source

“we can press charges”… dont think you can you dumb ass, buss ridin niggers… i would love to ride the bus so i could juss fuck a bitch up like that rofl take a seat on the bus n shut your fuckin fat ass lips

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.

Permalink

Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women

by Dr. Michael Flood

In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.

Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement

The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).

Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.

The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.

Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.

Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women

The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.

Priviledging contact over safety

Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence. [See The Custody Scam, the story of Dawn Axsom, Child Abuse: When Family Courts Get it Wrong, Letter to Judge from Jury foreman regarding prosecution of mother trying to protect her children from abusive father, or watch the PBS documentary Breaking The Silence; Children's Stories at the bottom of this post.--Deborrah]

An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.

The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.

Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.

Discrediting victims

The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.

First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.

Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.

I have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.

Men’s versus women’s violence (Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)

Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.

While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.

To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.

First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).

Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.

Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).

Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”.

Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.

CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).

There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.

A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).

Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).

Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).

The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.

First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.

Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.

Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims

The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.

The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.

Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.

Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.

Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator. And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).

This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).

Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.

Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.

Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign

This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.

White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men’s violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.

To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/

Conclusion

To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.

We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.

We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.

We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.

The achievements of the fathers’ rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.

However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.

However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).

Beating the backlash

The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.

Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;

• Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
• Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
• Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
• Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
• Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
• Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
• Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
• Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
• Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.

‘Speaking as a father…’

Tell women’s stories

Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.

In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.

(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )

Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.

More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.

Contact the Author:

Dr Michael Flood
Postdoctoral Fellow
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS)
La Trobe University
E-mail: michael.floodanu.edu.au
PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602

Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.

Sign this petition to stop court ordered child abuse in your Congressional district!

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.

Permalink

Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women

by Dr. Michael Flood

In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.

Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement

The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).

Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.

The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.

Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.

Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women

The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.

Priviledging contact over safety

Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence. [See The Custody Scam, the story of Dawn Axsom, Child Abuse: When Family Courts Get it Wrong, Letter to Judge from Jury foreman regarding prosecution of mother trying to protect her children from abusive father, or watch the PBS documentary Breaking The Silence; Children's Stories at the bottom of this post.--Deborrah]

An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.

The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.

Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.

Discrediting victims

The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.

First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.

Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.

I have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.

Men’s versus women’s violence (Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)

Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.

While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.

To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.

First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).

Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.

Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).

Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”.

Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.

CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).

There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.

A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).

Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).

Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).

The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.

First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.

Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.

Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims

The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.

The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.

Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.

Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.

Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator. And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).

This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).

Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.

Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.

Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign

This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.

White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men’s violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.

To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/

Conclusion

To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.

We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.

We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.

We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.

The achievements of the fathers’ rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.

However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.

However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).

Beating the backlash

The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.

Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;

• Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
• Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
• Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
• Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
• Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
• Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
• Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
• Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
• Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.

‘Speaking as a father…’

Tell women’s stories

Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.

In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.

(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )

Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.

More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.

Contact the Author:

Dr Michael Flood
Postdoctoral Fellow
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS)
La Trobe University
E-mail: michael.floodanu.edu.au
PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602

Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.

Sign this petition to stop court ordered child abuse in your Congressional district!

<b>News</b> Ticker: Lady Gaga, Bamboozle, Kings of Leon, Lil Wayne <b>…</b>

<b>News</b> Ticker: Lady Gaga, Bamboozle, Kings of Leon, Lil Wayne. 1/8/10, 8:33 am EST. Photo: Becker/Getty. Lady Gaga and Dr. Dre made an appearance yesterday at the Monster Cable booth at the Consumer Electronics Show to announce new …

Knight Science Journalism Tracker » Blog Archive » Fox <b>News</b> – Big <b>…</b>

Oh my oh my, this story is so riddled by just one, big, staring-like-the-socket-of-an-old-skull scary boner of an error, I have to save a copy for us all to see and shake our heads in thanks it didn't happen to us, before Fox <b>News</b> fixes …

Fox <b>News</b> Scrubs &#39;Honest Injun&#39; From Steele Transcript

CORRECTION: It's been pointed out to me that however hilarious the insertion of "engine" is, the fault here is not Fox's at all, but the automated transcription service that provided the transcript in the first place.

By Daniel Spelzmann

Posted December 29th

Married parents don't have any legal obligation to pay for their adult children's college education or living expenses. But a bill just introduced in Virginia's legislature would require divorced parents to pay for such expenses.

HB 146 would extend child support beyond age 18 to age 23 when the “child” is attending college. Right now, child support in Virginia usually ends soon after the child reaches the age of majority.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a similar provision providing for post-majority support as a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. It reasoned that since married parents do not have to support their adult children, it was discriminatory to force divorced parents to do so. See Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1995). (Courts have apparently split over the constitutionality of such requirements).

I agree with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s reasoning, on principle. Married parents in Virginia generally have no duty to support their college-age children. Thus, neither should divorced parents.

But I also oppose this requirement based on my experience as a lawyer. (I should note, by the way, that I am not divorced, and have no child support obligations).

As an intake lawyer for a non-profit law firm for over 6 years, I saw cases of aging divorced parents forced to pay the college bills of ungrateful offspring with whom they had an acrimonious relationship, even though they could ill-afford to do so – like a father dying of incurable liver disease forced to pay his estranged daughter’s graduate school expenses, under a state law permitting child support to be awarded for adult children. (We did not handle family-law cases in state court and I thus had no choice but to reject these people’s pleas for legal assistance).

Divorced parents, like married parents, should have the right not to pay for their adult children's living expenses or college costs — for example, if the child engages in conduct or a field of study that is objectionable to the parent.

It is an unfortunate reality that courts are likely to apply this bill, if it is enacted and not struck down, in a way that results in support obligations that are inequitable to some aging parents. Virginia courts have sometimes awarded support even in situations where statutory language would appear to bar any support. For example, in Calvin v. Calvin, 31 Va. App. 181 (1999), the Virginia Court of Appeals awarded spousal support, even though the recipient had engaged in adultery and been “vindictive and cruel” in the court’s own words, and even though Virginia’s statutes expressly bar support to adulterous spouses absent a finding of “manifest injustice” under both economic and fault-based factors. Additional examples are given here.

Santa Gives Reindeer the Night Off

Posted on 29 December 2009

LINK

Posted on 28 December 2009

News Publishers Launch Joint Venture Targeting Digital Content …

Five major magazine publishers today announced the creation of a joint venture to develop standards for a digital content storefront and viewing on portable devices.Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, News.

Kojima composer joins Halo Waypoint News | Xbox 360 | Eurogamer

Read our Kojima composer joins Halo Waypoint News for Xbox 360.

Stocks in the news: Texas Instruments, PepsiCo, Apple — DailyFinance

Latif Lewis Business news editor and management columnist. Anthony Massucci Senior writer and tech columnist. Doug McIntyre Business and investing news writer and editor. Michael Mercurio Managing Editor. Todd Pruzan Features editor …

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg)(microlimitedms@gmail.com) — All last week I was frantic waiting for my invitation to the White House Jobs Summit to arrive. I thought about crashing, but recent events persuaded me that was neither prudent nor proper. Besides, my red kimono was at the dry cleaners.

Something tells me my views wouldn’t have been well received. I would have told President Barack Obama he faces significant obstacles in his effort to create jobs before the voters go to the polls in November 2010.

I’m not talking about the legality of “mobilizing” unused funds from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, as Obama put it in a speech yesterday at Washington’s Brookings Institution; or the inherent contradiction in “government job creation,” as if government can create jobs without commanding resources the private sector could have used to provide something the public wants.

The real question facing the nation, and one that Obama’s summits and speeches aren’t addressing, is this: What if the job losses this time around aren’t temporary, the “ebb” part of the ebb and flow of the business cycle? What if employers are hacking away at their permanent workforce?

There is support in the data for the idea that many of the lost jobs aren’t coming back. In November, a record 55.1 percent of job losses were categorized as permanent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average duration of unemployment reached a post-World War II high of 28.5 weeks. And 38.3 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, also a record.

Retooling Required

While the labor market may be witnessing the beginning of a cyclical improvement, “the structural outlook is daunting,” said Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse.

The economy shed 11,000 jobs last month, the smallest decline since the recession began in December 2007. The net revision to previous months was positive, a sign that labor market conditions are improving. (The direction of the revisions, based on additional survey data, is generally suggestive of the trend.)

The extent of the improvement may be similar to the jobless recoveries following the 1990-1991 and 2001 recessions. In the second case, it took three years after the end of the recession for the level of employment to exceed its previous business cycle peak.

Before that — the recessions of 1971-1973 and 1982, for example — a rapid pace of temporary layoffs was followed by an equally rapid pace of rehiring early in the recovery.

Today’s labor market may have become less flexible, Soss said. Employee skills aren’t readily transferable. An assembly line auto worker may not have the skill set suited to software programming or sales.

Ma Bell Meets iPhone

That doesn’t mean the U.S. economy won’t create new jobs in unimagined new industries some day. When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876, none of his contemporaries could have envisioned wireless technology allowing mobile-phone users instant access to the sounds and quotes of Beavis and Butthead.

In another version of his we-inherited-this-mess speech, Obama laid out some pre-existing ideas for job creation — infrastructure spending, small-business tax credits for hiring and enough green investment to make the average unemployed person red in the face — and some new ones. For example, the elimination of the capital gains tax on small business and new credit lines will facilitate access to credit and make investment more lucrative.

Legacy of Debt

The president paid lip service to “fiscal responsibility,” reiterating his pledge to halve the deficit by the end of his first term. How his grand vision for health-care expansion, billed as reform, will achieve that is anybody’s guess.

The deficit isn’t as benign as some economists claim. Debt, the cumulative result of deficits, is closely allied with job growth.

In their book, “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly,” economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff document the protracted aftermath of financial crises in terms of their depth, duration and diffusion across the economy and industries.

“The true legacy of financial crises is more government debt,” Reinhart said in a presentation at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Policy Forum on Dec. 4.

High government debt is associated with slower growth, she said. So “if we are concerned about growth, we should be concerned about debt.”

The same could be said about jobs. Economic growth is the best source of job growth. If growth is curtailed by soaring government debt, job creation will be sub-par as well.

The government can’t keep shoveling out money to “create jobs,” concoct some fictitious number of jobs that were created or saved and expect the public to buy it. Like the $787 billion stimulus, spending money to save money is not a winning strategy.

(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Click on “Send Comment” in sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

To contact the writer of this column: Caroline Baum in New York at cabaum@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: December 8, 2009 21:00 EST

Moreover, as Paul J. Lim wrote in his November 28, 2009 article in the New York Times, the overall price-earnings ratio for the S&P 500 is much higher than it's been in other early bull market moves out of severe bear markets. He offers that one shouldn't take too much comfort in current stock index levels because overall earnings are still trending down. The market indexes also appear to have been driven artificially higher by a the continued inflow of money into the stock market from money funds and other sources because many of these less volatile investments are producing returns that are effectively nil. See Bill Gross’ article, Anything But .01%, In the PIMCO December 2009 Investment Outook. The article also contains that great 1933 quote of Will Rogers: “I am not so much concerned with the return on my money as the return of my money.”

The New York measure failed by a wider-than-expected margin, falling 12 votes short in a 24-38 decision by the state Senate. The Assembly had earlier approved the bill, and Gov. David Paterson, perhaps the bill's strongest advocate, had pledged to sign it.

New York also doesn't allow civil unions, but has several laws, executive orders and court decisions that grant many of the rights to gays long enjoyed by married couples.

The vote comes after months of delays and arm twisting of lawmakers sympathetic to the bill but representing conservative districts. It also follows a referendum in Maine that struck down a gay marriage law before it took effect.

Immediately after the vote, gay rights advocates chanted: “Equal rights now!” Many said they weren't surprised by the decision. Most, including Paterson, said they at least wanted a floor debate and vote.

Senate sponsor Thomas Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and the Legislature's first openly gay member, vowed not to give up his life's goal.

“I'm like a dog with a bone,” said Duane in his closing remarks on the floor, when defeat was becoming clear. “I wouldn't let go of anyone … Because I don't give up. I don't know how to!”

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. A New Hampshire law takes effect Jan. 1.

Story continues below

“It's certainly disappointing,” said Richard Socarides, a 55-year-old Manhattan lawyer and resident and former President Bill Clinton's senior adviser on gay rights issues. “I'm surprised that it was not closer. We'll have to take a hard look at what went wrong.”

Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn, challenged lawmakers to set aside their personal religious beliefs. He asked them to remember that once even slavery was legal.

“When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out,” Adams said.

“That's the wrong statement,” said gay marriage opponent Sen. Ruben Diaz, a conservative minister from the Bronx. “You should carry your Bible all the time.”

Diaz was the only opponent among the 38 to speak. Eighteen senators gave impassioned speeches, often about family members who survived the Holocaust and discrimination and would want gays to be equal under law.

A coalition of Californian gay rights groups have said they are determined to get gay marriage back on the ballot next year.

Jo Hoenninger of Restore Equality 2010, said: “This is a movement for equality. Harvey Milk didnʼt wait for research.”

This week, the state's largest grassroots gay advocacy group withdrew its support for the 2010 campaign.

Courage Campaign, based in Los Angeles, said it does not believe the movement currently has enough leadership or financial support to be successful in the next 12 months.

The group said campaigners should wait until 2012 instead.

Gay marriage was briefly legal in California but was overturned by the state's voters in November 2008, who approved a measure called Proposition 8 to ban it.

Hoenninger, chair of the interim executive committee for Restore Equality 2010, said: “Harvey Milk didnʼt wait for research. He hit the streets year after year. We honour his memory by gathering signatures now so our rights can be restored in 2010 not at some later time when it might be an easier struggle.”

She added: “We appreciate the research work done by the Courage Campaign. The results to date – that one-to-one conversations are the most effective way to change hearts and minds – show that it is all the more important for us to continue to have the conversations necessary to gather the signatures for 2010 repeal of Proposition 8 .”

A statement from Restore Equality 2010, which is working in coalition with Love Honor Cherish, said that 80 per cent of Courage Campaign's supporters wanted to seek repeal of Prop 8 in the next year.

Courage Campaign suggested that recent defeats, such as in Maine, and voter polls showed that more time was needed for success.

Equality California warned in August that raising the money needed to fight Proposition 8 next year could be difficult and advised campaigners should wait until 2012.

Hoenninger concluded: “We know this a tough battle, but we are up for the challenge and fully expect those who disagree with us to respect our volunteers.”

Those fighting for repeal in 2010 need to collect one million signatures to place the proposition on November's ballot.

In other states that allow gay marriage, such as Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts, the right has only been granted through the courts or legislature. It has never been granted by voters.

Email news tips to egalia-at-earthlink-dot-net

Shop TGW

Shop TGW

Women's Blog Ad Network

Previous

• Tiger Woods Apologizes for 'Transgressions' — Vul…
• Barack Obama & Tiger Woods
• Anti War Protesters Prepare to Confront New War Pr…
• Krugman: Hope is Not a Plan
• Media Ignores Tiger Woods' Plea for Privacy
• Tiger Woods: Injuries Caused by Wife Not Car Accid…
• Alice's Restaurant, A Lefty Tradition
• Obama/Hillary 2012?
• Worldwide Study: U.S. Lags Far Behind in Easing Wo…
• NOW's Marcia Pappas Condemns Burqua Barbie

Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Buy at AllPosters.com

Subscribe in a reader

Shop TGW

News

• Center for American Progress
• National Coalition on Healthcare
• Healthcare for All
• War Resisters in Canada
• Women's eNews
• Make Them Accountable
• Ms Feminist Wire
• Women's eNews
• Greta Wire
• Daily Beast
• Fark
• Boing Boing
• Buzz Feed
• State Photos
• Digg
• Media Matters
• Memeorandum
• Nashville Is Talking
• Nashville Post

Lefty Blogs

• Alas, A Blog
• Alegre”s Corner
• Atrios
• Alliance of Women Film Journalists
• Anglachelg's Journal
• BlogHer
• Blue Lyon
• California NOW
• Cathy from Canada
• Confluence
• (Rep.) Cooper Uncovered
• Corrente
• Crone Speaks
• Crooks & Liars
• Daily Howler
• Digby
• Elect Women
• Ezra Klein
• Feminist blogs
• Feministing
• Feminist Law Profs
• Firedoglake
• Flick Philosopher
• GenderGappers
• Glenn Greenwald
• All Things Hillary
• Hillary Unleashed
• Historiann
• Howling Latina
• Jezebel
• KnoxViews
• I Blame the Patriarchy
• Paul Krugman
• Heidi Li's Potpourri
• Left Coaster
• Lurking Canary
• Madam Secretary
• MyDD
• The Nation Blogs
  

  Taegan D. Goddard is the founder of Political Wire, one of the earliest and most influential political web sites.

  Goddard spent more than a decade as managing director and chief operating officer of a prominent investment firm in New York City. Previously, he was a policy adviser to a U.S. Senator and Governor.

  Goddard is also co-author of You
  Won – Now What? (Scribner, 1998), a political
  management book hailed by prominent journalists and politicians from
  both parties. In addition, Goddard's essays on politics and public
  policy have appeared in dozens of newspapers across the country,
  including the Washington Post, USA Today, Boston Globe, San Francisco
  Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and Christian Science
  Monitor.

  Goddard earned degrees from Vassar College and Harvard University. He lives in New York with his wife and three sons.

  PRAISE

  “There are a lot of blogs and news sites claiming to understand
  politics, but only a few actually do. Political Wire is one of them.”

  – Chuck Todd, NBC News political director

  “Concise. Relevant. To the point. Political Wire is the first site I check when I’m looking for the latest political nugget. That pretty much says it all.”

  – Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report

  “Political Wire is one of only four or five sites that I check every
  day and sometimes several times a day, for the latest political news
  and developments.”

  – Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report

  “The big news, delicious tidbits, pearls of wisdom — nicely packaged, constantly updated… What political junkie could ask for more?”

  – Larry Sabato, Center for Politics, University of Virginia

  “If I were on the proverbial
  desert island and had only one web site to access, Political Wire would
  be it.”

  – Dotty Lynch, CBS News political consultant

  “Taegan Goddard has a knack for digging out political gems that too
  often get passed over by the mainstream press, and for delivering the
  latest electoral developments in a sharp, no frills style that makes
  his Political Wire an addictive blog habit you don't want to kick.”

  – Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post

  “Political Wire is one of the absolute must-read sites in the blogosphere.”

  – Glenn Reynolds, founder of Instapundit

  “I love Political Wire. It is a one stop shopping site for all the political information I need. It makes me sound brilliant so naturally I like it!”

  – Dick Morris, political consultant

  “I rely on Taegan Goddard's Political Wire for straight, fair political news, he gets right to the point. It's an eagerly anticipated part of my news reading.”

  – Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.

  The Washington D.C. Council signaled its initial approval for a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage on Tuesday, paving the way for a final vote on the measure that is expected later this month.

  The vote on the measure, which also has the support of Adrian M. Fenty, the city’s mayor, was 11-2.

  In a statement, David A. Catania, one of two openly gay members of the council, said the vote was important “not only for the gay and lesbian community but for everyone who supports equal rights. Gays and lesbians bear every burden of citizenship and are entitled to every benefit and protection that the law allows.”

  Marion S. Barry Jr., a former four-term mayor of Washington, was one of the two council members who voted against the bill. According to The Washington Post, Mr. Barry said he backed “the gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgender community on almost every issue except this one.”
  

  If its bill does become law, the nation’s capital would follow in the footsteps of a small group of states that permit gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is already legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. Gay marriage becomes legal in New Hampshire next month.

  Washington’s same-sex marriage bill would also need to pass a congressional review before it became law.

  As The Times’s Ian Urbina recounted last month, the same-sex marriage debate sparked a dust-up between the city and Washington’s Roman Catholic Archdiocese. The church, whose social services wing is a large presence in Washington, has threatened to drop its contracts with the city over the gay marriage bill.

  LAKEWOOD, N.J. – The leaders in the local large Orthodox Jewish community go to great lengths to keep out the outside world, discouraging nonbusiness use of the Internet and encouraging strict filters to keep the ungodly out when members must use the Web.

  But last month, several rabbis and other elders did something astounding for them: They took a public stand on a political issue, declaring their opposition to same-sex marriage in the state.

  “This really hurts us,” said Rabbi Osher Lieberman, a key figure in the community in the suburbs about 30 miles east of Trenton. “To say (it's) immoral is not enough.”

  He said community members are being encouraged to do whatever they can to make sure lawmakers don't vote to recognize gay marriage.

  In a state that leans a bit left, the conservative rabbis are one of a handful of groups taking a passionate – and maybe surprising – role in a debate that's likely to be decided by January. The newly political rabbis have joined a coalition including Roman Catholic bishops, evangelicals and some black and Latino leaders.

  The other side of the debate, anchored by a well-organized, well-connected gay rights group, is getting a boost from heterosexual liberals.

  When Republican Chris Christie unseated Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in the gubernatorial election last month, it gave gay-rights activists more urgency to try to achieve their long-held goal of getting a same-sex marriage bill through the Legislature before Christie takes office Jan. 19.

  The reason is simple: Corzine supports the bill. Christie says he would veto it.

  If it's not passed by the end of the legislative session, that means the window will close for now on New Jersey joining Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut as the only states to recognize gay marriage.

  Democratic lawmakers have been wrangling over whether the matter will get a debate in the Legislature. Most party leaders say they won't bring it up unless it looks as though it will pass.

  Gay-rights supporters and social conservatives alike have been lobbying lawmakers, though it's a debate that doesn't seem to be enrapturing the state as a whole. Two polls last month found the public is divided over the issue. One found narrow support, the other narrow opposition.

  But the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, which found support, also showed that most residents think the issue is not a big deal.

  It is a big deal to Betty Wyka, a museum employee from Parsippany who has long supported same-sex marriage. In February, she started volunteering for Garden State Equality, the state's main gay-rights group. Steven Goldstein, the chairman of the group, says that as a straight woman Wyka is typical of a new volunteer.

  Wyka said she joined partly to counter a claim that gay-marriage opponents often make: that allowing gay couples to wed will make society value traditional marriages less.

  “I got sick of hearing that same-sex marriage is going to impact my marriage. That's a bunch of hooey,” she said. “It's a civil rights issue.”

  Lakewood's Orthodox community is mostly isolated from the rest of society. The men wear long beards, white shirts, black suits and black hats, and women are not nearly as visible as men. The community was founded in 1942 by a rabbinic leader who fled Poland and the Holocaust. It's now home to some 10,000 Orthodox families and the rabbinical school, which has more than 5,000 students.

  Before last month's election, rabbis allowed distribution of a voting guide from the socially conservative New Jersey Family Policy Council. While religious institutions would not be required to marry gay couples, some say their religious freedom could be squeezed by permitting something they say runs against their beliefs.

  Orthodox Jews, like many Christians, look to the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, which many interpret as saying that homosexuality is immoral.

  A group of Lakewood community leaders granted an interview with an Associated Press reporter – a rarity and part of the effort to become involved in the push against gay marriage. The leaders said they're taking their position public because in the Internet age more information about the broader world is flowing into their community.

  The large Orthodox community is not the first to speak out against the prospect of gay marriage. Last year, the New York-based Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America made a public statement in favor of California's Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage there months after a court allowed it.

  And leaders in Lakewood say they received political guidance from some in the Orthodox Jewish community in Monsey, N.Y. In New York, the state Assembly already has passed a law to allow gay marriage, and the Senate is considering whether to follow.

  Orthodox Jews traditionally have been regular voters who oppose candidates who support abortion rights and gay rights, said Yaakov S. Ariel, a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

  “The visible part is what's new,” Ariel said. “The opinions and the support of candidates is not new.”

  What's especially troubling to some in Lakewood is not just that New Jersey might recognize same-sex marriages but that Orthodox Jews would be more likely now than in the past to know about it – and think that it's OK to be gay.

  “These type of laws bring an exposure to our community,” Rabbi Aaron Sarscher said.

  And that's why there's a new voice in the debate.

  “I really don't believe in getting involved in government,” said another community leader, David Sofer. “But when an issue is so dangerous, you have to stop it.”

  Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  From the NY Times:

  An Argentine couple’s attempt to unite in Latin America’s first gay marriage was thwarted Tuesday when city officials decided to block the wedding because of conflicting judicial rulings.

  Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre showed up at the Buenos Aires civil registry office despite a national judge’s ruling late Monday that overturned a city court’s decision to permit them to wed. The first judge ruled again Tuesday that they could wed.

  The couple, dressed in black suits, silver ties and a red band symbolizing AIDS awareness, waited for hours in the municipal office as officials debated which judge to obey. They were surrounded by supporters and a swarm of media.

  ”It’s hard to have to spend this day waiting for a right that should have been ours,” said Freyre, as he fought to hold back tears.

  In a twist of events, the final decision fell to Mayor Mauricio Macri, who had originally given the green light to the wedding. Among cheers and chants in what felt like the final seconds of championship game, the lawyers came out to announce the news: The city would not allow the marriage until the Supreme Court has ruled on the case.

  Gay rights groups expressed anger at the decision and said they would march to city hall in protest.

  Read more here!

  Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: New User Agent for News

  Today we are announcing a new user agent for robots.txt called Googlebot-News that gives publishers even more control over their content. In case you haven't heard of robots.txt, it's a web-wide standard that has been in use since 1994 …

  Afghanistan setting for next Medal of Honor // News

  Electronic Arts has chosen Afghanistan for the setting of the next in its Medal of Honor franchise, as the company looks…

  Google News Adds Another Way For Publishers To Control Access …

  Yesterday's notice from Google (NSDQ: GOOG) that publishers would be able to block access to more than five stories in 24 hours set off a wave of claims that the change in the First Click Free program was a deal with critic News Corp …

  ]]> http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/12/02/i-thought-ny-was-liberal/feed/ 0 http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/12/01/fathers-agony-as-he-is-forced-to-choose-between-saving-wife-or-son-from-drowning-after-car-plunges-into-river/ http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/12/01/fathers-agony-as-he-is-forced-to-choose-between-saving-wife-or-son-from-drowning-after-car-plunges-into-river/#comments Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:25:44 +0000 http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/12/01/fathers-agony-as-he-is-forced-to-choose-between-saving-wife-or-son-from-drowning-after-car-plunges-into-river/

  By Richard Shears
  Last updated at 1:20 AM on 01st December 2009

  • Comments (185)
  • Add to My Stories

  After his wife's car plunged into a river, Stacy Horton had an agonising decision to make: rescue her or their teenage son.

  His wife Vanessa had escaped from the car but was crying for help as she struggled to keep her head above water, while their son Silva, 13, was still trapped inside the sinking vehicle.

  With time to save only one, Mr Horton dived into the river.

  Enlarge

  Drowned: Silva Horton was trapped in the sinking car and died

  In the evening darkness, he could only just still see the Mazda station wagon, which was already three feet below the water and sinking fast nose first, with the glow of the tail-lights fading into the darkness.

  'I tried to get down and get him but I couldn't  -  it was just too deep,' said Mr Horton yesterday. 'And Vanessa was going under.

  More…

  • Boy, four, mauled to death by uncle's bulldog as grandmother battled to save him
  • 'Secret' Baby P file could win payout for sacked social services boss Sharon Shoesmith

  'I made a call to pull my wife to safety. I looked back and I could see the tail-lights, but it was too far and I couldn't get him.

  

  Horror: Stacy Horton saved the life of his wife Vanessa, but their son Silva, drowned in the accident

  'I just had to accept the fact that he had gone.

  'Instead of going down and risking my life as well as my wife and son's, I chose to take Vanessa back and sat on the shore praying. It was all I could do.'

  Silva's friend and the family dog, who had also been in the car, had managed to scramble to safety by the time Mr Horton arrived at the scene, two minutes after the car had entered the Whanganui River, north of Wellington, New Zealand.

  Enlarge

  Grief: The Horton family tell of their ordeal and sadness at losing Silva

  The tragedy began when a group of children broke the Hortons' letterbox at their home in Whanganui before running off.

  Mrs Horton, 35, clambered into the station wagon with Silva and his friend to give chase, while her husband followed in another car.

  He caught up with his wife's car not far from their home. It is thought she had found the group of children and stopped to confront them when the car rolled down the bank into the river.

  

  Tragedy: The accident happened on Saturday night at Whanganui River on New Zealand's North Island

  After Mr Horton had made his heartbreaking decision to drag his wife to safety, police and firefighters, summoned by passers-by, dived into the murky water to try to free Silva. However, by then, even reaching the vehicle proved impossible in the darkness.

  'We tried everything but to no avail,' said senior fire officer Gary Wilson. 'It was a long shot but it was worth the risk to try and save him.'

  Police spokesman Kim Perks said: 'It was a very tough call for Mr Horton. I certainly would not have wanted to be in his shoes.'

  

  Their son: 13-year-old Silva Horton was trapped inside the sinking car – his father Stacy could only watch as it sank into the Whanganui River

  Divers managed to recover Silva's body on Sunday. Mrs Horton said she was comforted by her belief that Silva, a committed Christian, was now in a better place.

  'He'll be having a party at the moment,' she said.

  Mr Horton said: 'He was outgoing and anyone who he came across he made friends with.

  'Even anyone he didn't like, if he saw they were in trouble he would go and help them.

  'He rammed as much into his life as anyone could possibly do.

  'It's just a freak accident. We can't blame anyone. I've forgiven the kids who were wrecking our letterbox.'

  'I love those kids and I know how they will be feeling,' said Mrs Horton. 'I don't hold them responsible.'

  The couple said Silva's funeral on Thursday would be a celebration of his life and they planned to release 13 balloons, one for each year they spent with him.

  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1231993/Fathers-agony-forced-choose-saving-wife-son-drowning.html#ixzz0YUDuaBS2
  ]]> http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/12/01/fathers-agony-as-he-is-forced-to-choose-between-saving-wife-or-son-from-drowning-after-car-plunges-into-river/feed/ 0 http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/11/18/does-gore-just-make-this-stuff-up-during-interviews/ http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/11/18/does-gore-just-make-this-stuff-up-during-interviews/#comments Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:05:45 +0000 http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/11/18/does-gore-just-make-this-stuff-up-during-interviews/

  Posted on 18 November 2009
  

  

  For several years as uneducated sycophants in the media gushed and fawned over every utterance from former Vice President Al Gore, NewsBusters has informed readers of just how absurd the junk science he’s peddling really is.

  Last Thursday, NBC “Tonight Show” viewers got a perfect example of how the Nobel Laureate basically makes things up, and that his poor grades in college were quite an indicator of just how little he understands about science.

  So egregious was his departure from reality that the following clip should be mandatory viewing for all his fans in the media who seem to be just as scientifically-challenged (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, h/t Hot Air):

  CONAN O’BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy…

  AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.

  O’BRIEN: …and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that’s generated from the core of the earth …

  GORE: Yeah.

  O’BRIEN: …to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

  GORE: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …

  On Tuesday, National Review’s John Derbyshire noted:

  The geothermal gradient is usually quoted as 25-50 degrees Celsius per mile of depth in normal terrain (not, e.g., in the crater of Kilauea). Two kilometers down, therefore, (that’s a mile and a quarter if you’re not as science-y as Al) you’ll have an average gain of 30-60 degrees – exploitable for things like home heating, though not hot enough to make a nice pot of tea. The temperature at the earth’s core, 4,000 miles down, is usually quoted as 5,000 degrees Celsius, though these guys claim it’s much less, while some contrarian geophysicists have posted claims up to 9,000 degrees. The temperature at the surface of the Sun is around 6,000 degrees Celsius, while at the center, where nuclear fusion is going on bigtime, things get up over 10 million degrees.

  If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was “several million degrees,” we’d be a star.

  The physics and astronomy website Physlink also contests Gore’s absurd claim:

  It is approximately 4000°C at the centre of the Earth. To put this in context:

  1. The centre of the Sun is approximately 15 million°C
  2. The surface of the Sun is 5500°C
  3. Iron melts at 1535°C (when at atmospheric pressure)
  4. Water boils at 100°C (when at atmospheric pressure)
  5. Human skin is comfortable with temperatures up to about 60°C
  6. The highest temperature recorded on the Earth’s surface is 58°C (Libya 1922)

  It is not possible to directly measure the temperature at the centre of the Earth and four thousand degrees is nothing more than our most well-established piece of guesswork to date. Most modern calculations rely on the fact that we believe the inner core to be made up of iron and nickel that is just about at melting point. It is under a lot of pressure, which prevents it from melting, even at such high temperatures. There is also a lot of evidence regarding how the outer core of the Earth convects and that helps to establish the temperature. However, recently British scientists have suggested that the temperature of the Earth’s core may in fact be as high as the surface of the Sun, so the question is still open.

  As such, whether it’s 4,000 or 6,000 degrees, Gore’s claim of “several million” is absurdly preposterous and not based on ANY scientific fact.

  As Ed Morrissey observed Wednesday:

  nyone who followed the controversy over Gore’s piece of cinematic fantasy An Inconvenient Truth knows that Gore tells a lot of very convenient untruths in his quest to create a market for his carbon-trading company. However, this is just flat-out ignorance that with any other person in any other context would destroy their credibility. This is worse than Tom Cruise telling Matt Lauer that he can debunk the entire psychiatric field because he’s read a few books. If Gore can’t get this rather basic fact right, why should he be believed on anything else in the energy field?

  This raises an obvious question: in a world where media fact-check a comedy skit and a book written by a former governor, shouldn’t they equally scrutinize statements being made by a man who’s actively pushing for the passage of economically impactful legislation currently before Congress?

  Or is that asking too much from so-called journalists?

  Consider that if Gore was a Republican, his numerous departures from fact would have so discredited him years ago that he would now be considered a total joke.

  By contrast, because he’s a Democrat who preaches liberal gospel, he can say whatever he wants without any regard for its accuracy and not only receive media’s praise for his inexcusable errance, but an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize to boot.

  As the Russian comedian Yakov Smirnoff was famous for saying years ago, America — what a country!

  *****Update: NewsBusters reader Eric Peterkofsky pointed out at Facebook that Newsweek recently called Gore “The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man.”

  Yep — a guy with THIS report card, who thinks the Earth’s interior temperature is “several million degrees,” is the thinking man’s thinking man!

  The Department of Homeland Security is a new department that was established right after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This department was established for the main purpose of protecting the U.S. Homeland and its territories from within and is different from the U.S. Military. This essay will show the writer's opinion on what the role of the Department of Homeland Security should be and how this role would differ from that of the U.S. Military.

  Before the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States Department of Defense has only the U.S. Military Department which focused mainly in deterring, stabilizing and fighting war missions overseas to protect the interests of the United States. The U.S. homeland was not regarded as an area of war and because of this, the protection and the security of the homeland was given chiefly to the civilian law enforcement agencies which have jurisdiction over federal, state and local levels. The 9/11 attacks prompted the United States to take a deeper look at the security and the protection of the homeland and therefore decided to establish the Department of Homeland Security.

  The federal government of the United States established the Department of Homeland Security in order to coordinate all the efforts of federal law enforcement agencies and other state agencies in eradicating the U.S. of terrorist.

  The role of the Department of Homeland Security should be that of coordination of information primarily and for the immediate response in securing the homeland as secondary. The Department of Homeland Security needs to have coordination as its first priority in such a way that all information gathered can easily be communicated to all levels of the U.S. Government. The coordination of information to all government agencies would enable the United States to become more prepared in facing terrorist threats and aggressions towards the United States and its territories. Homeland Security should be responsible in the detection, the deterrence, the prevention and the immediate response as well as recovery and reconstitution against terrorist attacks. Another role of Homeland Security should be to ensure that all states have their own homeland security office and that these offices would be well-equipped to handle terrorist situations. Homeland Security should be different from that of the United States Military in such that it is only responsible in securing and protecting the homeland from within and should prevent the undesirables and the suspected terrorists in entering the homeland.

  The United States Military should however also take part in ensuring that the homeland is secured and protected. The U.S. Military through its National Guard should serve as the logical element of the U.S. armed Forces and should act as the lead agency of the military that will handle Homeland Security. The National Guard should make sure that it connects local communities with the federal government and that these National Guard units should be located at every U.S. community and should be responsible in immediately responding to attacks on the homeland.

  REFERENCES:
  Strengthening Homeland Security since 9/11. (April 11, 2002) Office of the Press Secretary. The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020411-8.html
  The National Strategy for Homeland Security: Office of Homeland Security. The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/nat_strat_hls.pdf

  U.S. billionaire who helped develop Microsoft Word and two Russian Cosmonauts made it to the International Space station early Tuesday. Martha Stewart was down at mission control offering her applause . The lifestyle entrepreneur was among American and Russian officials and visitors monitoring the docking.This took place on the outskirts of Moscow at the Russian Mission control.

  Television cameras on board showed the Soyuz nearing the station and abruptly coming to a stop.Charles Simonyi, the American billionaire paid an estimated twenty to twenty five million dollars to be the world's fifth paying private space traveler.The Soyuz docked and ISS,Simonyi and the two Russian cosmonauts entered the space station about 90 minutes later.

  The arrival of a new crew is always a happy occasion. There are three residents who currently reside on the space station. Simonyi decided to bring aboard a gourmet dinner to give everyone aboard , as an extra treat. The menu consisted of quail that was marinated in wine,duck breast confit with capers, shredded chicken parmentier, apple fondant pieces, rice pudding with candied fruit, and semolina cake with dried apricots.Selected by Martha Stewart. Stewart was also present for the rockets launch on Saturday.

  Charles Simonyi will return back to earth on April 20. American astronaut Miguel Lopez-Alegria and Russian Mikhail Tyurin will also be returning to Earth. They have been stationed on the space station since September. The other U.S. astronaut Sunita Williams will remain on board with cosmonauts Fyodor Yurchikhin and Oleg Kotov.

  Simonyi who is 58 was born in Hungary began programming on a bulky computer called the Ural-2 as a teenager. In 1968 Simonyi came to the U.S. and worked for Xerox Corporation and later to Microsoft Corporation. Eventually starting his own company.While inside the space station Simonyi will be conducting a number of tests and experiments. He will be measuring radiation levels and studying biological organisms. He will also be keeping a journal each day about his accounts.

  As of 2006 space tourism is only affordable to wealthy individuals and corporations. It has become so popular that even at twenty million dollars a ticket the Russian space station is booked until 2009.

  EBay Founder Omidyar To Launch Local <b>News</b> Service | paidContent

  Billionaire eBay (NSDQ: EBAY) founder Pierre Omidyar is entering the local <b>news</b> business. In a blog post, Omidyar says he's setting up an online-only local <b>news</b> service that will focus on original reporting covering public affairs and …

  Energy and Global Warming <b>News</b> for November 18: Promise in &#39;Cash <b>…</b>

  Proposed regulations in <b>New</b> York City would require landlords of older buildings to conduct annual energy audits and meet benchmarks for energy efficiency, or pay fines. The corporation's initiative could give owners of buildings with …

  Zynga snags $15 million <b>new</b> investment // <b>News</b>

  Social gaming developer Zynga has raised more than USD 15 million in funding, to add to the USD 40 million it raised in t…

  ]]> http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/11/18/does-gore-just-make-this-stuff-up-during-interviews/feed/ 0 http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/11/03/lady-quites-planned-parenthood/ http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/11/03/lady-quites-planned-parenthood/#comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:35:40 +0000 http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/11/03/lady-quites-planned-parenthood/ Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound

  Monday, November 02, 2009
  Joseph Abrams

  

  Abby Johnson

  
  

  Abby Johnson, 29, stands outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Tex., alongside Shawn Carney of the Campaign for Life. Johnson quit after watching an ultrasound of an abortion.

  The former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in southeast Texas says she had a “change of heart” after watching an abortion last month — and she quit her job and joined a pro-life group in praying outside the facility.

  Abby Johnson, 29, used to escort women from their cars to the clinic in the eight years she volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. But she says she knew it was time to leave after she watched a fetus “crumple” as it was vacuumed out of a patient's uterus in September.

  'When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor, “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart … a spiritual conversion.”

  Johnson said she became disillusioned with her job after her bosses pressured her for months to increase profits by performing more and more abortions, which cost patients between $505 and $695.

  “Every meeting that we had was, 'We don't have enough money, we don't have enough money — we've got to keep these abortions coming,'” Johnson told FoxNews.com. “It's a very lucrative business and that's why they want to increase numbers.”

  A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood told FoxNews.com that it offers a range of services at it 850 health centers nationwide, providing pregnancy tests, vaccinations and women's health services, “including wellness exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraception, and STD testing and treatment.”

  “Planned Parenthood's focus is on prevention,” wrote Diane Quest, the group's National Media Director. “Nationwide, more than 90% of the health care Planned Parenthood affiliates provide is preventive in nature,” explaining that a “core component the organization's mission is to help women plan healthy pregnancies and prevent unintended pregnancies.”

  But Johnson said her bosses told her to change her “priorities” and focus on abortions, which she said made money for the office at a time when the recession has left them hurting.

  “For them there's not a lot of money in education,” she said. “There's as not as much money in family planning as there is abortion.”

  Without a doctor in residence, she said, her clinic offered abortions only two days a month, but the doctor could perform 30 to 40 procedures on each day he was there. Johnson estimated that each abortion could net the branch about $350, adding up to more than $10,000 a month.

  “The majority of the money was going to the facility,” she said.

  Johnson said she never got any orders to increase profits in e-mails or letters, and had no way to prove her allegations about practices at the Bryan branch. She told FoxNews.com that pressure came in personal interactions with her regional manager from the larger Houston office.

  But she said she got involved with the clinic “to help women and … the right thing,” and the idea of raking in cash seemed to go against what she felt was the mission of the 93-year-old organization.

  “Ideally my goal as the facility's director is that your abortion numbers don't increase,” because “you're providing so much family planning and so much education that there is not a demand for abortion services.

  “But that was not their goal,” she said.

  A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood refused to answer questions about Johnson's accusations, but released a statement noting that a district court had issued a temporary restraining order against the former branch director and against the Coalition for Life, an anti-abortion group with which Johnson is now affiliated.

  “We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary,” said spokeswoman Rochelle Tafolla.

  It is unclear what made Planned Parenthood seek the restraining order. Johnson said she did not intend to release any sensitive information about her former patients at the clinic.

  A hearing is set for Nov. 10 to determine whether a judge will order an injunction against Johnson and the Coalition for Life, which has led protests outside the clinic and joined her in a prayer vigil there last month.

  Johnson hasn't found a job since she quit on Oct. 6, but she said she's enjoying the time off to be with her 3-year-old daughter.

  “It's been great just to spend some time at home and get a break,” she said.

  ]]> http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/11/03/lady-quites-planned-parenthood/feed/ 0 http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/10/21/some-awesome-pick-up-lines-by-famous-people/ http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/10/21/some-awesome-pick-up-lines-by-famous-people/#comments Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:32:47 +0000 http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/10/21/some-awesome-pick-up-lines-by-famous-people/ Pickup Lines Of 10 Historical Figures
  by Conor McKeon on October 06, 2009
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

   

  
  ]]> http://danielsaltmantyrell.randomactsofcoolness.com/2009/10/21/some-awesome-pick-up-lines-by-famous-people/feed/ 1