Headlines across many major news sources today vary from “White House Says Some Leaks are Good” (ABC News), to “White House: Bush did not Flip-Flop on Leaks” (CNN).  All major releases are stating that the White House claims that Bush did not change his stance on the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson, in July of 2003.

Let’s look at the facts, first, before diving into speculation.  First off, on July 8th, 2003, a story - leaked by Scooter Libby - showed up in the press, exposing Wilson as a CIA Operative.  Ten days later, on July 18th, 2003, White House Spokeman Scott McClellan told reporters “this information was just, as of today, officially declassified.” (emphasis, mine).  Ten days had passed from the time the information showed up in the press, until the documents were officially declassified.

Secondly, documents released this week (by prosecution, no less) contained an assertion by “Scotter” Libby that Bush had approved the release of information pertaining to Valerie Wilson.  According to Libby, he was told by Vice President Cheney that the President had authorized the release of classified information.  Libby stated he was given the go ahead to release that information.  Again, the information was not “officially declassified” until ten days later.

Read the entire entry …

From a story at CNN, Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old man in Saginaw, Michigan, does not want to pay child support for his eight-month-old daughter, Elisabeth.  Matt claims he told his former girlfriend (the child’s mother) that he was not ready to be a father.  He states that his former girlfriend knew he did not want to be a father and assured him, repeatedly, that - because of a physical condition - she could not get pregnant.

The gist of the argument is that if a woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or having the child, a man involved in an unplanned pregnancy should have similar reproductive rights.  “There’s such a spectrum of choice that women have — it’s her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions,” said Mel Feit, director of the National Center for Men. “I’m trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly.”

The lawsuit, filed by the National Center for Men, on behalf of Matt Dubay, states that Dubay should not be required to assume responsibility for his daughter, if he does not wish to exercise any parental rights.  In other words, he is choosing to give up his rights to his daughter (please pardon the expression, but to “abort” his rights, if you will), and does not feel he should be expected to be financially responsible for a daughter he does not wish to have, or be involved with.

The case, which will be filed on Thursday, has been nicknamed “Roe Vs. Wade for Men”.  Jennifer Brown, of Legal Momentum - a women’s advocacy group - does not believe the suit should be nicknamed what it is, or anything similar.  She states, “Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want.  There’s nothing equivalent for men.  The have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized.”

Feit (director of National Center of Men) counters, “Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences.  No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say.  The problem is this is so politically incorrect.  The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility.”

Feit and Dubay say that the lawsuit is not being filed so men will have a fatherhood opt-out.  In other words, it’s not there so that men will be able to have consequence-free one night stands, etc, or will not have to worry about using protection.  Feit proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline all parental rights and responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither parent had desired a child.

Feit states, “If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible.  If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.”

The case is set to be filed on Thursday (03/16), and is expected to start receiving flack from women’s advocacy groups, shortly thereafter.  Womens’ advocacy groups are expected to start pissing off men and male-advocacy groups, almost immediately.  Needless to say, it will wind up being a vicious circle.  My prediction is for this to be a very vicious media battle.

Let’s get to the opinion portion of the post, shall we?

Here’s a very specific breakdown:

• Man and woman get together, in a relationship.
• Man says he doesn’t want a child.
• Woman says she can’t get pregnant, anyway.
• Relationship ends.
• Woman does wind up pregnant, has child, goes to court for child support.
• Here’s the big one: Man does not want to pay child support, and does not feel he should have to as he specifically told the woman he did not want to have a child, the woman said she could not get pregnant.  A pregnancy occurred…
• Should he still be required to pay?

What’s your opinion? 

If you say “yes, he should required to pay,” then - technically - you are stating that he has no reproductive rights, post intercourse.

If you say “no, he should not be required to pay,” then - technically - you are stating that a man has a right to terminate any parental rights and responsibilities.

My opinion?  I believe that if there was a reasonable belief that pregnancy would not happen, then the man should not be required to pay for support if the relationship was already over when the woman discovered the pregnancy.  Additionally, I feel that in giving up responsibilities for child support, the man should be required to permanently give up all parental rights.  In other words, he will never be able to file a legal injunction to see, or interact with, his child.

There are a lot of you who will say that he should have thought to use protection.  Let me rebuff that argument very simply:

1) My fiance and I actively have sex.  She wears an I.U.D. that is shown to be nearly 100% effective against pregnancy (99.99%), and she was told by her doctor that it was that effective.  There is no reason for us to pursue other birth control methods, as the doctor has assured us she stands such a miniscule change of becoming pregnant.

2) The man and his girlfriend actively had sex.  His girlfriend had a physical condition that - according to doctors - prevented her from becoming pregnant.  There was no reason to pursue other birth control methods, as doctors had assured her she could not become pregnant.

There are a lot of you who will say that he should take responsibility for the child.

What if he has absolutely no intention of ever being in that child’s life?  What if he is willing to sign away - now and forever - all parental rights (including the right to ever visit/see his child)?  Should he still be required to pay for a child that he did not want, that was discovered outside of a relationship (the relationship had ended when she discovered the pregnancy), that he has no rights to, that he could never see (assuming he signed away such rights)?

If you say “yes,” then why?  In my opinion, the woman controls the man’s fate in this instance.  If she chose to have an abortion, all is well and good for the guy.  But it she chooses to keep the baby, then she can require the man to pay, regardless of whether he has any interest in the child - EVEN IF IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT SHE COULD NOT GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

ALL methods of birth control carry some risk.  If they had used birth control, and she had gotten pregnant, should he have to pay?  Why, if they were broken up, etc..?

Again, breaking it down:  If my fiance and I seperated, and - after we broke up - she found out she was pregnant, I would have a choice to make.  On one hand, I could be in my child’s life with visitation, etc…  On the other hand, I could decide I wanted nothing to do with the child, and was willing to sign away all parental rights.

Regardless of what I decide, my fate is in her hands.  If she chooses an abortion (or adoption), then I am liable for nothing.  If she chooses to have the child, then she can sue for child support from me, even though I was under the impression that she would not get pregnant, she did not find out until after the dissolution of the relationship, and I had no say in whether or not she had the child.

Doesn’t seem very fair, to me.

Before you get upset at me, stating that a guy should accept responsibility, please realize that I fully agree.  However, this case has extenuating circumstances.  Had she not told him that she was unable to get pregnant, I’m sure he would have taken precautions (birth control), or (possible, but doubtful) not had sex, at all.

This case is set to be a defining one for the decade, and for reproductive rights.  Before it blows up into a mass-media circus, I’d like to hear your opinion.

So how about it?  What do <em>you</em> think?

*NOTICE: Certain facts from the above article are not contained in the documented source.  Said facts were originally reported in a televised news broadcast on CNN, and are therefore considered as accurate as facts contained within the print version of the story.

Technorati Tags: roe vs wade for men, matt dubay, national center for men, Mel Feit, Jennifer Brown

Powered by Qumana

Honestly, people.  I’ve been watching the news, and receiving enough alerts from random leftist protest groups, to choke my brain with Katrina krap[sic].  I’m getting pretty sick and tired of it.  WAIT!  Before you go off saying “It’s just another conservative trying to keep Bush from being blamed,” I ask you to hear me out.

It doesn’t really matter who is to blame.  What matters is that it happened, people need help, let’s stop bickering and help them.

So far we’ve blamed:

• FEMA
• The old FEMA director
• The new FEMA director
• Cheney
• Bush
• The Mayor of New Orleans
• The Governor of Louisiana
• A handful of congresspersons and senators
• The entire Office of Homeland Security (and I have yet to figure out, exactly, why)
• The NOLA police department
• The Coast Guard
• The Army Corps. of Engineers (after all, they built the levees)
• and a handful of other people.

Is that list long enough?  While we’re at it, why don’t we have some fun and blame the people that lived in NOLA.  We can even blame God.  Since we’re blaming God, we have to blame the Religious Right’s spokesperson for God, Pat Robertson.  Actually, we have to go a step further and blame the guy with the direct line to God… Let’s blame the Pope.

Think I’m crazy?  Well, I think you’re crazy for caring about where blame lies, instead of helping people.  Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention, New Orleans is not the only place that got hit (hard) by the storm.  It’s just the only one people seem to care about, now.

Let’s stop placing blame.  All that’s getting you is a slow-down in getting people help.  Oh, it’s also taking up a lot of funds.  Every inquiry, hearing, etc… done in “investigation” about this, takes up more government funds that could (and should) be spent on helping the people affected.  Hmm, oh yes, it’s also pissing off the people who can get the help.  That’s not what you want to do.

Stop blaming people, and start concentrating on getting help to those affected.  Once all of this is long over, you can start worrying about whether or not Bush was enjoying a vacation, and playing stupid, when Katrina was coming.  You can stop worrying about whether or not the Mayor acted inapropriately by allegedly not asking for assistance, early enough.  You can stop worrying about whether it was a whim of the weather, and a few SNAFUs happened, and things didn’t go off without a hitch - before you remember that nothing goes off without a hitch on that scale.

Stop it. Stop it. Stop it!!!  Go help people.  If I hear one more word out of your mouths about who is to blame in all of this, I swear I’m going to start passing out some duct tape… one piece, to each of you, place gently over your mouths - and then driven into place with a sledgehammer.  GO. HELP. THEM.  Worry later (if ever) about who’s to blame.  After all, it’s not really important.  What’s important is rebuilding the lives of the people who lost every darn thing they own.

(Why am I so expressive about this?  I was nearly in the same boat.  If hurricane Rita had not shifted course at the last minute, my house would have been directly in the path of the storm.  A good friend of mine was in the path.  He lost his home, and the majority of the trees and out buildings on his land.  He doesn’t give a flip if anyone was to blame for Rita, or anything else.  He just wants some help getting his life back.  I’m sure the folks in NOLA (and the rest of the affected areas) feel the same way.  Think about that when you’re writing your next petition on Katrina.)

Powered by Qumana

The following came to me by way of a mailing list:

As expected, President George W. Bush yesterday signed budget-reconciliation legislation that includes a firm date for TV broadcasters to clear 700 MHz spectrum and $1.2 billion in funding earmarked for public-safety communications.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 216-214 to approve the budget package, which requires broadcasters to clear the 700 MHz airwaves on Feb. 17, 2009, after which 24 MHz of frequencies will be allocated nationwide to public safety. Other airwaves in the band will be auctioned to commercial operators in a bidding process expected to generate $10 billion in additional revenue for the government. Under previous law, broadcasters tentatively were targeted to clear the 700 MHz band by the end of this year, but they were not required to do so until 85% of all U.S. television sets could receive digital signals—a threshold that could take decades to reach, according to many analysts.

This has been a long time in coming.  Many had hoped that the legislature would wait until technology had caught up to current demand, but unfortunately there was no such luck.  Fortunately, the bill gives three years for technology to catch up, and become affordable.  Unfortunately, we all know that won’t necessarily happen.

I can tell you this.  Cable companies will be rejoicing, as it is currently cheaper to sign up for digital cable (which converts to be viewable on analog televisions), than it is to purchase a digital-capable television - or even converter.  Cable companies are much more capable of changing their reception frequency for broadcast television.  For those unfamiliar with how this works, cable companies receive television broadcasts via either satellite, or large antenna arrays.  Then, the signal is either converted for analog distribution immediately, or it is sent down the wires to digital converters at the customers’ homes, where the signal is converted into analog for display.

The e-mail goes on to say:

Some public-safety officials previously had expressed hope that first responders might receive more than the 24 MHz of airwave earmarked, but enacting the budget measure effectively ends such discussion, said Harlin McEwen, chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police communications and technology committee. “All the spectrum that is not going to public safety is ready to be auctioned, so it is highly unlikely [that more frequencies would be dedicated to public safety],” McEwen said. In addition to allocating spectrum to public safety, the law creates a $1 billion grant program to pay for public-safety interoperable communications systems, $156 million for national alert and tsunami warning systems and $43.5 million to help fund E-911 upgrades as called for in the Enhance 911 Act passed in 2004. Most of the $10 billion in expected auction proceeds will be used to reduce budget deficits and to fund a program designed to provide people with analog TV sets low-cost converters that will let them receive digital broadcasts.

I have to chuckle at the last line.  I have my doubts that we will ever see widespread distribution of those “low-cost converters.”

Was this a good move by the Bush administration?  That depends on who you ask.  Television companies would likely say that they knew such an event was coming, but expected the date to be further in the future.  Public safety organizations - particularly first-response organizations - will agree that this is a very, very good thing.  The general public - especially when forced to purchase a digital television, subscribe to digital cable, or purchase a supposedly “low-priced” converter - will likely disagree.  Personally?  This has been a long time in coming.  It is a good move, as we do need some frequency rebanding to support first responders and public safety; but it will cause a lot of friction and issue in the coming years.  Look for late 2008 and early 2009 to be the time period that sees sudden leaps in “affordable” television technology.  Look for March 2009, indefinitely forward, to be the time period for gross price elevation of television technology.

Technorati Tags: Bush, television, 700mhz, Bush Administration

Powered by Qumana