Celebrate the (imminent) demise of the Boston Globe

As if any self-respecting Massachusetts man still needed a reason to shun the Boston Globe, in a charitable mood, apparently, they have decided to provide us with yet another. In a Feb 4 editorial, they write: “Amid widespread anxiety over looming cuts in education, municipal services, and aid for those in need in Massachusetts, there’s an easy way for the Legislature to prove its commitment to cutting waste: by passing Senator Brian A. Joyce’s bill to abolish the Governor’s Council.”

Whoa!  What’s going on here?  The Globe advocating for reducing the size of government, the abolition of an agency that impacts our famously “progressive” courts? What’s up? 

Well you might ask. The issue for which the Globe has suddenly found religion is the Governor’s Council, an elected board of officials of the executive branch that advises on the suitability of the state’s judges -- which in Massachusetts are appointed by the Governor, hence the name “Governor’s Council”.

Specifically, the Globe decries that the Fatherhood Coalition, a Fathers Rights organization, has for the past couple of years attended the public meetings and actually questioned judicial candidates about matters that impact fathers (How dare they? Can they do this?).  And that, in the last go-round, three board members, perhaps persuaded by what they heard from the Fatherhood Coalition, actually voted against the candidate!  [Rest assured, the nominee, Fernande Duffly, a liberal feminist, did pass with a 4-3 vote.]

But this is far too close for comfort for the Globe. When the momentum of the game starts to turn, there’s only one thing to do: change the rules. Fathers Rights advocates should be used to this. When Steve Basile did research on the issuing of so-called ch. 209A “abuse protection” orders, the legislature quickly passed legislation preventing any future mischief by any entities who dare question the feminist orthodoxy on domestic violence. [They amended the state’s version of the Freedom of Information Act to restrict access to 209A information to the sisterhood—with the help of Globe reporting, I hesitate to add.]

Hence the Globe giving their dispensation for the legislature to now act on abolishing this particular government agency that has been infiltrated by their opponents­—that is, anyone who opposes the Globe’s agenda for social progressivism.

It has taken a long time for Fathers Rights advocates to intelligently organize and focus on specific targets such as the Governor’s Council. It’s to their credit that they show up at each public hearing for each judicial nominee and raise the right questions: namely about the massive and widespread injustices inflicted on fathers on a daily basis in our courts, specifically through the issuance of these 209A “abuse protection” orders that grant women immediate child custody, throw a man out of his home and impose other restrictions on his liberty and freedom, based on merely a women’s statement that she is afraid of him, without a jury trial or any nod to civil liberties or the presumption of innocence.

There is no gray area on these issues. There is a clear right and wrong.  Even for the stupidest members of the Governor’s Council, the truth becomes unavoidable when it is clearly verbalized in these hearing (which were videoed and are available on youtube). It really doesn’t take much to dispel feminist dogma about “batterer fathers” and child support with ridiculously embarrassing facts about how men are actually treated in the legal system in “domestic relations” issues. They merely need to be heard.

Of course, there are also retarded members of the Council, like Thomas Merrigan, whose victim-feminist indoctrination is so deep that they are quite frankly uneducable. For these people the only remedy is removal from the Council: defeating them at the polls (Governor’s Council members are elected).

So now we see why the Globe has chosen to make visible an otherwise obscure issue. When was the last time the Globe reported on the Governor’s Council?

When the Globe engages in this kind of activism, it rarely just fires from one barrel. True to form they printed a friendly letter the same day as their editorial appeared from one Jo Ann Citron, a family law attorney, who writes,

“Thoughtful citizens watched with horror as Fernande R.V. Duffly’s nomination to the Supreme Judicial Court came close to being blocked by what the Globe described as “the growing clout of fathers’ rights activists’’ (“Duffly is narrowly approved for SJC,’’ Metro, Jan. 27).”

Here is some info from attorney Citron’s web page (http://beta.citronlaw.net/ABOUT/JoAnnCitron/tabid/87/Default.aspx):

“Her current law practice is ... characterized by a willingness to challenge outmoded ideas and assumptions about the nature of families.

“Citron has ... consulted for the Northeastern University Domestic Violence Institute, been a Visiting Research Scholar at the Center for Research on Women at Wellesley College, and between 2002 and 2007 was Visiting Assistant Professor of Women's Studies at Wellesley College where she taught an advanced seminar in the law and public policy of family formation and dissolution.

”... where her practice is limited to participating in impact litigation situated on the legal frontier of family formation and dissolution.  For example, Citron was lead counsel in Beth R. v. Donna M., in which a team of talented lawyers successfully litigated the right of a same-sex spouse to obtain a divorce under New York law, thereby establishing full parental rights and responsibilities for her non-biological children.”

“Citron is a past officer of the Women’s Bar Association, the Women’s Bar Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.” 

As Stan Lee would say: “Nuff said.”

Here’s a word to the wise for all those that have been harmed by the Globe: Cease trying to educate the Globe. Yes, the Globe is perhaps the single most powerful political entity in Massachusetts, but there is reason to rejoice. The Globe, like most newspapers, will soon go out of business, largely for reasons having nothing to do with social politics and everything to do with changes in technology.

Why not rejoice, even if prematurely?  Let’s start preparing now for our “Ding dong the witch is dead” party.  A two-stage affair: (1) a nice street gauntlet on Morrissey Blvd on the great day to voice our appreciation to the good employees of the Globe on their last day, followed by (2) a formal affair at a nice hotel where all the good people of Massachusetts can celebrate the blessed day with a parade of testimonials on how the Globe shamelessly perverted accepted journalistic canons to advance their feminist, anti-family agenda.

Got health care?

Now that the Republicans have regained the House, health care is back front-and-center in the political spotlight. As an apoplectic opponent of the nanny state and all things politically correct, I take a contrary view on this singular issue. Consider: the cost of a night in the hospital in the U.S. is six times that in Europe. We spend more than twice as much per person on health care as the other rich nations of the world; fully one-sixth of every dollar generated by our economy. So, with one-sixth of the population with no health care coverage, and day-long emergency-room waits (the latter largely a direct consequence of the former): no, FoxNews et al, we don't have the best health care in the world. What we do have is arguably the very worst health care delivery system in the industrialized world.

Health care reform as a political imperative, specifically a single-payer system, has found a home in the Democratic Party.  To the Republican Party it is anathema, considered an evil on the order of paganism or communism. Hence the partisan struggle that erupted over it with the Obama administration’s initiative.

The Republicans' strategy was simple and effective: in Congress, oppose every facet and proposal to force cumbersome and costly compromises to the evolving legislation while attacking universal health care coverage in principle 24/7 in the media. The goal was to produce a final bill that would be so onerous, generating new opposition piecemeal with each new compromise, that it would simply be unworkable and eventually go down to defeat, falling down just shy of the finish line.

This simple but brilliant plan almost worked—everything succeeded but the final step: the bill actually passed.  Let me get this straight: the problem was that the cost of health care had grown to such absurd proportions that it was bankrupting individuals and businesses, hurting our ability to compete in the global marketplace (can you say “General Motors”?), not to mention the ever-growing cost of Medicaid and Medicare to the federal government. And so the final solution is not to implement anything that will actually reduce costs, but rather, simply require all Americans to buy health insurance— and to add insult to injury, inflict new costs to business! Yes, this is the worst of all worlds. Collectively and individually, we are now worse off than before “Obama-care” became law. Thank you, Republicans.

A typical health care premium costs between one and two mortgage payments. So, in the first instance, it is absurd and insulting to believe working-class Americans can afford this. Secondly, in the midst of the greatest financial/economic crisis since the Great Depression, the legislation places enormous new burdens on businesses small and large, guaranteeing a severe braking force on any potential economic growth needed to turn the corner and avoid going over the economic cliff (i.e., the so-called “double-dip”).

In the 2008 primaries, while the Republicans were elbowing each other out of the way to proclaim the authenticity of their denial of evolution, the Democrats were competing in an equally stupid manner. One after the other, each candidate asserted their allegiance to the notion that under their administration mental health would be treated no different than conventional health care. Wonderful. Hence, bipolar disorder, the scourge of our time, is to be considered a “disease” no different than diabetes. Common sense begs to differ.

How no Republican candidate failed to seize on this, if for no other reason than to distinguish themselves from their opponents, is beyond me. Instead, they all parroted the party-line  conservative talking points. Forgive me, but as a working-class American, my chief fear about health care is not that “a government bureaucrat gets between me and my doctor”—but that (a) I don’t have a doctor because I have no insurance, or (b) I don’t lose my home because I accidentally break my leg and the cost of surgery and several days in the hospital is counted in the tens of thousands of dollars.

And with respect to all those Canadians streaming across the border to take advantage of our superior medical care, please consider the following scenario. If Americans without any health care coverage or who can’t afford their growing deductibles and various out-of-pocket expenses were permitted to travel to Canada to take advantage of its supposedly terrible medical care, how would their numbers compare with the dissatisfied (and presumably inordinately wealthy) Canadians?  If it was me and the choice was (a) tough it out for several weeks until it’s my turn for the inferior medical procedure, or (b) lose my home to pay for it here where we have the “best system of health care in the world,” it’s a no-brainer.

And finally, to the complaint that socialized medicine would require rationing, I say, bring it on.  Of course rationing will be required!. But intelligent rationing—something that politicians from neither party have addressed. So, to help get the discussion started on intelligent rationing, here, off the top of my head, are some suggestions:

Alzheimer’s: yes;                Anorexia Nervosa: no.

Cancer: yes;                      contraception: not on my dime.

Gout: yes;                          General Anxiety Disorder: maybe next year.

AIDS: yes;                        ADHD: where’s daddy?

Bronchitis: yes;                  Botox: sorry, Nancy.

Appendicitis: yes;               abortion: not on your life.

Gallstones: yes;                  gender re-assignment surgery: go fuck yourself.

Dental work: yes;               breast implants: get over yourself.

Diabetes: yes;                    Depression: get a job.

Arthritis: yes;                     Alcoholism:  Have you made your decision for Christ?

Knee replacement: yes;      Nutrition: sorry, can’t afford it right now; do your own due diligence.

Osteoporosis: yes.             Obesity: try eating less?

Atrial Fibrillation: yes;        Asperger’s Syndrome:  get a life.

Testicular cancer: yes;       Tourette’s syndrome: fuck you.

Hospice: yes;                    “Death panels”:  no, Sarah.

The obscene cost of health care bankrupts Americans and businesses alike—and it is bankrupting the nation as a whole. A problem this big can't be fixed by tweaking the existing private insurance system with "market reforms," or tort reform—it is way too late for that. The only solution is the one employed by every other civilized nation in the world: a single-payer system.