For my first such posting, I thought I post some very sharp political commentary, courtesy of The Houston Chronicles' Nick Anderson (disclaimer: don't shoot the messenger!)
Monday, April 16, 2012
Issues In The News (For Dummies!)
As a first for Beyond The Political Spectrum, I recently got the inspiration to start posting exceptionally insightful political satire (via political cartoons) about various social and political issues currently in the news.
For my first such posting, I thought I post some very sharp political commentary, courtesy of The Houston Chronicles' Nick Anderson (disclaimer: don't shoot the messenger!)
For my first such posting, I thought I post some very sharp political commentary, courtesy of The Houston Chronicles' Nick Anderson (disclaimer: don't shoot the messenger!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello Beyond The Political Spectrum,
ReplyDeleteBeing a Republican myself, I hear the verbiage expressed in the top panel and enjoyed it very much as it really addressed the root of the topic. But I, unlike the majority of those within the Party, do not look for, nor address arguments were there are none.
Having two daughters myself, I am concerned with the legislation being introduced across the nation that would harm and make submissive the lives of my daughters, or anyone else’s for that matter.
May I pose the question for discussion as to the effect what I have seen and read of the proposed legislation to monitor and mandate women’s lives, does it appear no different than the old “Jim Crow” laws only being applied to gender instead of race?
To be honest, I'm one of the few who actually believes in the sanctity of life...all life. With the exception of quality-of-life/end-of-life decisions (which it should be left up to the individual), the death culture we have in this country should be abolished...abortion as well as capital punishment (Providence alone brought us here as it should be left up to Providence or the individual, not the state, to determine under what conditions we leave). That being said, I understand from a moral standpoint the Republicans' desire to protect the life of the unborn, but such a single-minded directive creates a schizophrenic policy platform--why is it OK to mandate "less government" when it comes to the market economy/economic equality, but have no qualms of government interfering in the personal rights/social policy affecting others (who can marry, end-of-life, contraception, etc.).It also seems very little difference (except for intent) between the old Jim Crow laws meant to maintain the system of white supremacy in the South and gender roles now (e.g., "the man knows what's best for women"). Granted, I believe that the male is the (natural and traditional) head of the household, but if there is no man around in the capacity as family head, then why should ANY man tell a woman what and how to do things?
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm not intelligent enough to see the logic in some of the statements on this blog. "but if there is no man around in the capacity as family head, then why should ANY man tell a woman what and how to do things?" Or "does it appear no different than the old “Jim Crow” laws only being applied to gender instead of race?"
DeleteJim Crow laws were a form of legalized bigotry, VAWA and primary aggressor laws passed on behalf of women are a form of legalized bigotry but yet embraced by a society that has always favored WOMEN OVER MEN. Please don't make me give you 100 examples of this.
To ask, why should any man tell a woman what and how to do things is completely disingenious and out of context to which I reply. Women use the state (the new daddy/head of household) to make men do things all the time. A man and woman make a baby and woman doesn't want baby for any reason she gets a do-over (abortion). A man doesn't want a baby, he is a cad, deadbeat dad and will be pursued like a criminal for 18+ years with involuntary servitude to a woman. The exact same argument made on behalf of women in the legal arguments given in Roe v. Wade.
GLORIA STEINEM SAID, “IT’S A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT TO DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN OR NOT." A FEM CAUGHT LYING. MEN HAVE ZERO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. IF WOMAN WANTS CHILD, WANTS ABORTION, WANTS TO GIVE CHILD AWAY A MAN HAS ZERO SAY IN THE MATTER. IF SHE LIES BOUT BEING ON PILL, LIES ABOUT WHO DAD IS, LIES ABOUT RAPE OR DOM VIOLENCE IT DOESN’T MATTER. WOMEN HAVE THE UPPER HAND. WHEN MEN HAD THE UPPER HAND IT WAS CALLED OPPRESSION, NOW THAT WOMEN HAVE THE UPPER HAND IT IS CALLED EQUALITY.
LET’S LOOK AT HOW SUCCESSFUL (MORE GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF WOMEN) PUTTING MEN IN PRISON FOR MAKING BABIES WITH WOMEN HAS BEEN:
90 GIRLS PREGNANT IN MEMPHIS HIGH SCHOOL IN ONE YEAR
60% OF SINGLE BLACK WOMEN WITH CHILDREN WITHOUT DAD IN THE HOUSE
40% OF SINGLE WHITE WOMEN WITH CHILDREN WITHOUT DAD IN THE HOUSE
70% OF WOMEN FILE FOR DIVORCE
50% OF MARRIAGES END IN DIVORCE
95% OF WOMEN GET CHILD CUSTODY FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THEY SIT DOWN TO PEE, BUT ARE TWICE AS LIKELY TO MURDER, ABUSE OR NEGLECT A CHILD THAN MEN BASED ON STATS FROM THE DEPT. OF HUMAN & HEALTH SERVICES 9 YRS IN A ROW. SHOULDN'T MEN BE GETTING CUSTODY 95% BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, BUT WHO KNOWS THAT INFORMATION?
40% OF MEN IN RELATIONSHIPS WILL HAVE FALSE RAPE OR FALSE DOM VIOLENCE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THEM.
IN 50 STATES A WOMAN CAN SUE A MAN FOR BEING LEFT AT THE ALTAR (JILTED IS THE COMMON TERM) BUT ONLY IN 3 STATES (KY IL AK) CAN A MAN SUE A WOMAN FOR PATERNITY FRAUD WHEN YOU CAN PROVE THE CHILD IS NOT YOURS BY DNA. THE OTHER 47 DON'T ALLOW IT TO EVEN BE BROUGHT INTO COURT (sounds like gender bigotry to me)
30% OF ALL KIDS THAT MOMS ARE GETTING CHILD SUPPORT FOR ARE NOT FATHERED BY THE MAN PAYING THE CHILD SUPPORT. THE TERM IS DEFAULT DAD. ONLY IN FIVE STATES CAN A MAN GET OUT OF PAYING CHILD SUPPORT WHEN HE CAN PROVE BY DNA HE IS NOT THE FATHER. IN THE OTHER 45 STATES IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU CAN PROVE ONCE YOU MISS THE DEADLINE TO PROVE IT. THERE IS NO DEADLINE FOR THE MOTHER, SHE CAN COME AFTER ANY MAN UP UNTIL THE CHILD IS 18 YEARS OLD.
So, Jim Crow laws allowed whites to maintain race supremacy, yet nothing is said about umpteen laws that allow women to maintain gender supremacy over men. This is hypocrisy, a travesty of justice not a left/right, democrat/republican issue.
You may think Nick Anderson's cartoon is sharp political humor but I see it as SLANTED POLITICAL HUMOR. I don't see the, 'WAR ON MEN' mentioned in his cartoon and if it was, the donkey icon would say it is a bogus issue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile you are absolutely right about the double-standard advantages that women have over men in contemporary times, I was speaking about the more blatant, obviously political aspect of the issue—how one political party is allowed to continuously make ridiculous accusations about the other, while denying another ridiculous accusation—all while appearing holier-than-thou. Of course society has been restructured against men. I invite you to read the following post:
Deletehttp://beyond-politics.hubpages.com/hub/Men-Are-The-New-Women
and a previous blog posting, "What's Wrong With The Traditional American Family"
http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/2010/10/whats-wrong-with-traditional-american.html
I was merely attempting to approach the issue from the politicization of gender as an illegitimate campaign issue.
Again, I am very confused, "I was speaking about the more blatant, obviously political aspect of the issue—how one political party is allowed to continuously make ridiculous accusations about the other, while denying another ridiculous accusation—all while appearing holier-than-thou."
DeleteWhich party are you talking about with this statement, the dems or the republicans? Please refresh my memory, was it Joe Biden (D) that championed and railroaded VAWA through congress which led to his being picked by Obama (D) for VP?
Wasn't it Sen. Phil Bradley (D) that passed one of the most crushing child support federal statutes ever against men? Bradley was born and raised 150 miles from where I live in MO.
"I was merely attempting to approach the issue from the politicization of gender as an illegitimate campaign issue."
That's great an admirable but could you be fair about it? Both parties are equally guilty of pandering and politicizing gender issues to their advantage. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that dems have been more sucessful at it that republicans when it comes to crushing men.
I doubt seriously that N.O.W. will switch contributing large donations and blocks of female voters (they know which side their bread is buttered on) from the dems to the republican party. It was proven in Spain that the socialist party agreed to support feminist issues in return for votes. Something that both parties do in US but it seems the dem party does it better when it comes to female driven issues (my opinion based on what I stated).
Ok, however I thought fairness was implied in that the "War on Women" by the Democrats was as equally a ridiculous notion as all of the "Wars" Republicans level against Democrats. And allow me to go on record by saying that laws and law enforcement (at the local level)regarding domestic assaults against women is so one-sided as to constitute legally-sanctioned gender bias. I can't count how many times I have seen working in the court system how men usually come one on the short end of the stick when it comes to this issue. And yes, Democratic proposal of (the) extra "protections" of the VAWA is totally unneeded...an obvious political ploy of the part of the Democrats. I suppose in retrospect, I should have made that point more apparent...thank you for calling me on that!
DeleteHello Beyond The Political Spectrum,
ReplyDeleteI would agree to say that to use abortion as a means of birth control is egregious. My wife is in the medical industry and will tell you that there is no reason with the means we have today that anyone should become pregnant should she chose not to. This being said, I will give you an example that concerns me when the “Partial Birth” abortion was made illegal.
I have a second cousin family member who is degreed in both Electrical and Mechanical Engineering. He married his wife, a school teacher, and both were in their mid-30’s. She became pregnant as they wanted to have children but she did not have enough folic acid to form a healthy child. The child was developing without a brain. All the developing child had was the medulla oblongata; in essence the child was dead in the womb. The choice they had was to have the procedure of the “Partial Birth” abortion as it was the least traumatic to the mother’s body, where she could heal up and try again sooner as the biological timeframe was not in their advantage. Long story short they opted for the medical procedure and now have a health baby boy.
As a side note, had she been mandated to carry the child to a full term, the doctors and nurses with a compassionate voice, would ask her as the child was brain dead, donate the organs to be use as transplants. In summation they would disassemble the child and ship the body parts across the country. Personally I cannot think of anything crueler and ghoulish than to make a mother carry to full term the child she already knows is dead within her. I was conveying this story with a woman with anti-abortion views and her reply was the she would hold dear the time she would have with that child and let nature take its course. A fact that I highly respected with her strength and faith. This being said, not every woman would feel this way or mentally handle this scenario and maybe no one really knows until they are presented with this situation.
Another point I would like to pass on that the outlawing of the medical procedure a few years ago during the W. Bush administration of “Partial Birth” abortion; does not make illegal late term abortions….only the procedure that was the safest to the mother. There are other means used to address this medical need and are used today.
I appreciate your viewpoint that “Providence alone brought us here as it should be left up to Providence.”
I also agree with your viewpoint and statement of the “single-minded directive creates a schizophrenic policy platform--why is it OK to mandate "less government" when it comes to the market economy/economic equality, but have no qualms of government interfering in the personal rights/social policy affecting others?” Well stated.
I also give you kudos on your closing statement, “if there is no man around in the capacity as family head, then why should ANY man tell a woman what and how to do things?” The small county of Caroline Co. here in Maryland has the third highest teen pregnancy in the State of Maryland and if you take the ratio of populations related to other areas, I would guess they are the highest per capita. Children having children and no responsible father to help raise these children together. A poor choice in youth with long term burdens and social problems long term.
I will close by saying that I will not project the self importance or hubris that I have the answer to these problems. We can only go forward doing the best we can with the influences we have to work with.
Please read this previous post, "Reproductive Rights...and Wrongs!"
Deletehttp://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/search?q=abortion