I have changed my mind in the last year. A reader commented:
It's starting to appear as though you're using your issues with the family court to advance your political positions.There is now a culture war in the USA. Barack Obama and G.W. Bush have had essentially the same foreign policy and many other policies. Where the parties differ is on cultural issues.
Democrats get their support from blacks, Jews, the super-rich, single moms, unions, and the welfare class. Republicans get theirs from middle and upper-middle class married families, and white church goers. See this Zogby poll in the marriage gap. As I have argued, American politics has degenerated into the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party.
This blog is concerned with the family court, and related policies that affect parents and kids. These issues now involve partisan politics. Look at last week's post, How lesbians cheat dads. This crazy multiple-mommy law will do a lot of damage to father-child relationships. So far, the vote has been along party lines, with Democrats favoring using multiple lesbians to crowd out fathers rights, and Republicans opposing it.
There was a 1950s TV show called Ozzie and Harriet. It was a scripted sitcom reallity show about a traditional American family. Today we have the Jersey Shore show instead, with Snooki and others that you would not want living in your neighborhood. The culture has turned from pro-family to anti-family.
When leftist Democrats like Mark Leno propose anti-family laws and policies, they often express their hatred for Ozzie and Harriet. They are taking sides in the culture war. If they get their way, American will have a civilized cultural elite, and a middle class that looks like the Jersey Shore.
Psychologists have also taken sides in the culture war against the family, and they are nearly all liberal Democrats. At a recent academic psychology conference, 80% of the 1000 attendees identified themselves as liberals, and only 3 identified as conservatives. Psychology is famous for having a very high proportion of Jews, gays, and mental disorders, but they are dominated even more by liberal Democrats. And they are on a mission to destroy the family.
A reader sends this quote:
"In the end, does it really matter if my motivation at this point is less than pristine?" he asks in all apparent sincerity. "Isn't the only question whether I am right?"I do not usually address motivations. If Pres. Obama is promoting a bad policy, it is enough to say what the policy is, why is will have bad effects. It seems superfluous to say that he is trying to get re-elected, or appealing to his base, or acting out of ideological conviction, or doing a secret deal.
But the anti-family motives are so obvious that it is just foolish to pretend that psychologists and other court officials are sincerely looking out for the welfare of kids. If they were, then maybe the problem could be corrected by sending the officials to some educational seminars, or hiring more competent officials. No, I am afraid that if these officials were more competent, then they would do more damage.
So more and more I am offering motives. When San Francisco politicians push laws for kids to have several mommies, or try to destroy a happy marriage, I ask why. Maybe they have some sort of gay-Jewish-commie-psycho agenda.
I could be wrong about the motives of some of these folks. No doubt some of them are just stooges who are doing what they are told, or doing what is politcally correct, or doing what seems easy or profitable. But they are also taking sides in the culture war, and they are responsible for what they say and do.
Meanwhile, I am not deterred by name-calling from the SPLC. The SPLC seems like a racist hate group to me. It raises money for the purpose of provoking racial animosity and intimidating its enemies into silence. Check out this SPLC fund-raising letter, this (pdf) report, and this video explanation from one of their leaders, Mark Potok. Potok would probably say that this video is out of context, but he sure seems like a hatemonger to me.
Update: Here is a pdf report on how American Jews have voted consistently Democrat for 40 years.
12 comments:
"In the end, does it really matter if my motivation at this point is less than pristine?" "Isn't the only question whether I am right?"
The problem is that you can't prove that you're right. Asserting theories based on factless info. then asking people who disagree to prove that you're wrong, doesn't make what you're asserting right.
Motivation matters, whether it's from the left or right. If people are attempting to avoid discussing their motivation, it's for a reason, and not a good reason, either.
As for psychologists, it's been demonstrated to you that the majority of them are not Jewish, or Gay. It's also been pointed out to you that you don't even know the religion of the people that you calim are motivated to be driven by their religion. And if their motivation doesn't matter like you say, just "whether they are right", their religion wouldn't matter even if you knew what their religion was.
It is hard to prove motivation. That is correct.
A reader sends this quote:
"In the end, does it really matter if my motivation at this point is less than pristine?" he asks in all apparent sincerity. "Isn't the only question whether I am right?"
The problem is that a reader never asked "Isn't the only question whether I am right ?"
The reader questioned whether you can trust what's presented by someone who asks that you dismiss their motivations.
The problem is that you DO attack people for what you guess their motivations are, and you want them at the same time, to not question your own motivations at all. You can't expect to have it both ways and expect people to take you very seriously.
People see through misrepresentations, dodging, obfuscating and fabrications, don't you think ?
My motivations are real simple. I disagree with those who took my kids away, and with the larger forces that are anti-father and anti-family.
I do not trust any psychologist, lawyer, or politician. I do sometimes quote them. If they are wrong, then go ahead and prove them wrong.
Why expect people to trust you and what you say, when you dodge questions, obfuscate, etc. and guess as to their religions and their motivations ?
Question-dodging is a common tactic used by politicians and public relations officials. Here’s how it works: If you don’t like the question you were asked, answer the question you wish you had been asked. Politicians are notorious for using this strategy during public debates, but does this evasive technique affect the public’s perception of the person speaking? The authors examined the efficacy of this technique by asking participants to listen to and view audiotaped and videotaped debates between two politicians, to rate them on four interpersonal dimensions, and to recall the initial question asked. The results were eye-opening. When the politician gave an answer that was completely unrelated to the question asked, it reflected poorly on his credibility. But when the politician dodged the question with an answer that was related to the question asked, many of the participants didn’t notice the dodge and even misremembered the original question. The authors also tested how style versus substance influences perception. Surprisingly, they found that speakers who answered the right question but fumbled through their answers (with uhs and ahs between sentences, for instance) seemed less credible than speakers who dodged the question but answered with style and confidence.
Bottom Line:
Question-dodging may go undetected when the answer is related to the question asked and is given with confidence and conviction.
It seems that when psychologists and judges look out for the best interests of the child, for the most part they THINK they are doing the right thing. However, it is not always the case. Each case should be handled on its own merit, and should not be handled from the perspective of one particular way of thinking (i.e. psychological school of thought, etc.) Each human being and each family law case is unique, and it seem unimaginable that some of the court "experts" would use a "cookie-cutter" approach to do what they feel is in the BIOT Child.
George - you write: "I do not trust any psychologist, lawyer, or politician." In every field there are unethical people - even in religious organizations! But I suspect that there are some really good psychologists, lawyers and politicians. Indeed, they may be hard to find, but, once found, it may be a good idea to hang on to those relationships that are ethical and constructive. I agree with George that today politics has devolved into the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party. It seems this culture has always tended toward "black and white"/"either-or" thinking. Look at other countries which have MANY choices and several major parties for people to vote for at the polls. It is not just "either/or".....Barbara
Thanks for posting this. Actually the corrupted politicians do not want to protect any culture in anywhere. However liberal democrats are worst. because of they have no policies for protecting family values or any other cultural and environmental values. Liberal democracy is protecting LGBT groups rather than protecting families. Both male and female homosexuals are potential child abusers. But corrupted laws and politics are protecting and promoting homosexuality.Base of these things is the Jewish way of thinking. It does not allow people to respect the nature.
Regarding your update on Jews and voting...American Jews number about 5.5-6.5 million,2 making up less than 2% of the U.S. population — certainly not one of the biggest voting blocs in the American electorate.
Are you compelled to go into some sort of tangent about how about Jews impact everything while they represent such a small minority ?
That's right, Jews are only about 2% of the voters. Likewise, gays are only about 2%. And only about 80% of them vote Democrat.
Are you compelled to go into some sort of tangent about how about Jews impact everything while they represent such a small minority ?
I am just pointing out groups that have taken sides in the culture war.
Post a Comment