mortgages beyond their means, and who then needed to be bailed out by “someone else”, were such women.)  In a matter of priorities, Pew Research recently found that 66% of women aged 18 to 34 say that high-paying careers are very important to them, which continues the upward trend in this index.  In order for them to have such careers they obviously are replacing dependence on fathers and husbands with dependence on government to subsidize their entire lives.  (Only 59% of men in this age group agreed, a figure that has remained fairly constant, but men have always been expected to pay for their own families.)

2.  This is the other part of the “families” and “children” equation: those single women who exercise their “right of choice” to give birth to half the children born in America, plus that half of the rest who exercise their right to a divorce, and then “raise” children mostly by out-sourcing their responsibilities on someone else’s dime.  How many of those sons have “ADD” or are autistic?  How many fail in our women-dominated schools?  How many of those boys drop out, get arrested, use drugs, commit suicide, become creeps and perverts?  Just who is responsible for them?

3.  The most expensive school system in world history still produces the world’s poorest results, and most especially for the oppressed minority who are boys.

4.  A major reason for this is the fact that American women have and raise only one-third of the children needed to produce tomorrow’s taxpaying workers paying for all those entitlements, and even the biggest flood of Third World mothers in human history can’t make up the huge shortfall.  The country is already over thirty years late in making major adjustments to Social Security and Medicare out of fear of upsetting women, who benefit at twice the amount for men, fearful of receiving reduced birthright entitlements. Just as bad, responsibility for those children that American women do have is quickly farmed out to that “vast village”.

5.  Most men wouldn’t mind it – if there was a way for them to avoid paying for the lifestyle choices of all our “special” women, if women accepted their equitable share of the responsibility, the blame, the bills and the hard stuff – for all of us.  Instead, these women teach their children, clones of “me”, the same dead-end dependency dogma, while the nation speeds toward fiscal ruin.  Our women need to grow up, carry their own weight, pay their own way, be held fully accountable for the consequences of the choices they make, the behavior in which they elect to engage.  There is no “special” in “equal”.  Those women who profess to take offense at such pandering are even phonier than those who demand the pandering; the false protestors know that, regardless of the position they take, they will still benefit.  If they were not simply feigning their opposition, they would be the loudest voice in opposition, especially in view of the fact that such pandering is bankrupting the nation.  (See Footnote #1, Abortion.)

Here’s a “rule change” I’d actually like to see:  If women have rights and choices, why do men have to pay for their rights and choices?  If whining women need “someone else” to pay for their contraceptives, why don’t they just charge each man with whom they have sexual relations half the cost of the contraceptives they use for that event?  If sexual relations with a woman that are not consensual is rape under the law for the man, why do men have to assume responsibility if the woman choses to engage in sexual relations, choses not to use contraceptives, then choses a third time to bear a child, and then choses a fourth time not to put the child up for adoption?  Men don’t have a role in those choices; they just have to pay for them – which is just absurd.  Women even get a choice of whether or not to truthfully identify the father, whether or not to marry, etc..  In 2012 it’s all “special” women’s nonsense serving “special” women, despite all the propaganda about “equal rights” and even about “romance”, or even more absurdly about “women’s health”.  It’s really all about rights without responsibility.  Let’s just be honest: this nonsense is just another form of prostitution.  Women certainly don’t pick up the tab for choices men make, or even for the contraceptives men use, and there’s certainly nothing at all romantic behind such women’s demands.  If we are going to engage in such nonsense, why don’t we simply legalize commercial prostitution, instead of continuing to engage in the incredibly phony legal prostitution we have now?  After all, isn’t prostitution the real reason behind the diamond rings, the jewelry, the roses, the chocolates on schedule every year anyway?  “Who’s kidding who” here?  Commercial prostitution is at least a lot more of an honest basis for relationships, and enormously cheaper for the man and society.  Groups demanding all the rights and choices should also be required to accept all the responsibilities that accompany them.

6.  The Obama White House campaigners have simply openly picked up the socialism torch long carried by professional women politicians like Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, et al, along with embarrassing lackey morons like Joke Biden.  It’s all about “me”.  In the history of American democracy, no American women “leader” has ever championed a cause for any group other than her own, including for their own sons in school, and with their huge majority of voters since 1980, they usually get whatever they want while still proclaiming their “eternal victimhood”.  I often wonder how effective they will be at picking up the pieces after the whole American house of cards has collapsed.  I, for one, certainly wouldn’t bother to pitch in.

+++

It’s small wonder that fewer and fewer men even bother to vote in each succeeding election.  American politics has become something out of a twisted fairy tale, literally packed with impossible delusions.  To be a politician in America is to accept up front that you will never be able to speak the truth, that whole huge areas are totally “off limits”, and that you must ALWAYS tell the super-majority women voters only the nonsense they want to hear.  The result is a Gordian knot impossible to unravel, impossible to reconcile, creating a national stalemate situation that makes sense only to a lunatic, because half of the facts have been censored out of the picture. Far more than anything else, it is American “feminism” that is relentlessly destroying our society.  At a time when the future holds nothing but cut-throat competition in a very tough global environment, we have over half of our population now using all their rights and privileges to actively seek little more than socialistic dependence on the state – and fawning politicians with zero foresight more than happy to provide it.  No one ever asks who or what is going to pay for it all.  As usual, that part is left to that ever-elusive “someone else”.   In just two more years the US debt will top a truly mind-boggling $20 Trillion, far more than our economy can produce, and the “solution” is to add to it when the mortgage is already “under water”?!  Pity our children, and their grandchildren.

After a half century of American “feminism”, how many of these privileged women have created first-rate global corporations capable of ensuring our nation’s future, of providing employment for all those desperately needed taxpayers?  How many have invented the Next Big Thing that will save the planet, not to mention our own society?  Met any Nicole Teslas lately?  How about a Georgiana F. Kennan (containment)? Maybe a Mary Anderson (windshield wipers), Katherine Blodgett (purely transparent glass), Stephanie Kwolek (Kevlar) – all of whom made their mark before contemporary “feminism”?  After a half century of concentrated favoritism, they still haven’t gotten back to where they were during the 1930s!  Does anyone know who Elizabeth Kenny was?  To the contrary, still complaining about the mammograph test for breast cancer in women, none of them has yet invented something to improve on the invasive 2,000-year-old test for prostate cancer in men.

And their public schools certainly haven’t been guiding boys in such worthwhile directions.  If women can’t ensure equitable and positive results with a huge and critical industry they totally control – our K-12 public schools – what in the world makes anyone think that they can EVER achieve positive results with an entity as complex and important as the whole nation?  Leadership is not a right; it is a demonstrated capability to assume responsibility for others, and most especially for those who are not “me”, and achieve positive results for everyone.  Any two-bit twit can stand in the safe rear and scream orders to idiots.  And only idiots would follow them.  Anyone else knows that the only thing relevant to such a screamer is sacrificing others for “me”.  There is only one way to lead – from the front.  Women are definitely not the only gender that can ask, “Just what have you done for my group lately?”  It’s blatantly obvious that women have used those schools solely to “advance” themselves, damned the consequences to others.  This is how they earn a “right” to “lead”?

A major part of the problem is the continued myth of the traditional “till death do us part” family of two or more children led by two married parents of different genders, only one of whom works outside the home.  This actually equitable division of labor and responsibility in a meaningfully shared partnership has actually become a rapidly declining minority of “families” in America, now sustained mainly by recent Third World immigrants, NOT by native-born Americans.  The biggest myths concern white middle class American women, most of whom have little in common with their grandmothers, who actually earned their societal benefits and entitlements.  “Feminists” incessantly both denigrate and hide behind that nearly extinct arrangement, one that had worked reasonably well for mankind for millennia before women decided to re-write all the rules to better suit “me”.  Most middle class “traditional” marriages that do exist have become little more than revolving door business partnerships with tax breaks.  Still, all women, even the unmarried childless majority, continue to benefit from policies society put in place originally to assist married mothers and wives who worked hard to have and raise on their own the healthy and well educated children society needed to move forward.  They do this through lobbies relying heavily on code words like “families”, “children”, “working mothers”, and “middle class” in their relentless propaganda, words that evoke mental images no longer existing – solely to distort truth.  And “small business” includes those women who run the thousands of outfits that now provide out-sourced social services to other women and their children.

In short, myopic and narcissistic in the extreme, all women’s lobbies hide behind a myth that is almost gone in order to garner ever more free stuff from “someone else” for “me” and “my group”.  They don’t want to actually improve anything themselves; they just want government to throw ever more money at their latest manufactured “issue”, under their “expert” direction, of course – in order to perpetuate both the myth and their power.  It makes no difference that any “issue” or “problem” now is one solely of their own creation; men certainly don’t play a role in all the choices women make.  It’s a life’s vocation, a repeating loop cycle of navel contemplation and self-adulation that pays extremely well.  It provides life-long employment opportunities for many millions in everything from university “research” to government bureaucracies to social service agencies to “journalism” outlets to legislatures at all levels and their staffs to women’s “health” organizations to special interest groups to a plethora of “non-profit” groups – all feeding insatiably ad infinitum at the “eternal woman victim” trough.  This is self-perpetuating Very Big Business, baby, a really huge, expensive and powerful industry – one that is nothing but a huge drag on the economy, on our society’s forward motion.  American women are still whining about the same crap they were whining about a half century ago!  And using the same numbers!  Small wonder American women enjoy so much wallowing in their victimhood.  “Now, if we can just get all women on the same dole.”  Nearly half the people in this country don’t pay taxes and thus have no stake in its responsible and equitable governance, much less in its future.  The country obviously can no longer afford to carry so many freeloaders, but unfortunately very many of the freeloaders are not always those you might suspect.

American “feminism”, as promulgated foremost on idyllic socialistic college campuses, was never about equality; it was always about “privilege”.  American women have become the most pampered, the most promoted, the most protected, the most privileged and the most powerful group to ever walk on Earth, and yet after a half century the only thing they can do better than any other group on the planet is whine.  Their incessant whining literally sucks the life out of every other worthy social ill in sight.  Women even periodically wage silly “wars” among themselves in an effort to shift blame for their various circumstances of choice to men.  They see nothing at all incongruous about having others, especially men, pay for their own lifestyle choices – in a society supposedly based on equality.  American women also excel at making demands, giving orders, pontificating self-serving social “expertise”, and regulating the lives of others, all of which is part of what they regard as their “right” to “lead” – arrogantly, according to “me”, and from the very safe rear, of course.  It’s just self-serving dictatorship, a tyranny of the self-involved majority.

Despite the incessantly repeated nonsense that “women earn only 77% of the income of men”, a propaganda figure that hasn’t changed since 1960, any negative income differences today that all women experience vis à vis all men are solely a matter of the choices women make, choices that men still don’t have.  (The 77% number is a simplistically meaningless measure of incomes of all women and all men, regardless of any other circumstances or choices, including the huge majority of women in retirement.) (Think about it a moment, logically.  Companies in a competitive capitalist society exist to maximize profits.  If they could save all that money by hiring “low-pay” women, why would they hire any “high-pay” men?  Obviously there is more at play here than is ever stated by women’s lobbies, including companies just trying to stay in business with an effective and reliable workforce in the real world.)

When you look more closely at the numbers, it’s obvious that myth bears little resemblance to truth.  For example, working women as a group in all but two major metropolitan areas of the US now actually earn around 20% more than working men. Nation-wide, as a group, single women without children working full time today earn 119% (and steadily rising) of the incomes of the comparable group of men (single without children working full time), and still get huge subsidies from those men in their Social Security and Medicare premiums.  These and similar statistics are a natural consequence of the fact that the US now ensures university educations every year to twice as many women as men, despite federal civil rights law mandating equitable gender balance in every aspect of American education K through post-graduate school.  And yet no American woman “leader” has ever championed the cause of a group other than her own, including the cause of those boys being routinely screwed in our women-dominated public school systems.  The propaganda is so pervasive that most Americans today don’t know that boys have civil rights, too.  Apparently “leadership” no longer has to be earned, demonstrated; it’s just another birthright – for our “special” women.  Even so, the “eternal victim” excuse has obviously run its course.

Unearned birthright entitlement, of course, is what led to the American Revolution and created America in the first place.  Men don’t do themselves, their sons, their nation, or women one bit of good if they are too cowardly to begin demanding that American women step up to the responsibility for all of us that has long been theirs, demand that they actually earn their right to lead.  We do not live in a monarchy, and it is not all about “me”.  Someone needs to start calling these self-involved jerks out before they turn the US into a piece of foreclosed real estate, before they leave the next three or four generations penniless and in debt up to their eyeballs, far beyond their ability to ever get ahead.

After a lifetime of listening to whining women, it now all sounds to me like fingernails scraping along a chalkboard.  After a half century it only grows louder and more infantile.  Throughout my life I have never been involved in any discussion of my rights; it’s always been solely about my duties.  In all the many articles posted here and elsewhere you will not find one mention of something from anyone that I might wish for myself.  My mind doesn’t work that way; I can very well take care of myself and anyone else who needs my help.  I’ve served my nation and mankind well all my life in the toughest arena, and no one owes me anything more than a comparable level of responsible professionalism.  To be a perpetual woman victim in America is the epitome of absurdity.  So I am simply not interested in listening to anyone’s whines about their rights unless they simultaneously give equal weight to the responsibilities that accompany each of those rights.  Otherwise, regardless of who or what you are, how you choose to define yourself, all I can offer is, “Stick it in your ear!”

Originally a “Jack Kennedy liberal” (a balanced liberalism that no longer exists), I’ve long been a political “Independent”.  (See Footnote #2.)  As such, I believe that any self-respecting man who does not give the finger to both candidates in this election (2012) is just a first class idiot, made that way by American women.  The only way Romney can win is if he somehow is able to top Obama’s bountiful offer to all the tens of millions of “Julia” women out there.  (Such women, mostly urban women, were a huge majority of the “47%” whom Romney was caught on video saying he was prepared to “write off” as potential supporters.)  The only way to get my vote is to do what’s best for my nation’s future knowing full well that its greatest threat is the humongous size of its debt, that the second greatest threat is our poor schools, and that our greatest enemy is us.  (See Footnote #3.)  So, if given the chance, I’d vote for Libertarian Ron Paul.  Sure, one or two of Paul’s ideas are a bit unrealistic, and he naturally has no chance of winning, but he’s still the only honest politician running out there and the only one who actually makes sense to a grown-up adult.  I think this is mostly a product of his being a member of the Silent Generation, a man who grew up before the Baby Boomers turned everything to self-involved emotional mush.  Or maybe it’s just that I am really tired of all the childish “me-ism” bullshit.

.

(See “Who Decided The 2012 Election?“, “Premises And Conclusions” and “America’s Most Important Import“, posted separately.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Footnote #1.  Abortion.  It’s been very well known for a very long time that the most important subject on Earth to “feminists” is the matter of abortion, that sacred right of women to kill their unborn children.  (In a re-labeling propaganda trick, “abortion” is now referred to as “pro-choice” to shift the attention from the irrelevant infant to the “special” woman.)  Most politicians try hard to stay away from this topic because women have been the largest voter bloc since 1980 and are thus able to get almost everything they demand from politics, including completely absurd rationalities in the interest of “equal rights”.  (Everyone pretends not to notice that women never demand “equal responsibilities”; the “special” people get all the goodies at none of the costs.)

Feminist “journalist” Molly Roberts in October 2017 wrote another of an endless parade of articles on “choice” published in the Washington Post over the past forty years.  She titled this one “Abortions for me, not for thee“.  The story concerned Congressmen who want to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and to ban abortions except in cases of “rape, incest, and life of the mother” – EXCEPT when an unwanted pregnancy involves THEM and those close to them, which she describes as the “dictionary definition of hypocrisy.”  In THAT situation, wrote Roberts, the “anti-abortionists” very frequently suddenly become closet “pro-abortionists”.  Roberts went on to say that one doesn’t know what one would do when faced with an unwanted pregnancy until they are.  Of course, the same could be said of the soldier on the battlefield to the guy who finds a wad of cash on the sidewalk; that’s why we have laws to help with the decision-making process.  While there is indeed something valid in such natural human tendencies, she used the very familiar argument that women who choose to have an abortion do so because they feel that carrying the pregnancy to term would “ruin their lives.”  And, of course, no one wants to ruin their lives.

Of course not.  Until the rise of character assassination via anonymous social media, the most frequent way that lives got ruined was by breaking society’s written laws, laws existing to help with the human decision-making process.  This is because of a natural human tendency to act in one’s own self-interests.  Laws can be a real bother in that regard.

But what’s really involved here?  Once you set aside the three exceptions (rape, incest and life), you have removed all extenuating factors and reduced the situation to one solely of personal choice, actually a whole series of choices.  A young woman – let’s call her Jane – who reaches a point very late in the procreation process and chooses to have an abortion has made a series of five or more deliberate conscious decisions over a very extended period of almost nine long months, starting way back with the free choice, which is hers alone, to engage in sexual relations with a male.  That’s quite a long span of time to reach a point requiring drastic action in the eleventh hour, especially when she easily could have made better contemplative decisions at many earlier points.  Except when the three factors (rape, incest and life) are in play, in the United States the woman has total and complete control over every single step in the procreation process.

But apparently, she only has rights.  She does not have responsibilities.  Her right of choice comes free of responsibilities for her choices.  Society must assume responsibility for her free choices, her elective behavior, by erecting a huge societal apparatus of support and assistance and “ways out” at considerable public and moral cost so that her free choices do not “ruin her life.”  The death of the innocent infant victim of her choice does not even enter the discussion, is simply irrelevant.

But Jane has a brother.  Let’s call him Jim.  In his senior year at college, Jim had a very bright future ahead of him when he got into a heated confrontation with another man who was making very disparaging comments about his sister Jane.  At one point in that confrontation, Jim’s emotions got the better of him.  He suddenly lashed out and struck the other young man, who fell and hit his head against a brick wall, sustaining a rather severe injury.  Jim was arrested and charged with assault and battery.  Society held him fully responsible for his own free choices, his own elective behavior, the consequences of his own actions, and sent him to prison.  With one single decision that was considered for less than three seconds, his future was altered forever, his life ruined.  There was no huge societal apparatus of support and assistance and “ways out” at considerable public cost so that his free choices did not “ruin his life.”  The injury to his victim was paramount to the case, the deciding factor.  Everyone, and especially women, including those sitting in judgment, agreed that justice was done.  Jim was held fully responsible for his own actions.  His college education was over.  In prison he is routinely beaten and raped, grows ever more cynical and vicious, ever more proficient in criminal activities, ever more destined to a return for a prison graduate course in crime, facing a future offering little more than rotating criminality and imprisonment.

Now, just where is the “hypocrisy”?  Just what justifies such double standards for Jane and Jim in a society in which “all men are created equal”, where “all are equal under the law”?  Women claim men have no right to judge matters that pertain only to a women’s body.  But how many women have ever gotten into a fist fight with a man on a street?  We certainly don’t deny women psychologists the quota “right” to screw around with and impose their prejudices on the minds and lives of male police officers, combat soldiers, etc., without ever experiencing anything like those men experience, without ever being required to meet similar standards.  We certainly don’t preclude women, including women judges, from sitting in judgement of the actions of combat infantrymen on the battlefield, cops on patrol in the inner city, on all males.  And abortion is most definitely not a “victimless” crime.  We even make it illegal for men to escape all the double standards, and most importantly their family bill-paying duties, via suicide.

Regardless of what you think about the morality of abortion, it’s impossible to view the argument as anything other than what it is – a self-serving demand for favored treatment of the “special” people who have a million rights and no responsibilities.  This is “equality” in America, and it’s just the usual self-serving bullshit of birthright entitled nobility based on absolutely nothing more than the difference of a single chromosome at fertilization – a difference that doesn’t even matter for another nine months.

Of course, once you realize the extent of self-serving narcissism among such women, you are then confronted with the dilemma concerning the welfare of the infant, the growth of the child.  Obviously in such cases, the best course would be to place the infant with adoptive parents, most especially if the child is male.  Some members of our phony society must remain responsible, even if it’s a hugely unfair and disproportionate burden – in the interest of “equality” of course.

“I have RIGHTS! I do NOT have responsibilities! Someone ELSE has the responsibility – to ensure whatever rights I decide to demand for very special me!”  Because of their dominant role in the home, in the schools, in politics and in social issues, American “feminists” over the past forty years have ensured that this asinine dogma has spread like a cancer throughout our entire society.

Footnote #2.  Independent.  People keep asking me what an “Independent” stands for.  First, it means that I do not subscribe to any specific political dogma – simply because I do not wish to be so confined in my thinking that strategic compromise, intellectual growth and innovative solutions are impossible.  And, second, let’s put it this way… if General Colin Powell had decided to run for President in 1994, I would have thrown everything I had left in me behind his candidacy, just as I did had done for Jack Kennedy in 1960.  Kennedy and Powell both held very strongly to The First Rule:  Country First.  Greatest Generation Kennedy and Silent Generation Powell were very wise and experienced old-school American Men who fully understood that leadership is an earned responsibility, not a birthright, and that there is only one way to lead – from the very risky front.  And they knew this because both had earned their stripes serving their nation first on the battlefield.  It is NOT about “me”; it is ALL about “us”.  Furthermore, General Powell would have been the most internationally qualified American President of the past half century, surpassing even the elder George Bush – the former CIA Director inexplicably rejected by his nation in favor of a slick draft-dodger just after he had won the most decisive military victory in American history (paid for mostly by others) and kept the cheap gasoline flowing to American gas-guzzlers.  Four-star Ranger Infantryman General Powell, of course, had risen on his own merit for thirty years to become National Security Advisor and then, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CEO of the largest, most complex, far-reaching, powerful and technologically advanced global corporation on the planet – before he was Secretary of State.  (I also happen to believe that Powell would have been such a strong and admired candidate that he could have won as an “Independent” – without either of the two major party structures behind him, the first leader in modern American history to break free of our stupid two-party hegemony.)  The position of President of the United States should be, at the very least, the one job in the country immune from asinine unearned affirmative action practices.  NO ONE is born with a “right” to lead.

Footnote #3.  Social Media.  I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that another chief threat to our future national security is “social media” – which is essentially a matter of huge herds engaged in instantaneous group-think, where opinions are shaped and formed and manipulated in milliseconds, then snowball, solidify, and are almost impossible to subsequently alter even with greater in-depth contemplation, with fully informed and intelligently rational examination.  The chief characteristic of the product of “social media” is the lowest possible common denominator creating a moronic herd mentality.  It is incredibly susceptible to propaganda offering not “The Truth”, but rather “My Truth”.  Some day it’s bound to create a national or even global “melt down” situation without a “fail safe” mechanism.  It really scares me that the average American video game player is a 35 year old male, and that 70% of Americans can’t read and comprehend what I write here – even though I aim in good English for a 20 year old audience.

Blame it on the quality of my own education and the level of expectations when I was that age, faced with the constant prospect of things like instantaneous nuclear annihilation as a consequence of faulty thinking.  I am fascinated with people who have very quick well-trained minds and impressive gifts like Megyn Kelly has, so it depresses me greatly that young men with such qualities have seemingly become so rare.  Unfortunately such impressive women don’t have the sense of responsibility that should naturally accompany such great qualities, and most young men just don’t seem to be up to the tasks required.  We have also become enormously sloppy and complacent, placing far too much faith in those even less wise than we.  Worse, our strength now derives chiefly from our inherited wealth, which has become mostly a precarious illusion.  The only things keeping us afloat are wishful thinking and immigrants with different values.  Unfortunately, it’s too late to reach back to one of our Greatest Generation people to show us the way forward.  We have to fix the mess we created ourselves.  It will be extremely painful.