Previous month:
April 2010
Next month:
June 2010

Memorial Day Reflections

On Memorial Day, we’re supposed to thank a vet for freedom.  We’re supposed to think about fidelity and sacrifice.  We’re supposed to honor the dead. 

I honor the dead by refusing to pretend they died for anything.  I honor the dead by hating those who lied to them.  I honor my good friend Brian Slavenas by saving others from the murderers.


People are always surprised to learn that I was in the Army.  They infer from my hatred of the Military Industrial Complex, that I simply lack an understanding of the Army.  They assume that anyone who understands that modern military service is based on lies has never served. 

It never occurs to people - who themselves never served – that my understanding and hatred of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney comes not from uninformed bigotry, but from a deep sanguine understanding - informed by experience, sacrifice, and loss.


When your sons and daughters were enjoying their last summer vacation in high school, my 17-year-old self was at Basic Combat Training.  I was so eager to serve my country that graduating high school couldn’t stop me: I’d attend Basic the summer before high school, graduate high school, and then do my Advanced Individual Training – Split Ops, it was called.  Thus I enlisted in the Army National Guard.  While my high school classmates were smoking pot, random drug tests meant I didn’t light up for the 9 years I was the Guard and Reserves.  When high school – and then college - students were out hanging out on Friday, I lost one weekend a month for military service.  I lost two weeks of every summer.

I did all of this because I believed the lies.  I believed that I was serving my country.  My high IQ didn’t save me from the culture that made me a dumb hick – the perfect patsy for the power elite.

During college, I began Officer Candidate School.  It was in OCS that I met the most amazing male specimen.  Brian Slavenas was scientific experiment gone right.  Biologically he was perfect.  Culturally, he was flawed.  Like me, he believed the lies.


Brian Slavenas was my classmate in Officer Candidate School.  He was a couple of years older than I, and while it’s common to canonize the dead, he was someone we admired while living.

A New Yorker article described him thusly:

Among the people I talked to in Illinois, in fact, there was a remarkable consistency in how Brian was remembered. He was methodical, working slowly and patiently on whatever skill he was trying to acquire; at the gym used by the University of Illinois weight-lifting club, he didn’t miss workouts. His passion for flying was so strong that, even after his engineering degree was in hand, he didn’t completely rule out a career in aviation; for him, the practical appeal of the Guard had included not only tuition support but pilot training. He was the sort of student who studied hard preparing for an exam, was always pessimistic about how he had done, and almost invariably turned out to have done very well. He was thoughtful—someone who would always insist on taking the most cramped spot in the moving van. He had a modesty so profound that it sometimes seemed to shade into a shortage of self-confidence. His friends in the weight-lifting club didn’t learn until after his death about the trophies he’d won in out-of-town tournaments. When I asked Jennifer Lasiowski why she and Brian had eventually broken up—I don’t really know what made me think I had a right to ask that question—she said, “He thought I could do better.” 

Gentle giant has become cliché, but how would you have described someone who dead lifted over 500 pounds, took two stair steps at a time as his normal stride - while earning an “A” GPA in Engineering while being terrified of approaching women? 

Brian was so gentle and humble that our mutual friend and OCS classmate, Bob, and I would ridicule him about his fear of women.  When we’d go out, Brian had the worst approach anxiety of any man I’d seen – and totally unjustified given his alpha physical characteristics, wit, and intelligence.  

Brian wouldn’t believe that women were eyeing him.  “Stop teasing me, guys,” he’d say.  “You guys are just trying to get me to go talk to that girl so you can laugh at me!”

Even with my high self-regard, there’s no way of denying that he was more of a man than I will ever be. He was bigger, stronger, smarter, and humbler.  He is the kind of person society needs.

We graduated Officer Candidate School together before serving at an aviation unit.  I moved to California for law school, while Brian remained to fly helicopters.

We lost touch for a few months.  That was all it took.


I’ll remember getting the call:  “Slavenas is dead.”  I couldn’t comprehend the loss until I called Bob.  Like me, Bob had gotten out once realizing that cowards intended to sacrifice our flesh for the profits of oil companies and construction companies.  We would have died for our country, but not for Halliburton.

Bob took Brian’s loss hardest.  “I begged him to get out before Iraq.  He wouldn’t believe it.  He just wouldn’t fucking believe me.”  When you fail to persuade someone that they are about to die, it’s hard not to blame yourself for his death.

Kind-hearted, Brian believed the lies people who never served told him about service.  He trusted his leaders.  Why would anyone send people like Brian Slavenas to Iraq?  Surely there must be a reason to send off people like Brian?

There was a reason.  The trillions-of-dollars that disappeared was the reason.

My friend is dead, because Memorial Day parades and public-school educating indoctrinated him into believing that wars are fought for the interest of the country rather than the interest of a few power elites.  If only Brian had attended law school with me.  He would have met his leaders.


Immediately after 9/11, my classmates started talking about invading Iraq.  I was anti-war, realizing that a War with Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  Many dared to call me anti-American.  To my face – proof that masculine virtue in America died years.  People would call me a coward to my face, because they would never receive the punch to the face they deserve.  The first to call you a coward is the last to fight, and the first to the police station.

Naïve and lacking an understanding of the character of people who prattled an about a desire for “public service,” I would pull out military ID.  I was a commissioned officer.   Attempting to shame them, I asked for their military IDs.  They gave me not the look of shame.  Those who want to send others off to war, sociopaths they are, lack shame.

They were the worst people in the world.  Meeting them is the reason I’m alive.

Discussions with my classmates led me to an epiphany.  These people who sat in the law school atrium plotting their political campaigns were Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.  No service, no fidelity, no honor – simply personal enrichment and self-aggrandizement.  “You can serve I other ways,” was the closest thing to a coherent argument they’d make when I invited them to attend a weekend military Drill with me.

In 20 years, these same people who refused to become soldiers themselves would be sending other young men off to fight in other wars. 

I wouldn’t fight for them. 

Fortunately I was able to resign my commission – the equivalent of an honorable discharge.  It was a challenge, but the Army taught me to overcome challenges. 


I have close friends who serve, and while I respect their profession, you won’t hear me say: “If you love your freedom, thank a vet.”  My discussion with military friends is always about how the Army can use you, or you can use the Army.  The Army paid my college tuition, gave me $319 a month in tax-free cash for the GI Bill, taught me discipline and mental toughness.  I lived to tell about it.  I got over on the Army, and encourage everyone to exploit the Army.  Trust me, they’ll exploit you.

At the time, college and the GI Bill provided zero incentive.  I really did believe the lies and flag waving.  Looking back, it all worked out.


The military exists as play things for people who avoided service, instead enriching themselves with the blood of soldiers.  My law school classmates with grand political aspirations were out getting drunk and sleeping with L.A. cock sluts while my friend Brian was flying helicopters over Iraq.

These people feel no remorse, or shame, or guilt.  In 20 years, they’ll see no irony in sending young men off to fight in wars that they themselves avoiding fighting while as young men.  The cycle will repeat, and another Brian Slavenas will die.


Until we stop waving flags on Memorial Day, we Americans will never be free.  Those who terrorize American citizens do not live in Afghani caves.  They live in Wall Street palaces and on Texas ranches.  The real terrorists work at Goldman Sachs and Halliburton.  The terrorists are not attempting to cross the border through Mexico: They are already here.

If you want to honor a veteran, kill a Wall Street banker or Texas oil man.  After all, they are the reason Brian Slavenas is dead.

College Students More Sociopathic and Narcissistic?

A lack of empathy is the sine qua non of the sociopath:

ANN ARBOR, Mich.---Today's college students are not as empathetic as college students of the 1980s and '90s, a University of Michigan study shows.

The study, presented in Boston at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, analyzes data on empathy among almost 14,000 college students over the last 30 years.

"We found the biggest drop in empathy after the year 2000," said Sara Konrath, a researcher at the U-M Institute for Social Research. "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as measured by standard tests of this personality trait."

I've recommended The Average American Male and The Lie for an understanding of today's college-age kids.  They are as bad as the books depict.

As for causes, Randall Parker blames video games.  I blame Baby Boomers.  You've told your kids for years that they are special - better than everyone else.  They took you at their word, and became the self-involved twits you now depend upon for your future.  

Oh, you don't depend on your children?  Instead, it's they who depend upon you?  Think again.  There are some real-world implications to your children's attitudes.  

As you might expect, all road lead to Wall Street.  Retirement savings will mean nothing if the Me Generation decides that working hard to maintain the Great American Ponzi Scheme doesn't offer anything it in for them.  

One of the empathy-measuring questions was:

2. Sometimes I don't feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems.

"But it's your duty!"  Duty is so old-fashioned, and course Boomers ran the United States into a $13 trillion dollar debt.  That debt is not something the Boomers intend to pay off.  Boomers have been mortgaging Generations X's, Y's, and Me's futures.  Even if we gave a crap, why would we fall for that argument?  Why is it our moral duty to pay off your debts?  

You waved flags while our friends who were too unwise to realize that "service" is a lie, were murdered in Iraq.  You ran Wall Street.  When Wall Street collapsed, you ran to and Congress - which you also ran -  for trillions.  In 20 years, why do you expect young people to care what happens to you?

Hyperinflation will hit.  Inflation is an abstract concept, but it's easy enough to understand.  Inflation is best understood as a stock-market loss.  If your 401k lost value during the beginning of the stock market collapse, then you understand inflation.  Inflation means you have the same amount of money, but each dollar is worth less.  Economically speaking, it's no different from suffering a market loss.

If you have $3,000,000 in retirement savings with an inflation rate of 50%, how much money will you have after one year?  Think about that question deeply - preferably before going to the polls in November.

The Bailout screwed over the majority of Boomers to enrich a few rich-and-well-connected Boomers.  What did you get out of the Bailouts?  A 25% gain in your 401k?  Goldman Sachs executives got enough money in one year to never worry about money for the rest of their lives.  All this, thanks to you.

Damn, aren't the Boomer-sponsored-and-controlled Bailouts seeming like an even worse idea?  Forget that the Bailout screwed over your children by costing over $2 trillion.  That was short-sighted and selfish.  It really was disgusting.  It was also expected.  It was Boomers, after all.  Yet the kids will eventually be fine.

Fortunately for the Me Generation, they have decades left to work.  Given the economic crisis and hyperinflation that is about to unfold, they''ll probably need four decades. Time is on their side.  If the stock market goes to zero or inflation hits 100%, a 20-or-30-something can start over.  Even a 40-something will be able to start over.

The Boomers are approaching retirement - or so they think.  

How many more years do the Boomers have left to work?  If inflation hits in 2020, what would that mean to you?  How will you recoup the lost dollars?  It's not like you can work forever.

It's fun to scream at and about the kids - whose sole crime seems to be laziness and a penchant for flip-flops and video games.  But your wars and bailouts killed yourselves, Boomers.  

If this doesn't make sense today, it will once you're happily retired only to watch your retirement funds swirl down Goldman Sachs' toilets.  In 10 or 20 years, who will bail you out?

Willful Ignorance is Chapter in "Prosecuting Sex Crimes Handbook"

The War Against Men has reached the schoolhouse:

A Fairfax County jury needed only 47 minutes Thursday to find a popular schoolteacher not guilty of molesting a 12-year-old girl in their school gym this year.

Sean Lanigan, 43, smiled and tears flowed among his dozens of supporters in the courtroom as the verdicts were read clearing Lanigan of charges of aggravated sexual battery and abduction. The case against him hinged on the testimony of two sixth-grade girls at Centre Ridge Elementary School in Centreville, who said Lanigan had scooped up one of the girls in the middle of the school gym, carried her into an equipment room, laid her down on a mat and massaged her shoulders, groping her in the process.

What is a "grope"?  Seriously.  Define it for me.  You can't.

Lanigan testified Wednesday that he did no such thing. The married father of three said he treated students the way he treated his children, picking them up, twirling them around, laughing and joking. He taught at Centre Ridge for 12 years and coached youth soccer throughout Northern Virginia for 20 years.

This is why men must never touch any child.  Is a hug a hug - or a grope.  Do you want to risk your freedom on differences of interpretation?  

Whatever "groping" means, it seems teacher didn't do it:

Lanigan and five other people testified that there were no mats in the equipment room where the girls said he carried one of them. 

Did the police and prosecutor attempt the corroborate the accusers' stories?  To see, like, if, maybe there was, like, actually, you know, a god-damned-fucking mat in the room where the girls said they were molested?  

To ask the question is to be naive and idealistic.  Police and prosecutors do not seek corroborating evidence - since often the evidence will not corroborate the false accusation.  What happens if a police officer learns that the girls could not have been molested on a mat - since there wasn't a mat?  Now the officer has to tell the parents that their daughters are sociopaths.

Then the media calls come.  "These God-fear parents had their daughters raped!?  Why aren't you doing something about it!?  Feminism, feminism, feminism demands a prosecution!"  

Everyone who becomes a prosecutor has an agenda - a plan for higher office.  Thus, prosecutors file cases against innocent men in order to avoid negative press.  Men are the prosecutor's sacrificial lambs.

Besides, a false accusation is all that's required for a conviction.  "Why would these little girls lie?!" the prosecutor bellows to a jury.  Most juries hear a child's testimony, and convict.  The teacher got lucky.  

The teacher lacks the experience and insight to realize just how lucky he got.  He should talk to someone like Norm Pattis, who defends sex crime cases.  People get convicted on a lot less than the testimony of two girls: "Why would both girls lie?  Lighting doesn't strike twice, does it?  Even if one girl is lying, surely they both aren't.  Right?"

Thus, police and prosecutors have no incentive to conduct what rational people would consider a complete investigation.  The Due Process Clause of the Constitution does not demand that police actively seek out exculpatory evidence.  No court has ever held that a criminal defendant has a right to be thoroughly investigated before being put into prison.

Prosecutors and police aren't required to provide a complete investigation, and thus they only look for evidence that can put you in prison.  Evidence that might clear you must be ignored.

Doesn't that make you feel good about the criminal justice system?  It's great when black males are being thrown into prison.  This school teacher, though, was just like us.  

Why then do you feel so safe, and view the police and prosecuting as being on your side?

Civil Forfeiture Goes Too Far: United States v. Hull

A rational person can simultaneously hold the following beliefs:

  • In a state of nature, people who look at child pornography should be removed from the gene pool.
  • In a nation of laws, a person who uses his property to commit crimes - by, say, growing marijuana - may have that property seized as the instrumentality of a crime.
  • In a nation of laws, a person who has child pornography on his computer should not have his home and 19 acres of property seized.

When people are prosecuted for possession of child pornography, judges forget that the United States is a nation of laws.  Reason sleeps.  United States v. Hull (CA8) (here).  See also United States v. Dodge Caravan.

Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(a)(3), the federal government may seize any property "used or intended to be usedto commit or to promote the commission of [a child-pornography related] offense."  If you use your computer to e-mail child porn, the government may seize your computer.  One might have philosophical objections to civil-forfeiture laws.  Yet Section 2252 would plainly allow the seizure of a laptop.  

Yet in United States v. Hull, the government seized substantially more property.  How much more?

Larry Richard Hull was convicted of two counts of distribution of childpornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). The district court2 orderedforfeiture of Hull’s real property, which consisted of approximately nineteen acres inrural Iowa, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2253(a)(3).

Nineteen acres of property?  Did the defendant use the property to hold children as slaves?  In that case, one might view the forfeiture as reasonable under the law.  Yet the property was not used to house children:

In 2007, Hull engaged in online conversations with a law enforcement agentwho was posing as a mother of two minor children. Special Agent Eric Adams of theUnited States Secret Service operated under the username “miamimisswith2,” anddescribed himself as a Florida mother named “Kathy” with twelve- and nine-year-olddaughters named “Kelly” and “Sam,” respectively. On several occasions, Hull transmitted images of child pornography to Adams. Hull expressed an interest inperforming sexual activities with “Kelly,” and encouraged “Kelly” to view his childpornography. He discussed the possibility of the group meeting in Florida or Iowa.

OK.  So take his computer.  he used his computer to have online chats with FBI agents posting as children, and to e-mail child pornography.  Yet the panel concluded otherwise:

We think it clear that Hull “used” his realproperty “to commit” or “to promote the commission of” the child pornography offenses. He set up a computer in a room in his house, connected to the Internet, and distributed child pornography from there.  The evidence showed a substantialconnection – not merely an incidental or fortuitous relationship – between the realproperty and the offenses. To be sure, use of the computer was necessary to committhe offenses, but the real property played a substantial role as well.

What did the nineteen acres have to do with the lap top? A lap top sits in your house.  You don't need 19 acres to go online.  The property existed, but wasn't used

United States v. Hull is one of the worst civil-forfeiture decisions of all time, and we hope that the Eighth Circuit agrees to rehear the case en banc.

Oklahoma Lawyers Robert Macy and Brad Miller, Added to Unethical Prosecutor List

Today the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Lucero, Murphy, and O'Brien) brought tears to the eyes of people who care about a more just criminal system. In granting habease relief to a prisoner, the Court identified - by name - the prosecutors who violated their oath of office, and their duties under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

There is a lengthy discussion of their misconduct. See page 32-36; 51-57.  Among other things: 

The prosecutors, Miller and Macy, then immediately proceeded to mislead the jury as to its role in sentencing by informing jurors (1) the jury’s work would be wasted if it failed to reach a unanimous verdict, (2) defense counsel’s argument that it took the vote of only one juror to prevent imposition of the death penalty constituted a request for “jury nullification,” and (3) failure to deliberate in a manner leading to a unanimous verdict would amount to operating outside the law.  Thus, immediately following the jury instructions, which spoke only of unanimity, the prosecutors engaged in intentional misconduct designed to misinform the jurors that it is improper for individual jurors to holdout against a majority vote and thereby prevent a unanimous verdict.

Many of you may not appreciate my gratitudes, so let me explain.

If you are charged with a crime, prosecutors will put your name in the newspapers.  Prosecutors often issue press releases very publicly identifying those who have been charged with a crime.  If you are acquitted at trial or the charges against you are dismiss, no matter: Your name will forever be connected to your alleged crimes. 

For the rest of your life, you'll be asked about the case you no doubt won "on a technicality" - that's assuming people bother calling you in for an interview.  

Nevertheless, prosecutors who commit gross misconduct are almost never identified in court opinions by name.  A typical judicial opinion reads:

People v. Crime & Federalism:

Detective Joe Smith and the prosecutor conspired to convict an innocent man.  The prosecutor suborned perjury.  The prosecutor committing professional malfeasance at a lever never seen by the court.  He is a discredit to the legal profession generally, and prosecutors specifically.

Who is "the prosecutor"?  Courts won't tell us.  I'm the guy who got framed, and my name is public record.  The prosecutor who framed me escapes any public censure or scrutiny.  How is that fair?

Moreover, unethical prosecutors should be identified to deter future misconduct.  Shame is a powerful sanction.  Most of us behave better when we know we are being watched.  Who will watch the prosecutors?  It should be judges.

Identifying unethical prosecutors matters.  I read an Ninth Circuit opinion that identified an unethical prosecutor by name.  That opinion was later withdrawn after the local United States Attorney wrote a motion taking responsibility for failing to train the young prosecutor, and begging that the young Assistant United State's Attorney's name be stricken from the Federal Reporter.  

Clearly, then, identifying prosecutors matters to prosecutors.  They do not want to be identified for committing misconduct.  Thus, identifying unethical prosecutors is an effective sanction against prosecutorial misconduct.

Moreover, prosecutors who commit misconduct will appear before different judges.  Don't those judges have a right to know that the prosecutor appearing before them lied in other cases?  The Federal Rules of Evidence allow a misdemeanor conviction involving dishonesty as impeachment evidence - as prior dishonesty is probative of future dishonesty.  If a prosecutor lied to a different judge, maybe he'll lie to this judge?

A judge - and defense lawyer - know to triple-check the assertions of a prosecutor who had committed prior misconduct.  Due diligence requires trust-but-verify.  Prosecutors who have committed misconduct in the past must be verified-and-verified.  Judge need to know whom to trust.

Thus, every time a judge publishes an opinion identifying prosecutors by name, I am going to brown nose.  I am 100% certain that no judge cares what I write.  It doesn't matter: If we're going to complain insulating prosecutors from their misconduct, then intellectual integrity demands that we praise opinions identifying unethical prosecutors.

And so, to Judges Lucero, Murphy, and O'Brien: Thank you.

Motivation and Men's Rights

I started blogging in 2004, and in six years have never had my motivations for writing questioned.  Writing about the oppression of blacks doesn't cause people to assume I'm black.  Writing about wrongful convictions doesn't lead people to believe that I've been wrongfully convinced.  Writing about sexual slavery doesn't make people think I am or know a sex slave.

Blog about men's rights, though, and watch the accusations fly.  I must blog about men's rights because I hate women.  Or I'm a loser.  Or I've been unsuccessful with women.  Surely I could not blog about men's rights because:

  • Men are victimized in domestic violence as often as women are;
  • Men are forced to pay child support, even when they are the not the biological father;
  • Men receive custody of their children in fewer than 10% of cases;
  • Men who pay child support are not allowed to demand an accounting of the child-support money, and thus must grit their teeth when a woman uses child-support payments for her new Range Rover;
  • Women who falsely accuse men of rape or child abuse are almost never prosecuted for their false accusations.

No.  All of those facts must be ignored.  Surely I can't care about the bad stuff that has happened to other men. I simply hate women.  I'm a misogynist.  I've failed at life.

The sheer hatred I've received through blogging about men's rights issues is inspiring.  Surely I am onto something, and thus encourage more hateful e-mails about my "motivations."

Now, some background: Like many C&F readers, I always rolled my eyes at the men's rights movements.  Most of the guys I viewed as beneath me.  They were dorky; socially awkward; not fashionable, nor fit.  "Of course your women left you," I thought to myself and often said to them, "You're not masculine."  

I've often told men who complain about relationship problems, "Go to the gym; take steroids; stop dressing like a moe." 

Until a few months ago, I had never looked into the men's rights movement.  Other priories, and all of that.

Once someone starts looking into the men's rights movement, some shocking facts come to light.  Many of those facts are listed above, but there are many more.  

A man can be a devoted husband for decades.  In a no-fault divorce state, his wife can leave him on a whim.  She can shack up with another man - all the while collecting alimony and child support. 

If the man loses his job, he will be be arrested and jailed for failure to pay child support and alimony.  Debtors prisons do exist.  We just call people who lose their jobs deadbeat dads instead of down-on-their-luck debtors.

Do you want to defend the current state of affairs?  If so, bring on your best arguments.  If the best you have is, "Misogyny!" save it for someone who gets intimidated by false accusations.

Discrimination Against Men Leads to Child's Death

How many more children must die before judges will start treating men equally under the law? 

(CNN) -- When 4-year-old Ethan Stacy was reluctantly sent off to spend the summer with his mother late last month, he was in effect being given a death sentence.

The child never had a chance. He was dead within two weeks of arriving at the apartment in Layton, Utah, where his mother lived with her fiancé.

Everyone acts as if the young boy's death is a mystery:

What could have been done to save him?"

I don't have a good answer for you," Layton police Lt. Garret Atkin, one of many law enforcement officers in Davis County, Utah, who are grieving for the boy who lived among them so briefly, told me.

I have a good answer: Treat father's equally.  In family court, custody presumptively goes to the mother.  Unless you can show that a mother is using heroine in front of the child, she gets custody.

What happens next may as well be scripted - if you know the back story.

Women generally lose interest in their beta-male husbands.  Betas are boring.  They don't bring drama.  Thus, women remove children from the safety of a beta male's home, and bring them into the arms of a sociopath.  Any man who has been divorced at one time confusedly asked his god: "She left me for that guy?"  Yes.  Everything you have been told about family is a lie.

Sociopaths are exciting - certainly much more exciting that the sucker who come homes exhausted after working to provide for his wife and children.  Women who leave their beta male husbands almost always flee into the arms of an asshole.  A jump from a tall building is exciting: It's hitting the ground that is a bummer.

The father tried to save his son from the fall:

His estranged wife was "unstable," he wrote to the court: "The mother has abandoned the child and I'm afraid the mother will come and take him and I'll never see him again."

Because the cries came from a man, the family court judge didn't even read the court filings:

But the judge in the divorce case, Maura T. Smith, told The Associated Press that she never read the filing. Judge Smith said that Ethan's parents had worked out a settlement, including shared custody, and that the finalization of their divorce last month was "cut and dried."

Judge Smith should be impeached for discrimination against men.  It won't happen.  Indeed, the law encourages discrimination against fathers.  

True story: A father who had weekend custody of his children went to drop the children off with their mother.  The mother and her boyfriend were piss-drunk in the living room.  On a Sunday night.

The father took the children back to his home; allowed them to spend the night with him; and delivered the children to their mother at 9 a.m. on Monday.

For this, the father was charged with interference with parental rights.  He was tried in criminal court.  Although acquitted, he had to endure the stress of a legal battle, and $10,000 in legal fees.

Until men receive equal protection under the law, women will continue murdering their children.  The question you must ask yourselves: How did your hearts become so full of hatred for men, that you'd allow children to be murdered by unfit mothers?

No one - certainly not me - is demanding that fathers are presumptively better parents than mothers.  All we demand is that men receive equal protection under the law.  When women are receiving custody in 90-95% of cases, no one can rationally claim that men are receiving equal treatment.

Until men receive equal treatment under the law, no man should have children.  They can be taken from you at the whim of a family court judge.  Your wife can take the children into a drug house, where your children will be molested, and beaten to death.  When you beg a family court judge to help, you will be mocked.  When you try saving your own children, you will be arrested.

In today's world, any man who has children is gambling not just with his own freedom - but with the life of an innocent child.  Is the gamble worth it?  If it's worth if for you, is it also worth it for your children?

The Beta Male's Slave Morality

Although we live in a patriarchy that unenduringly oppresses women, over 50% of men find themselves in sexless marriages.  Some beta male just wrote a long article about his sexless marriage for New York Magazine.  In typical patriarchal fashion, he blames himself for his wife's failure to honor her marital vows:  

With so many couples, especially those with two careers and children, sex just falls off the list, like some dance craze from our youth that everyone’s forgotten. 

Do they forget to eat?  Or use the bathroom?  For a normal male - even a feminized Western non-male like the beta author - sex is as much of a biological need as eating or breathing.

I will wager anyone here that the beta author watches Internet porn and masturbates at his computer.  This is not rhetoric.  I have a grand on it.  

Anyone want the other side of that bet?  Thought not.

Of course the beta wants sex.  He needs it.  It's his wife who is no longer interested.  Yet he blames himself.  He should blame himself for his lack of a sex life, but not for the reasons he's been taught.

The author is living the typical beta's life.  Like all of his Gender Studies professors told him, he is emotionally supportive of his wife.  He even does all of the household chores:

I work at home, and as such our house and its needs constitute half of my work. I’ve been a freelance writer and editor for the eleven years we’ve been married, while my wife has gone from one magazine to another, ascending the editorial masthead. As her work has become more demanding as well as more remunerative, the tasks of cooking, cleaning, and keeping track of the children have fallen to me.

He is the American male who "does it all."  His reward?  On a good day he might find five minutes to watch Internet porn.  Then he'll go fold the laundry.

True to form, our beta male apologies for his wife:

When she leaves work, she’s fleeing minions demanding her time: editors, art directors, publicists, and publishers—they all want something and they want it now. The last thing she wants to deal with when she gets home is somebody else’s needs.

This man - who is truly no man at all - is apologizing for his wife's lack of a sex drive.  He is rationalizing her breach of the marital vow of monogamy.  He is not alone.

The comments are a depressing reminder of the decline of the Western Empire.  Men grew up in a culture that lied to them.  Here is a representative example of Today's American Man:

Despite my best efforts (I wrote her a 5 page love-letter for valentines day), and efforts to do all the family laundry on weekends, I get the kids bkfst in the AM, get them on the bus, do the dishes most days, but nada. No love for me. It's painful dude. Like it or not - wish I could make my sex drive go away - I have a NEED to be wanted by my wife. But she has no need to see me fulfilled, and she has no need for sex.

Here is another Typical American Male:

I also do the cleaning, laundry, cooking, take care of HER daughter (previous relationship) and pretty much do everything in hopes of a chances to maybe get a few minutes of passion. I see myself fearing approaching her in a sexual way because I'm afraid of the "is that all you think of???!!!" 

It's time to re-educate the married American male.  Here's my advice: Fuck someone else.  

You think I'm joking?  Not a chance.

Monogamy means sex with one other person: "The word monogamy comes from the Greek word monos "μονός", which means one or alone, and the Greek word gamos "γάμος", which means marriage or union."    Monogamy does not mean no sex.  Monogamy does not mean a life as a monk.  It means sex with one other person.

A person who enters into a monogamous relationship but then denies sex to the other, has destroyed the monogamous relationship.  A woman who refuses to have sex with her husband is as much of an adulterer as Tiger Woods.  Therefore, it is ethical for the non-breaching partner to sleep with other people.  

As a man, it's actually your moral duty to sleep with other women.  Anyone who'd chain you to a room and deny you food has no right to accuse you of stealing bread.  A man who would not throw off his chains is no man at all.

I can, of course, predict the comments.  A husband who is not getting sex form his wife should "man up" and leave his wife.  Yes, let's examine that.

First, any man who would leave his wife due to an inadequate sex life would receive a feminist scoop full of scorn.  "There's so much more to marriage than sex," we'd hear.  

Yet those same people who argue that there is much more to marriage than sex would also be the first to file for divorce for infidelity.  If there's so much more to marriage than sex, then why do you care if your partner is having sex outside of the marriage?!

Thus, men are ordered to follow this moral code: Sex is a tiny part of the marriage - when your wife denies you sex.  Sex is 100% of the marriage - when you step outside of the marriage to seek a release.

Does that moral code make any logical sense?  Either sex is really important, or it's not.  Right?  This moral code fails any logical scrutiny.

It sounds like a slave's code to me.  Your wife is your master.  She will tell you when and where you have sex.  She has 100% control over your sex life.

Is that how you want to life your life?  As a slave?  Then how can you call yourself a man?

Second, a man who files for divorce is going to lose custody of his children.  He is going to lose his home.  He is going to pay alimony.  He will suffer emotional and financial disaster because his wife broke the vow of monogamy.  

Sounds like "manning up" is code for being a chump.  

By the way, why doesn't anyone ever say, "Woman up and have sex with your husband"?  Isn't it interesting that it's only men who are supposed to "man up" by doing something hard?  A woman who doesn't feel like having sex is never told, "Woman up: Even if you don't want to have sex, at least give your husband a blow job."

It's time to start teaching true feminism.  Feminism means mutuality of obligations.  Marriage means a man and woman are co-equal partners.  They share in rights and responsibilities.  

Feminism means holding men and women responsible for their decisions.  Equally responsible.  A woman who refuses to have sex with a man has made a choice.  She has deemed her husband unworthy of sexual attention.

It is your wife's right to deny you sex.  Yes, it's a breach of the vow of monogamy.  Yes, it's immoral.  As humans, we have the right to behave immorally.

As a man in a sexless marriage, you too have rights.  You have the right to seek sex elsewhere.  Anyone who would tell you otherwise envisions enslavement as your end.

How many men who have sex 3-5 times a week with their wife, cheat?  Outside of legitimate sexual addiction, it doesn't happen.  While a man has a biological desire for "strange," a man can live in a monogamous relationship.  Men would be clubbing each other over the heads if biological impulses were immune to an act of will.  Monogamy is possible: Zerogamy is not.

If women don't want their husbands "cheating" on them, then women should stop cheating on their husbands.  Maintain your vow of monogamy, and you'll never have to wonder if your husband is cheating.

And of course this logic applies to men.  A man who deems his wife unworthy of sexual attention has no right to protest when someone else does.

On Wall Street and the Coming Economic Collapse: It's Not Your Fault (But It Will Be)

Although American society preaches that one should never take personal responsibility for his actions, usually the bad things that happen in your life are your fault.  If you sat down and examined the shackles around your ankle, you'd see that you welded the first link.  You didn't have any comprehension how heavy the chains would finally be.  You didn't realize so many others would rush to weighten the chains.  That you didn't foresee the extent of your slavery doesn't negate your decision to become a slave.

Finally, though, we Americans get to actually say: It's not our fault.

Democracy failed.  Although the United States was born through an act of terrorism now know as the Boston Tea Party, we Americans are a boring, law-abiding bunch.  We are no different from the British loyalists.  When Joe Stacks flew his airplane into an IRS building, no one dared call him a hero.

We said we understood why Joe Stacks committed an act of terrorism.  We were too cowardly to say that Joe Stacks should have flown his airplane into the top floor of Goldman Sachs.  

We live in a democracy?  Joe Stack was wrong.  He should vote!  Follow the law.  Elect leaders who will bring us hope and change.

And so you all voted for Barack Obama.  Not only did you vote for him - an excusable error in a two-party system - You believed in him.  You accepted him as America's messiah.

What did your faith yield?  In 2009, Obama gave hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars to Wall Street.  In 2009, Wall Street paid that money out - in cash.

When the hoi poi suggested that Goldman Sachs traders all get paid in stock, the traders balked.  They wanted cash.  Today.  That the Masters of the Financial Universe have so little faith in the economy that they want their money Right Fucking Now should be a major tell.  Those closets to the markets have no faith in them.

The banksters wanted cash, and they got it.

When the unwashed masses suggested that Wall Street be taxed at 50% for 2009, Obama did nothing.  Congress did nothing.  Wall Street got to keep their money.  Because of tax loopholes, many traders only paid 15% in income taxes.

Billions for them, no interest for you.  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates at nero-zero rates.  Those of you who had worked for decades couldn't store your money in a bank, as your money wouldn't make anything.  You were thus nudged to the stock markets.

Many of you lost 25-40% of your net worth.  Based on the market's current direction, you may lose nearly everything.

None of what has happened it your fault.  You believed that we lived in a nation of laws.  You believed that voting mattered.  You believed that democracy existed.

It is time, children, to cast aside childish illusions.  You don't matter.  You don't have a vote.  You are a serf who serves at the leisure of your Wall Street Lords and Saviors.

What happens next is your fault.  Are you going to give democracy one more chance?  There is an election coming in November.  Whom are you going to vote for?

Are you going to fight over illegal immigration?  Gay marriage?  Abortion?  Gun control?

If so, congratulations on being Lloyd Blankfein's patsy.  

Wall Street loves watching you fight amongst yourselves.  While you engage in constant husband-and-wife-like bickering, the bankers are looting your house.  It might feel good to argue with one another - just as getting drunk feels good.

Once you stop fighting, you're going to notice that your house has been robbed.  Once the intoxicant of battle wears off, you're going to have a hangover.

Will you continue slaving for Wall Street?  In November, you must vote out anyone who has supported Wall Street.  Nothing else matters.  Being able to bicker over illegal immigration is a privilege of living in a rich country.  Destroy the economy - which Wall Street is intent on doing - and you'll realize how insignificant your disputes are.

By then it will be too late.

White v. McKinley: More Shocking Facts in False Child Molestation Case

Earlier today the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in White v. McKinley.  In White v. McKinley, a wife falsely accused her husband of child molestation. The cop she was having an affair with withheld evidence exonerating the husband. At least two prosecutors (Jennifer Mettler and Jill Kanatzar) knew about the affair, but didn't disclose this information to the defense. 

The husband was convicted of child molestation, and spent over 5 years in prison.  Only later did he learn about the affair.   The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed his conviction.  After being re-tried twice, the husband was exonerated.

Before he was exonerated at trial, his wife filed for divorce.  As part of the divorce settlement, she received $6,100 in child support, and $600,000 in company stock.  She then married the police detective who conspired with her to convict an innocent man.

After being exonerated, the husband sued.  In 2008, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel allowed the case proceed to trial.  White v. McKinley (2008) (here).  The initial panel's decision presented facts even more disturbing than its 2010 White opinion:

Prior to [the detective's January 1999 deposition, the prosecutor told Richard that he would need to answer questions aboutthe affair truthfully. The prosecutor said he would cough to signal to Richard when he needed to disclose the affair in response to a question. Richard was asked if he had any personal interest in the case, during a deposition, and he stated he did not. The prosecutor did not signal him to say otherwise. Consequently, White never learned ofRichard and Tina's affair before his first criminal trial.

How is that not a conspiracy to obstruct justice?  The detective and prosecutor clearly conspired to deprive an innocent man of his rights.  They clearly intended to obstruct a criminal investigation.  As the detective was under oath during the deposition, the prosecutor and detective conspired to commit perjury.

Why haven't the prosecutor and detective faced criminal prosecution?  

As part of the divorce settlement, Tina and Detective (yes, he's still a detective) Richard McKinley received over $600,000.  Why haven't they been prosecuted for theft? 

Why haven't the unethical prosecutors been disbarred?  Jill Kanatzar is now a highly-paid partner at Dollar, Burns & Becker.  Her husband is now the Jackson County District Attorney.   Detective Richard McKinley remains a highly-paid member of the Lee's Summit Police Department.

While an innocent man was being raped for a crime that police and prosecutors framed him of, those same police and prosecutors received pay raises and promotions.  They aren't even responsible for paying the verdict that Mr. White ultimately received.  Instead, Lee's Summit taxpayers are footing the bill:

The city of Lee’s Summit settled its part of the case in 2006 by agreeing to cover any judgments against McKinley after its insurance carriers had paid. Mayor Karen Messerli said the city could be paying a substantial sum from taxpayer’s dollars.

Taxpayers had nothing to do with the man's wrongful conviction.  Tina McKinley, Jennifer Mettler, Jill Kanatzar, and Detective Richard McKinley had everything to do with the conviction.  Nevertheless, those who are most responsible are being held the least accountable.  In what world does it make sense to punish those least responsible, while rewarding those most responsible?

Interestingly, the panel's 2008 opinion did not identify the unethical prosecutors by name.  Instead, the panel referred to "the prosecutor."  A person looking for information about Jennifer Mettler and Jill Kanatzar would thus not discover that they are unethical prosecutors who helped conspire to frame an innocent man for child molestation.  

The panel's 2010 opinion, however, identified the unethical prosecutors by name.  Thank you, your honors, for taking a step towards holding prosecutors accountable.

In a just world, the unethical prosecutor would be disbarred and prosecuted.  In the unjust world we live in, prosecutors who violate the law should at least be identified by name in the Federal Reporter.

My only request is that you forward a copy of your opinion to the Missouri Bar Association.  I'd do it myself, but suspect that my report would be treated with less gravitas than yours:

The Missouri Bar 

PO Box 119 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Phone: 573-635-4128 | FAX: 573-635-2811

No amount of money will give Mr. White his life back. Contacting the State Bar will ensure that Jennifer Mettler and Jill Kanatzar are never again allowed to abuse their law licenses.