David Ammons reports on various bills that were just signed into law by the former Attorney General.
1. HB 1031, which provides "long-term funding for problem gambling". This program to treat problem gambling is funded by a tax on gambling, so in order for the program to raise more money, more people will have to be encouraged to spend more money gambling.
2. SB 5939 "Requiring police reports to be given to victims of identity theft". The police are required to check identification before they can give out the reports, but how will they know that the person presenting the identification is the person whose identity was stolen and not the identity thief?
3. HB 1314 "Creating the domestic violence prevention account". Increases the fees for filing divorce papers in order to fund programs to prevent domestic violence. But if we want to help prevent domestic violence, shouldn't we make it easier to get out of a marriage to a violent spouse, and not more expensive?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 11, 2005 09:58 AM | Email This5939: because they’ll use their laptops to access their psychic network account
1314: a corruption of the conservative ‘user fees’ concept. A more accurate method of application would be to let the miscreants work it off in the salt mines. 1314 acts more like a maze of ‘jersey barriers’ on the way out of Oz, faced by the victims.
Go check the DSHS website. According to DSHS all domestic violence is man-beats-woman.
Go check the Wa state crime reports. In 2002 nearly 50% of the victims domestic violence homocides were male. In one of the years listed, 40% of the perps were female.
You can see who is running the show over at DSHS.
Posted by: Andy on May 11, 2005 10:27 AMGiven that you seem to disagree with IDs to vote, one reason given ID theft, I assume you are also against IDs to board a plane? Which do you think is more important?
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 10:47 AM
Go check the DSHS website. According to DSHS all domestic violence is man-beats-woman.
Go check the Wa state crime reports. In 2002 nearly 50% of the victims domestic violence homocides were male. In one of the years listed, 40% of the perps were female.
Got links? This is the web, man!
Posted by: Huckleberry on May 11, 2005 11:06 AM1. The program will reduce problem gambling, and it is silly to believe that the forces behind the program will try to increase gambling. Do the police encourage people to speed? Do anti-smoking leaders encourage people to smoke?
2. Is there any reason why an identity thief would really want a police report? Or even want to contact the police?
3. I don't know the figures involved, but I can imagine that the amount will not significantly impact the number of divorces, to say nothing of the ability of people to escape their spouses (for which divorce is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition anyway).
More to the point for all of these, if you cut or eliminate every type of tax, isn't it hypocritical of you to then attack government for funding programs through user fees?
Stefan, sometimes your drive to type clever prose and your seething anger at Democrats get in the way of your ability to think rationally.
Posted by: Bruce on May 11, 2005 11:33 AMAs HB 1314 - this is a bill designed to create employment for graduates of the UW Women Studies program. There job will be to run around trying to convince women that if their life is not pure ecstacy it is their husband's fault because he is a member of the "patriarchy." They will convince the wife that she is a "victim" of the "patriarchy," and show her how to get a divorce, remove the husband from the life of his kids, keep the house, and get big child support payments. Their objective will be MORE DIVORCES, since more divorces means more revenue for them and thus pay raises.
By any other definition, we would call this a PATHOLOGY. People who do things that harm themselves are called sick. Our government, which is supposed to be by the consent of the people, is focused on doing things that harm the people. Thus, either the people are sick, the government is sick, or both.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 11, 2005 11:40 AM1. "The program will reduce problem gambling": How do you know? Because the legislature says so? Have any empirical, objective studies to prove your point?
2. "Is there any reason why an identity thief would really want a police report?": Yes, to know if there's a chance they'll be investigated or caught. Why do bank robbers use police scanners?
3. "I don't know the figures involved, but I can imagine": Yes, you can! But is your imagination tied to reality? Increasing the price of something will decrease the demand for it - in this case, they are decreasing the demand for divorces, which would encourage people to stay in dysfunctional relationships. That's economics, not imagination.
Bruce, sometimes your drive to type clever prose and your need to be contrarian get in the way of your ability to think rationally.
What we need is a treatment program for legislators that are addicted to passing legislation because they want their name on a law that they can hold up in front of their constituents and say, "See looks what I did, I passed important legislation that we really need, blah, blah, blah."
The treatment program would be funded by a reduction in salary for all senators and representatives.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 11, 2005 12:18 PMhttp://www1.dshs.wa.gov/ca/victimservices/dvvicservbut1.asp
Which links into several feminist run orgs. Among them is Wa State Coalition Against DV. You gotta love their anti-male wife beater literature. It goes unchallenged year after year. A few sob case studies and invented data.
http://www.wscadv.org/index.htm
The police reports referenced is:
http://www.waspc.org/wucrwibr/CIW_Archive_Data/2002/Complete2002CIW.pdf
I double checked my claim on the 2002 reference- I get the BS horn blown at me, but not by much and not enough to invalidate my point.
2002 DV homocide data
37f::24m victim ratio
19f::42m perps ratio
This is a far cry from how DSHS and their cronies are presenting the data. What's further is if you look at how they present the victim profile- women who can't get away- the homocide profiles represent nothing of the sort.
It gets even worse as you peel the onion and go explore the "accusations" of DV and find out how many are just blatantly false. It's an extremely effective sand in your eyes tactic used frequently in divorce and custody battles because DSHS has stacked the deck HEAVILY against fathers in family court.
It goes back to the claim that 1 in 3 women are victims...well this would have to mean at least 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 men are perps?
Posted by: Andy on May 11, 2005 12:27 PMFor you to say "that the amount will not significantly impact the number of divorces" I'd like to know what you mean by 'significantly'. Just one person having to stay in an abusive relation because of this. Is that alright? Ten maybe, or 100. How many is worth the tax?
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 12:28 PMIn the same year as the data I quote above. The Wa State Coalition Against DV published an anti male report intended to influence the legislature and made recommendations of better laws for DV victims. Here is a quote from page 7 of that report.
"A note about language used in this report: With one exception, all the individuals who committed homicides in the cases reviewed by Fatality Review panels were male. In the one instance in which a woman committed the homicide, she was defending herself from her male abuser, who had
broken into her house and was threatening her."
'scuse me while I vommit.
Anyone objective would look at the actual data and see that
1- Actual DV is pretty likely to fly in any direction regardless of gender
2- The Girlfriend quotient drives up the statistic significantly. Bad choices but nothing a firearm in the night stand of HER own apartment wouldn't fix. Sorry no DV $ needed.
Thus the money garnished from the public pretty much does NOTHING to address either 1 or 2.
Are you really saying that Dems and your peeps are so incredibly lazy that pulling an ID out of a wallet or purse is too much of a modest hurdle to jump? If anyone is that lazy I would hope they do not vote, for they obviously do not have the energy to lift up a voter pamphlet, never mind actually reading and comprehending it.
I am surprised that you are so willing to be associated with these people and have the same values of these lazy people. Personally I think this number is really small (no evidence just my feeling and hope). I also think the number of legal voters that do not drive is tiny too and reduced even more when a WA IDs are included with driver's licenses.
Posted by: Fred on May 11, 2005 01:09 PMApparently these "peeps" as you call them must not have bank accounts, use credit cards at stores, fly, go to Canada, purchase alcohol or go to a bar because it would be too much effort to pull our their ID's.
Get real. The only reason someone would support not showing an ID for voting is someone who wants to perpetuate fraud.
Posted by: dcr on May 11, 2005 01:26 PM"Screw it! It's 4;20 on this election day!"
has no business voting.
Posted by: Andy on May 11, 2005 01:36 PMIn the hippie world, that's slang for 'time to hit the hookah.' In other words, they'd rather live the high life than vote.
Gotta hand it to Lucy this time, she's being incredibly honest.
Posted by: Larry on May 11, 2005 02:37 PMWhat I have seen from them over the last few months is that they actually don't care much about any of this (They certainly don't care about "fair elections"!), they're just enjoying watching the republicans squirm.
Their smugness will evaporate as they begin to lose elections, starting this fall.
What they tend not to talk about is the number of democrats and moderates that have gotten peeved at CG and the democrats over this election, over the legislative spending spree, and over the arrogance expressed by the Legislature in trampling over the will of Washington state voters.
It's gonna be fun!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 11, 2005 03:43 PMA revote now = landslide = losing donkey for next 20 years.
Now or later, voters won't forget what happened. Except this time they will have a heck of a time rousing anti Bush sentiment to gain party wide votes against the GOP. In fact the gas tax and vehicle tax is hitting them square in the crotch.
Posted by: Andy on May 11, 2005 03:55 PMwww.hatemalepost.blogspot.com
Talk to Waylan in the TABS group.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 11, 2005 09:04 PMhttp://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html
http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm
http://www.nextdoor.org/gay.html
Why then should only married couples foot the bill? At least this works for their arguement for same sex marriage.
This also allows unmarried heterosexuals who are cohabitating to get off the hook as well! Is this really just another attack on marriage?
Danice
Posted by: Danice on May 11, 2005 10:45 PMPosted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 11, 2005 10:57 PM
Maybe this why she left you...better get that gun out of the night stand....good woman was smart enough to take the kids. Didn't you counsler explain these to you.
Are You A Victim of Domestic Violence?
Has your partner done any of the following?
Manipulated you with lies and contradictions
Ridiculed or insulted women as a group
Ridiculed or insulted your most important values or beliefs, your religion, race, heritage, or class
Withheld approval, appreciation, or affection as a punishment
Continually criticized you, called you names, and shouted at you
Humiliated you in private or public
Destroyed furniture, punched holes in walls, broken appliances
Wielded a gun, knife, or any object in a threatening way (how many pistol wippings did she need?)
Kept you from working, controlled your money, made all the decisions
Refused to work or share money
Taken the car keys or money away from you
Threatened to hurt you or your family
Abused, tortured, or killed pets to hurt you
Refused to socialize with you
Ignored your feelings
Harassed you about affairs your partner imagined you were having
Regularly threatened to leave or told you to leave
This came from the only site that Danice quoted that wasn't some huge anti-gay site with a big old American Flag waving. This one I don't think mentioned more or less violence gays or Hetros.
Here is the best one ..
It is estimated that a woman is battered every 12 seconds in this country and that three to four million American women are battered each year by their husbands or partners. 17% of the victims are men.
But you don't believe in numbers, just the gun in the nightstand solves all theroy.
How's the dating scene going? Gun Shows?
Given the numbers you have cited above, do you think it's a good idea to raise the cost of getting a divorce?
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2005 07:30 AMThese are pretty poor estimates! If a woman is battered every 12 seconds then that is 2,628,000 women per year (7,200 more in a leap year). How can the subset of that (husbands and partners) be a larger number (3-4 million)? Maybe more feminist propaganda to make more anti-male legislation and to create more hate crimes against males?
Posted by: Fred on May 12, 2005 08:41 AMLOOK OUT, HERE COME DEBTORS PRISONS. (except for corporations and their officers) Glad we passed that bankruptcy bill.
Posted by: danw on May 12, 2005 09:22 AMNEWS FLASH - United airlines is a private corporation! It is not run by the federal government or Bush. (Why do the libs think the feds controll all private enterprise?) It is your freedom fighters (as the libs put it, other wise known as fanatical Muslim terrorists) that is the main cause of the airline collapse after 9/11.
Posted by: Fred on May 12, 2005 09:30 AMIf you have an opinion on the subject, why don't you go look up the data from the source and not from some unchallenged agenda oriented special interest?
And while you're busy attempting to further the agenda of villifying one gender over the other, look up per capita which gender is more frequently found guilty of child abuse.
The latter might strike you as an interesting homework assignment given who controls DSHS and their recent scandals regarding how they address child abuse.
Posted by: Andy on May 12, 2005 10:09 AMRegarding debtors prison...it is unconstitutional to put someone in the US in jail for a debt, EXCEPT child support.
Somehow when women fall behind on support, it is never enforced.
Things at DSHS that make you go hmmmmmmm.
You didn't answer my question:
"Given the numbers you have cited above, do you think it's a good idea to raise the cost of getting a divorce?"
Seems that was what this original post was about.
And you should bite your tongue before talking about Bush and United Airlines. I don't know what that comment was meant to convey, but Bush has nothing to do with United. The upper management of United has driven that airline into the ground (giving themselves six-figure bonuses each quarter while in bankruptcy, at the same time trashing the front-line workers' pensions), and the President has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2005 10:18 AMI can also introduce you to another line of men who have had judges refuse to enforce their own court orders on child custody and parenting plans when they are violated by mothers.
more things that make you go hmmm.
Posted by: Andy on May 12, 2005 10:19 AMJames S.
Posted by: James S. on May 12, 2005 10:27 AMSeem like the protection of marriage folks here, all seem to have a little problem with ex wives taking them to the cleaners.
Did you guys try a little trip to Promise keepers?
I will be celebrating my 22nd anniversary in June. We have no guns in the bedstand, and have had a wonderful relationship.
Before you go blaming the courts for your problems, look at yourselves, you were probably the same stubborn people with your wives, as you are with your politics.
Quick tip: Not all women love Dale Earnhardt.
As for the increased fee on Divorce, No it doesn't make any sense to me either, but I heard they tried to put it on marriage first and it wouldn't have passed. Just think How much extra money we could raise with gay marriage. (LOL)
As for My United Airlines Comments..check into the Bush adminstration failure to give loans to the industry. The 50% wage and benefit cuts and now allowing the Airlines in bankruptcy court forgive the Pension plan. Go figure, you take a job and part of your salary negotiation is your pension. Well I guess if we allow all the pensions plans to claim bankruptcy, Bush can then push his SS scam easier, cause no one will have a retirement plan.
How much did Wall Street give to his campaign this year?
Follow the money folks.
1. SS was NEVER meant to be a retirement plan
2. If Bush handed out tax payers money to save poorly run companies the dems would have cried corporate give away. He cares more about companies than people (as companies hire martians)
3. SW Airlines is doing just fine, think it could be a management issue? Don't poor tax payers money down a mismanaged rat hole, and keep government out of the private sector.
Are you trying to say that you have to dem to have a good marriage? That all the divorces are reps? That all women are dems, therefore couldn't be married to a rep? What is the relevance of the single point statistic?
I am glad to hear that you have a strong relation. Women being 'liberated' (not given the choice of staying home, but being forced to work to pay the bills) is probably the biggest cause. Husband and wife start having different friends, different association, spending the best time of the day away from each other, of course they are going to drift apart! The time they do spend with each other is playing the "who had the worst day" game!
Posted by: Fred on May 12, 2005 11:45 AMand SS was meant to keep the old people off the streets, and retire with some sort of dignity, after working for many years making the American corporation the strongest in the world (for how long though?) Do you begrudge the working class a place to sleep at the end of their working life?
Posted by: danw on May 12, 2005 11:55 AMI am not sure where I heard the stat, but something about divorce rates in "Red States" I'd look it up, but I don't want to waste my time.
No, some of my best friends (GOP) have a wonderful marriage. but they make choices together.
Women being 'liberated' (not given the choice of staying home, but being forced to work to pay the bills) is probably the biggest cause.
But your thought that barefoot and in the kitchen is better for the American marriage, may be your problem. You and your wife obviously disagreed that she should have dinner on the table for you when you got home.
You did not want to be a partner in the marriage, you wanted to be the master.
She moved on, cause she did not feel comfortable in Berkaville.
Marriage is a partnership.
Not that it is any of your business, but I want my wife and offspring to have the best of everything. And I want to be liberated too (in the real meaning of the word) and stay home with her so that we can enjoy our lives TOGETHER instead of me going my way and she going hers because we are at the beck and call of some boss telling us when we come, when we go, when we are allowed to take a week's vacation, etc.
I could say Reagan, but Carter is the one that deregulated it. I understand why you, as a lib, feel that government should be responsible for business. Reagan part of dealing with the airline industry was breaking the airtraffic control union.
Posted by: Fred on May 12, 2005 12:30 PMPromise keepers is known as pretty much bogus.
What sort of incentive is there for a man to enter into marriage today? Think about- if he gets tired and walks out he loses everything even though he paid for everything. If SHE gets tired and walks out, she gets everything even if she paid for nothing. She gets the kids which become an 18-21 year annuity payment and is not accountable to do any parenting at all. This doesn't paint a pretty picture. Woman have gotten the deck stacked so far in their favor, no guy in his right mind would get married.
Prenups don't protect men either. The state will not honor any parenting plan specified in a pre-nup. The kids are an annuity and a weapon in divorce.
I've cited the sources of what happens to kids when no father is present many times. It's not a good picture. Check the "liberal" Seattle Times today on the gender gap- even they are citing that boys are getting the short end and its prevalent in education.
The pendulum has been swung too far by the feminist agenda already. This DV bill swings it even further. DV is real, but rather than fix it, the agenda has been to villify men and enable an accusation of DV to become the ultimate no lose tool for women in divorce.
When a woman claims DV and is lying and I mean blatantly lying--- THERE IS NO PENALTY. The man will have to spend tens of thousands to fight this allegation on top of the normal divorce and child custody costs. He will also have to go through all sorts of assessments WITH NO PROOF OF WRONG DOING. It's fool proof in divorce. If you don't see the potential for fraud by bitter women, your blind and need to talk to some real victims and spend some time watching from the inside of a courtroom.
Further exactly how does this DV bill address the largest segment killed in DV homocides ie Girlfriends. Answer: it does NOTHING. It's a tool to subsidize divorce and breaking up family.
If you think I've personally been through much of this you'd be wrong. I got lucky, but I saw the tip of the iceberg and started doing research to see how deep the corruption is. Unlike most guys, I have the money and motivation to fight back. I'd rather be out having fun, but this crisis is REALLY REALLY REALLY bad.
I could give a rat's behind about whether gays get married or not. We've got to address marriage/family as a losing proposition for hetero men.
This next gen of men are going to get wise and if you want your daughter to be treated like a potential walking larceny by every guy she meets- go ahead and keep buying what the feminists are selling.
I on the other hand care about and support the American dream.
I guess us promise keepers deserve to be taken to the cleaners. I guess going to the Persian Gulf for six months in the military (while my wife brought other men into my home) is being a promise breaker. Or how about staying at my post in the Military while my ex disappeared with my three children. For over three years. All C.S.E. cared about was the money(even after I filed all the required paperwork to find my children). The court never even punished her for kidnapping my kids while I was defending my country. So if that is your idea of keeping a promise, than your way of thinking is the reason men are the victims.
James S.
Posted by: James S. on May 12, 2005 12:38 PMWe are fighting back.
Posted by: Andy on May 12, 2005 12:45 PMCato Institute, I believe is from the right...I've been told.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv12n3/reg12n3-noll.html
This is just an opinion on why Regulations might be important....I am sure the writer (don't even know who it was) might offend you.. But the thought process is worth considering.
Again we did this at the turn of the 20th century, Relaxation of these rules are to be concerned to all small business. but now you think they are more trustworthy?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-deregulation.htm
to the rest, I am sorry about all your problems with the women in your life. I am sure that at sometime in your life you were in love. You must ask yourself what went wrong? People tend not to cheat in a strong relationship.
Posted by: danw on May 12, 2005 02:54 PMThis legislation and others motivated by the same groups have made the covenant of marriage a losing proposition for men and a major contribution to the destruction of the nuclear family.
84% of fathers lose custody of their children in divorce. (source US census) Why don't you ask them what went wrong?
33% of children are born out of wedlock (source census) and will never have a father.
Do you need me to spell out the long term damage of these trends? These are problems our kids will have to pay for.
Wasn't there just a bunch of PR on how many Seattle-ites aren't getting married....the funny part is the feminists are claiming the men here are no good. Talk about a state of denial.
These are the protection of marriage people here.
Maybe I am a feminist tool, but the experience I have had from my divorced friends, is was generally a lack of communication. and as we all know we tend to be worse communicators than women. Women are not the hunter gatherers out there trying to spread our seed, like men. I would bet a study of infidelity would tend to show men more likely to be the culprits.
Anyway I am sorry for your loss, but you shouldn't take it out on all women. there are evil people of both sexes, and I am sure your anger with the situation didn't help for a civil seperation.
Posted by: danw on May 12, 2005 04:19 PMThis legislation doesn't address real DV. I showed you that data -overwhelming data in fact- what part of that don't you understand?
If you CARED about addressing DV or family issues you'd look at the facts and address it from that perspective.
It seems you have the picture that all victims of DV are women in marriages being abused by husbands and have no means of escaping. That is the stereo type feminists like to sell you. This is in fact a minor proportion. BTW This proporation is arleady incredibly well funded too - protection for the other victims are not funded at all.
Gadzooks, I'd have to print the data on your eyeballs to make that any more clearer.
What this legislation does do is subsidize any woman who wants to misuse the system to gain the upper hand in divorce and custody.
Did you know that once a woman shouts DV in a divorce, all legal bills on that sand in your face tactic are covered- whether it is a blatant lie or not?
What more factual data or references to victims of DV fraud could I possibly provide for you?
Also- I'd appreciate it if you would stop making assumptions on my situation because you are so far off the mark it's commical.
The reason I can approach this subject without getting angry is that my experience is based primarly on research, case studies and hours working with other activists debunking the data you swallow wholesale.
Posted by: Andy on May 12, 2005 04:56 PMhttp://endabuse.org/resources/facts/
I am tired of this subject now...so good luck to you. Number 8 is the one I found most telling.
But if you think you are the oppressed, I found plenty of websites for you during my search.
Glad to hear you are tired of it- the people fighting this spin garbage are just getting warmed up.
DV is a big industry- like all big government, there isn't much motivation to 'solve' the issue, just keep the steady stream of revenue coming on in!
It helps to have a poster child villain to go after too. It would be horrible to have that myth shattered, else how would they ram this funding through?
Posted by: Andy on May 12, 2005 11:14 PMSince I know you won't bother to read the Wa state crime report I cited, I'll repost it directly with another perspective:
Out of domestic violence homicides in cited, 10 of the 61 total victims were actually female spouses. 3 of the 61 were listed as son or [step]daughter killed by a male. Sort of contrary to how your typical google search spins it eh?
You can feel free to cover your ears and yell that you can't hear me now.
Posted by: Andy on May 12, 2005 11:45 PMFunny you mention the sob husbands killed by their wife (fun to watch prosecuters make mince meat of these BS stories); being the expert on feminist data- could you also please explain the SOB mothers, fathers and 'others' killed by the women in the crime report data I pointed you to?
That annoyed feeling you're getting is caused by the sound of the stereotype shattering.
Dude-It's not that I'm against helping victims of DV; I want accountability- you don't get that by throwing more money at programs frought with prejudice and stereotyping from special interests.
Follow the logic of what happens when this biased system is misused: What happens when an abusive women plays the system and gets dad removed from his house and kids? The kids are left with an abusive mom and the super boyfriend she is going to hook up with next.
Don't tell me you haven't see 5 local news stories this year depicting exactly that and the kids end up dead.
Posted by: Andy on May 13, 2005 05:07 PMI hear ya, man. (Been there, done that, have the scars to prove it)
How much longer are you gonna play at trying to teach a pig to fly?
As much as I appreciate the effort your giving it, I can plainly hear the man-child holding his hands over his ears while chanting "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH"
How can you enlighten someone who learned everything he knows from "Dharma & Greg"?
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 13, 2005 07:47 PM