Paternity Rights: Losing Fatherhood

Saturday, November 21, 2009

I can’t believe how angry I am over this. Just finished an article in the NY Times magazine about cuckolded men raising children who are not their own. The article, Who Knew I Was Not the Father?, written by an adjunct professor at Columbia, is almost completely unsympathetic to the plight of men who have raised children to whom that have no genetic tie.

I am incensed. Livid. Apoplectic. The article cites several men who have sought to stop child support upon finding out only to be shot down by the courts in the interest of the child.

In the main case, the biological father is married (years later) to the mother and has no legal support obligations for his child. The cuckolded man does. It’s a bloody outrage.

Not once, in the entire article, does this hack take issue with the duplicity of the mother, the person solely responsible for the fraud, and the person (w/ the biological father) who should be entirely responsible for the financial support of the child. Where is that article? What kind of person does this to a man and, more importantly, to a child? Does this reflect upon her qualifications to be a parent? Shouldn’t these women be stripped of their children?

The answer, it seems, is no. Because it will upset the child. The author cites a lobbyist (now fighting against these women), who abandoned his child and won the right to have no financial obligations. She makes him sound like a monster. She quotes his young adult “daughter” as confused and damaged and mentions the suffering she endured because her “father” abandoned her.


She’s not even mentioned. And, one presumes, the daughter doesn’t blame her.

Some advocates now suggest that there be mandatory paternity tests for all fathers at birth to avoid this problem. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. The entire tone of the article suggests a kind of mystification as to why these men would be so upset about this.


I mean, really?

P.S. On a related note, as I have written before, men should have the right to opt out of financial support for a child during the same time period that a woman can choose to abort the fetus. Figure out for yourself why this is fair and just.


Eric Holder: Waterboarding is Torture

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Leahy’s first question about waterboarding.

Holder was very clear. Yes, waterboarding is torture.

It’s going to be interesting to hear his take on prosecutions against the Bush administration.

CNN and CSpan have it.

Leon Panetta at CIA

Monday, January 5, 2009

I’m trusting that there is some reasonable underlying motivation for this pick, but on the surface it’s just…weird.

Then again, maybe not. If Panetta really is a strong manager, an outsider may be just what the CIA needs to get it’s shit straight after the embarrassment of the Tenet years. Those guys should withhold judgment until Panetta gets the job.

Nevertheless, he has no experience going into, what seems to be, a job that strongly resists outsiders.

Right now, just have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

Obama’s National Security Team

Monday, December 1, 2008

At the press conference, one journalist asked him if India had the right to take action against terrorists on Pakistani territory (as Obama has suggested he would do). Obama dodged the question, but it does point out the geopolitical complications of such a policy.


Anyway, I am please with Obama’s team. I know Hillary will work very hard and I’ll bet (any takers?) she will be more loyal and less complicated than most people expect. I understand that GEN. Jones is a good choice, and I respect Gates (despite whatever murk is in his past) as a manager and as a forward thinker. As for the rest, we’ll see. I do expect big things from Eric Holder. There are many important legal issues surrounding Bush and the “War on Terror” that needed to be sorted out and/or rectified. I am cautiously optimistic that Obama/Holder will act accordingly.

Why Marriage Matters

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Andrew Sullivan on why marriage matters to same-sex couples:

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love. It isn’t about religion. It’s about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category — civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever — may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

This is a moving (and short) essay. You should read it in its entirety.

Fight against Proposition 8 (to amend California’s constitution to ban same-sex marriages).

Bush in China

Thursday, August 7, 2008

The Beijing Olympics have been a human rights disaster in China. There has been a nationwide crackdown on dissidents and a marked uptick in surveillance and propaganda. Ellen Bork from Freedom House writes about it today in the Wall Street Journal.

China’s diligent focus on censoring anything unsavory to its Communist rulers as the Olympics approaches has had an unintended ironic effect. The world is watching as this crackdown unfolds. Everyday in the paper, on blogs, and on websites, we see new stories of China’s trampling on the rights of its people. This shining of light, Bush’s remarks in Thailand

America stands in firm opposition to China’s detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates and religious activists. We press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs, but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs.

…and the unavoidable context that must complement any story about the Olympics under this repressive regime, can only help. So, perhaps, the silver lining to the cloud that hovers over Beijing (no pun intended), is that we are all paying attention, and the Chinese know that we do not approve. A cultural meme is setting in. And, in time, ideas give flower to change. I quote Bush again:

Change in China will arrive on its own terms and in keeping with its own history and its own traditions. Yet change will arrive. And it will be clear for all to see that those who aspire to speak their conscience and worship their God are no threat to the future of China. They’re the people who will make China a great nation in the 21st century.

Let us hope that Bush will continue to press this issue. Write him here to let him know you want him to.

P.S. Here’s a harrowing report from Amnesty International on China’s human rights situation.

Charting Bush’s Crimes

Friday, July 25, 2008

Check out this great interactive graphic on Slate. You can rollover the crimes or the names of the officials involved for a snapshot look at the illegal activities of the Bush administration. This is a basic dossier for understanding how our criminal justice system has failed America to date.

These are real crimes by real criminals. Real laws were broken. Contact your representatives and let them know you care.