What is Key to Feminism?

For John, BLUF:  zthe suthor asks some of the hard questions about responsibility.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Hill to Die On

From The Chhicago Boyz, by Sgt. Mom, 20 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

I swear, I have never been able to understand how the loud and proud Capital-F official feminists made the ready availability of abortion the hill (for the pre-born fetal humans, mostly) to die on.  Yes, I’ve pondered this in blogposts many a time.  The 19th century suffragettes certainly were what we would now cast as pro-life, and so was a modern iteration, IIRC.  (I used to get their newsletter.)  Why that one single aspect, out of all the others which would have a bearing on the lives of females; extended maternal leave and benefits, quality childcare … practically any other concern other than that of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy could be a rallying ground for those affecting an intense interest in matters of a particularly female orientation.  This, when birth control in so many forms (and for male and female alike) is readily and economically available.  This is not the 19th century anymore, not even the first half of the 20th.  Truly, it is a mystery why this particular cause and no other animates the radical fem-fringe.  I can only surmise that many of the radical and early feminists had abortions, felt horrifically guilty about it all and wished to drag other women into that particular hell with them as a matter of solidarity.

I am myself old enough to have known other women – my peers, mostly – who did for a variety of reasons, decide to take that route.  I understood that they had reasons they felt were valid and I sympathized without approval.  A woman who is pregnant and for whatever reasons, emphatically does not want to be – has a problem, a problem for which all the solutions are painful.  I did not judge then – but did feel the weight of their decision to go with whatever they felt to be the least painful.  No matter how you slice it, with abortion, you are cutting off a potential life – a viable heartbeat, little fingers and toes, a tiny face with eyelashes and a decided character, even in the womb.  So I have always approved of and supported those various enterprises which reached out a helping hand to the inconveniently-pregnant; anyone or any office which offered medical help, moral and actual support and encouragement to a woman who was inconveniently pregnant.  That was putting good intentions where they mattered; into actions which would offer an alternative to abortion.

A part of the power of pregnancy is the responsibility to be responsible.  The idea that abortion is a form of birth control does not appeal to me.  It is right up there with Eugenics as a wrong reason for abortion.

Is the purpose of Feminism to keep women in the workplace and not pregnant?  How will that work out in the long run?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Loans For Thee, Repayments For Me

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes we make judgemental errors.  Whose job is it to help us correct (pay for) those mistakes?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Is Forgiving Billions in Student Debt a Political Loser for Democrats?

Here is the sub-headline:

It's getting increasingly difficult to see the upside in massive debt forgiveness -- and very easy to see how it could backfire

From Truth or Consequences, by Speechwriter Michael Cohen, 2 May 2022.

Here is the lede plus six:

For several months I’ve been putting off my look back at all the many things I’ve gotten wrong since I began Truth and Consequences last year. That day is still coming, but today I’m doing something similar — I’m going to highlight something that I preemptively got wrong! Ever since word leaked last week that President Biden is inching closer to forgiving tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, I’ve assumed that such a move is good policy and smart politics. I’ve written as much and made this argument on Friday’s Zoom Chat.

Yesterday, however, I was discussing the issue with a friend who sees things otherwise. He made an argument that I found impossible to rebut, “How does reliving student debt help my general contractor? Or my union plumber?”

It’s a great point, and it speaks to the significant political danger of student loan forgiveness. While once I saw the political upside in forgiving billions in college debt, I’m coming around to the position that it could actually add to the Democratic Party’s political woes.

The Facts on Student Loan Debt:

Here are a few facts to consider: When measured by income, the poorest one-fifth of Americans hold about 8 percent of all student debt in America. Conversely, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households have a third. In all, approximately 43 million Americans — or one in eight households — are still paying off their student loans.

That means that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no student debt and that most of the Americans who owe money are not poor or working-class but broadly fall into the middle class.

How does it add up to a winning political strategy to forgive billions of dollars in debt for that segment of the population?

I admire the ability to admit when one is off the beam.  Writer Cohen is such a person.

I think Mr Cohen is on the mark.  Are the Republicans smart enough to exploit this?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Breaking Bad Cycles

For John, BLUF:  For six decades we have been trying to fix poverty and discrimination by applying social spending.  This seems not to be working.  Thus, we need even more spending or a different approach.  I am for a new approach.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Who Is Driving Inequality?  You Are

Free from The New York Times, by Opinion Writer David Brooks, 23 April 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Who is driving inequality in America? You are.  I am.  We are.

Did you read to your kids before bed when they were young?  If you did, you gave them an advantage over kids whose parents were working the evening shift at 7-Eleven. Did you spend extra on tutoring or music lessons?  Since 1996, affluent families have spent almost 300 percent more educating their young while everybody else’s spending has been mostly flat.

Did you marry before having kids and raise your kids in a two-parent home? The children of the well educated are now much more likely to grow up in stable families, and those differences in family structure explain 32 percent of the growth of family income inequality since 1979.

If you did these things, you did nothing wrong.  You invested in your children’s flourishing as any decent parent would.

But here’s the situation:  The information economy rains money on highly trained professionals — doctors, lawyers, corporate managers, engineers and so on.

Daniel Markovits, author of “The Meritocracy Trap,” estimates there are about one million of these workers in America today.  They work really hard, are really productive and earn a lot more.  In the mid-1960s, profits per partner at elite law firms were less than five times a secretary’s salary.  Now, Markovits notes, they are over 40 times.

These professionals invest heavily in their children’s education.  By eighth grade, students from affluent families are four grade levels ahead of students from poor families.  Seventy-two percent of students at the 150 most competitive colleges come from the richest quarter of families, and only 3 percent come from the poorest.

David Brooks has written a fine article, but you can only do so much in 800 words.

He doesn’t mention that Watts has been down for decades.  I remember, around Summer 1965, with my then girlfriend, arriving at my Father's house in Long Beach and being advised to spend the night, since there were riots in Watts.  We did.

Then there are the roles of LBJ (and RMN) and Jim Hayes in breaking up families.  The number one indicator of success in life—are your two natural parents still married to each other.

And, since David Brooks writes for the NYT there is the School Chancellor, Richard A. Carranza, who is looking to quash any “special” advantages for those kids who are doing well.  A theme emerging in NYC Schools is that it is wrong for parents to help kids with homework or give them special enrichment.  I needle our local Lowell School Superintendent, Dr Joel Boyd, about being a friend of Richard Carranza.  They aren’t, but he has met him.

All that said, Winnie the Flu may well result in a significant amount of flight from cities like New York.  For minorities who flee it might mean new opportunities to help their children grow, a la the article.  For others it could mean sifting out the “bright” kids, giving the others more of a chance.

This is where people like Doctor Boyd come into play.  Our School Superintendent is working hard to decentralize, for increased parental involvement, for getting all involved.  My fingers are crossed.  Better school mean better housing prices, which means more inheritance for our children.

Progress means, however, that people assume individual responsibility for their lives.  And better structured government welfare programs, ones with proper incentives, not disincentives.♠

Hat tip to my Brother Lance, who reads The Old Gray Lady.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I am looking at you, Speaker Pelosi.

Book Banning

For John, BLUF:  It is amazing that Prof James Peterson and his advocation of self-reliance is so triggering of certain classes of people.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Bookstore Removes Jordan Peterson Book Over Mosque Shooting, Continues Selling ‘Mein Kampf’

From The Daily Signal, by Reporter Joshua Gill, 21 March 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

A New Zealand bookstore stopped selling Jordan Peterson’s book in light of the Christchurch mosque shootings, but continues offering “Mein Kampf.”

Management at Whitcoulls, one of the largest bookstores in New Zealand, said it would be wrong to support Peterson by selling “12 Rules for Life:  An Antidote to Chaos” in light of “some extremely disturbing material being circulated prior, during and after the Christchurch attack,” according to an apparent customer service email, likely referencing a photograph in which Peterson embraced a fan wearing an “I’m A Proud Islamaphobe” T-shirt.

The store, however, continues to offer Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and Albert Cooper’s “Why Islamic Society Is Not Compatible With American Society,” according to its website.

Here is an insightful Comment:

Of course they are going to sell Hitler's book, the Muslims and Nazis were allies.

And this is true.

A private company, so they are free to decide what they sell.  However, it is close to censorship, which is a very bad thing, although seemingly favored by some on the extreme left.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Our Government Helping Us

For John, BLUF:  Maybe these folks think that Government is about taking taxpayer resources to allow them to conduct their own brand of political propaganda.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

O'Keefe Video:  DOJ Resources Used by Socialist DOJ Employee to Target GOP

From PJ Media, by Reporter J. Christian Adams, 19 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

The latest video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas captures a Department of Justice employee admitting that she does research on the home addresses and license plates of private individuals who are then targeted for loud protests at their homes by socialist demonstrators.  Other socialist protesters familiar with the process for discovering home addresses of targets strongly infer that Justice Department LexisNexis accounts are used by a socialist Justice Department employee to identify home address of targets.

The Justice Department employee, Allison Hrabar, organized a loud heckling protest of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen while she ate a private dinner at a D.C. restaurant.  Hrabar was able to locate Nielsen on a Tuesday evening last June.

The question, after the first question♠, is if Socialists are abusing their positions in the US Government, why would we believe the Democrats aren't also?

When asked directly by one of O'Keefe's undercover journalists whether she uses her DOJ LexisNexis account, another comrade of Hrabar's, Natarajan Subramanian, who appears familiar with her activities and works for the Government Accountability Office, says:  "I mean she has used it, she uses it probably on her work computer ... we are all walking a line in a lot of ways."

The Government Accountability Office (GAO)?♥  These are the folks who are supposed to be Congressional Watchdog.  These are the folks who go out and investigate the activities of other Government Employees and Contractors, to ensure there is no fraud and a minimum of incompetence in the execution of federal operations.

If I wasn't me, this would make me very cynical.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The first question is why these folks can't be fired for the abuse of their position in the Civil Service?
♥  Back in the old days this was the Government Accounting Office, after their function of doing accounting.  The US Congress is supposed to be the Government Accountability Office.  That is why they have the power to hold hearings and call witnesses.

You Are Responsible

For John, BLUF:  And be sure you know the escape routes wherever you are.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Hamburg Attack Puts Merkel Refugee Policy Back in Spotlight

This is from Bloomberg News and Reporters Alessandro Speciale and Chad Thomas, today, Saturday, 29 July 2017.

This is about a Palestinian who had been denied refugee status, whe went on a rampage in a supermarket, in the Barmbek district of Hamburg, Germany, leaving one man dead and six injured.

And, yes, this is one more instance that calls into question the refugee policies of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But, the lesson learned is in this sentence:

The attack in a supermarket in the Barmbek district left one man dead and six injured before bystanders overpowered the attacker.

The lesson to be drawn from this terrorist attack (or action by a mentally unstable person) is that YOU are the first responder, not the police, fire or rescue.

Yes, absolutely, in most cases it will be the trained professionals who will handle a situation, but they are minutes away when the problem is right in front of you.  Is the building on fire?  Call 911 and then make sure everyone is leaving the building.  Is someone injured?  Dial 911 and then make sure the person is breathing and not in danger from falling debris or other problem.  Is someone shooting at people or knifing them?  Dial 911 and then make sure people take shelter or evacuate the area.  In extreme circumstances you and those with you may have to confront the threatening individual.

Don't be stupid, but do act to protect yourself, your loved ones and others around you.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mitt, Enjoy Yourself

For John, BLUF:  I'm with Treacher.  And I would like to know about Senator E Warren's brilliant plan to break the logjam and fix healthcare.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mitt Romney Went Waterskiing, And The Boston Globe Is On It

This is from The Daily Caller and Blogger Jim Treacher, today, 26 July 2017.

America had a chance to elect Mitt Romney, and we blew it.  Back in 2012 he warned us about Putin, and a lot of other problems we’re facing in 2017, but we just laughed at him.  He tried to serve his country, and he was excoriated.  He was mocked for hiring women, because he said he had binders full of their files.  (To this day, nobody has ever been able to explain why that was bad.)  Hell, he was even accused of giving people cancer.  We treated a good, honorable man like dirt.  He doesn’t owe us a thing.

Or… does he?  Danny McDonald, Boston Globe:

While the Senate debated health care, Mitt Romney was waterskiing

It’s been a contentious week in Washington…

One Republican who appears to be unbothered by all the political tumult?  That would be Mitt Romney.

The former Massachusetts governor and two-time GOP presidential candidate looked quite carefree while showing off his waterskiing skills earlier this week.

What DOES Governor Mitt Romney owe us?

Better, what do we owe him?  And President Obama owes at least an apology over Russia.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Memorial Day Read

For John, BLUF:  Encourage people to be engaged in their community.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Mr Phil Klay, and the Brookings Institution:

The citizen-soldier:  Moral risk and the modern military

Very appropriate for Memorial Day.  Here is the lede:

The rumor was he’d killed an Iraqi soldier with his bare hands.  Or maybe bashed his head in with a radio.  Something to that effect.  Either way, during inspections at Officer Candidates School, the Marine Corps version of boot camp for officers, he was the Sergeant Instructor who asked the hardest, the craziest questions.  No softballs.  No, “Who’s the Old Man of the Marine Corps?” or “What’s your first general order?”  The first time he paced down the squad bay, all of us at attention in front of our racks, he grilled the would-be infantry guys with, “Would it bother you, ordering men into an assault where you know some will die?” and the would-be pilots with, “Do you think you could drop a bomb on an enemy target, knowing you might also kill women and kids?”

When he got to me, down at the end, he unloaded one of his more involved hypotheticals.  “All right candidate.  Say you think there’s an insurgent in a house and you call in air support, but then when you walk through the rubble there’s no insurgents, just this dead Iraqi civilian with his brains spilling out of his head, his legs still twitching and a little Iraqi kid at his side asking you why his father won’t get up.  So.  What are you going to tell that Iraqi kid?”

What ARE you going to tell that kid?  With luck the kid doesn't speak English, but there are still the gestures that speak to the kid.  These things are hard.  War is hard.

Here is the conclusion, and it talks to the divide between those who served in the military and those who didn't, but are still citizens.

The divide between the civilian and the service member, then, need not feel so wide.  Perhaps the way forward is merely through living up to those ideals, through action, and a greater commitment by the citizenry to the institutions of American civic life that so many veterans are working to rebuild.  Teddy Roosevelt once claimed a healthy society would regard the man “who shirks his duty to the State in time of peace as being only one degree worse than the man who thus shirks it in time of war.  A great many of our men … rather plume themselves upon being good citizens if they even vote; yet voting is the very least of their duties.”  That seems right to me.  The exact nature of those additional duties will depend on the individual’s principles.  What is undeniable, though, is that there is always a way to serve, to help bend the power and potential of the United States toward the good.

No civilian can assume the moral burdens felt at a gut level by participants in war, but all can show an equal commitment to their country, an equal assumption of the obligations inherent in citizenship, and an equal bias for action.  Ideals are one thing—the messy business of putting them into practice is another.  That means giving up on any claim to moral purity. That means getting your hands dirty.

When we talk about voting in Lowell we are talking about those who do their duty and those who do not.  That is between good citizens and those who shirk their responsibility.  I am willing to allow that those who came from other countries may be reluctant about civic engagement and that it is the responsibility of the rest of us to ease that pain, that fear.

All need to be involved, in peace as well as in war.

Regards  —  Cliff

Welfare and Personal Responsibility

For John, BLUF:  Daniel Patrick Moynihan was correct, back in the 1960s.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Captain Capitalism is a little cynical in his posting of this article from the Strib on the case of a missing two year old child.

Replacing Husbands With Government Checks

Actually, the father COULD be reached for comment, but he was in Chicago.

Regardless, this is what happens when the leftist dream is installed where women trade boring, reliable, employed husbands in for sexcapades with multiple losers and government checks.

I would be for legalization of drugs except for the fact that we have large parts of our population that lack self-discipline and the soft skills needed to gain and hold jobs.  If it is only a small percentage we can deal with it—after all, the poor will always be with us.  However, as the number of such people grows we eventually run out of other people's money.

The hard question is, how do you inspire the uninspired to do those kinds of things they have learned to avoid?  Can it be taught in a semester or is it a lifetime thing?  Is it reasonable to take away money when these people need that money to make it from week to week?  Is the answer to require them to show up some place five days a week, until they develop a pattern of showing up and it is second nature?  I have no answers, but neither, apparently, does the Federal Government.

Regards  —  Cliff

Civilians Must Be Ready to React

For John, BLUF:  We are now the "First Responders".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Some thoughts from Jane the Actuary on the train takedown over in Europe.  Here headline is “First Responders” or “Second Responders”? “Heroes” or “Role Models”? Reflecting on the train attack.

Her point is that after 9/11 we talked about Police and Fire Fighters as being the First Responder.  As she notes, on that train ordinary citizens, a French Banker, an American College Professor at Le Sorbonne, a Brit and three relative young Americans were the First Responders.

From our time when an aircraft hijacking meant a quick trip to Cuba, we have been accustomed to letting the "authorities" handle it.  Since 9/11 we have more and more had to make do as civilians.  For example, it was a civilian who initially dealt with the "underwear bomber".

We must face up to the fact that we are now the first responders.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Our Civil War History Transition

For John, BLUF:  .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Wall Street Journal provided, over the weekend, had an opinion piece by a Dr. William C Davis, who was formerly the Executive Director of the Virginia Center for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech. He is an historian of the US Civil War and Southern history.  In January of this year his book Crucible of Command:  Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee—The War They Fought, the Peace They Forged was published.  The OpEd is about history and memory and is titled "The Right Way to Remember the Confederacy".  The argument from Dr Davis is that "The indelibly tainted battle flag came down in South Carolina, but in context, other Confederate monuments can help teach history for all Americans."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Too Many Laws

For John, BLUF:  I wonder what George thinks?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Instapundit, last evening, wrote:

IS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AN EXCUSE?  No, but Michael Cottone argues that maybe it should be, in his Rethinking Presumed Knowledge of the Law in the Regulatory Age.  I think this is a very important topic and an important piece.  As he notes, it expands (significantly!) on some of the ideas touched on in my Ham Sandwich Nation:  Due Process When Everything Is A Crime piece.

With the plethora of laws on the books, plus the regulations for Executive Branch Agencies, it is physically and intellectually impossible for any one person to know all the rules and restrictions.  To assume or argue otherwise is intellectual nonsense.

We want people to have respect for the law, but if they can't comprehend the law how can they have respect?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Helping Women

For John, BLUF:  The California "Yes means Yes" law is a joke and an embarrassment.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The National Review we have a humorous analysis of the recent California Law that is aimed at the concept of "Yes Means Yes".

Remember, this is the use of humor in an effort to critique the unhelpful California law.  The point of the law is lost on me.  Is it aimed at College Campuses because that is the only place the Legislators could impact, or because College Campuses have displaced the local police and thus need additional help, or because this is just the leading edge of a new Victorianism coming down the road?

Perhaps the real question is if those old fuddy-duddies from pre-1960s America, before the Counter-Culture, Free Love, America, were right all along?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Some Cities Fail

For John, BLUF:  Some Cities make it and some don't and it is the People who make the difference.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From a post at Renee Aste's blog Cappadocia in Lowell I found a link to K T Kat, writing on the blog The Scratching Post who was talking about Camden, New Jersey.  K T is actually living in San Diego, but is somehow either following Camden as I follow Detroit, out of interest and horror and fear, or he has a tie.  In my case I have a tie. In the early 1950s we would travel from our small town in South Jersey, through Camden, to get to Philly and points beyond.  First by bus and then by car.  I remember the Camden Airport and Airport Circle.  I can still see the Airport Hotel from the New Jersey Turnpike.  I remember the big Walt Whitman Candy sign on the Camden side of the Ben Franklin Bridge.  Two of my friends had Fathers who worked in Camden, one as a naval architect and one selling pretzels to workers at the gates of the Sun Shipbuilding Yard.  There were jobs in Camden in those days.

Mr K T Kat was talking about an article in Rolling Stone, called "Apocalypse, New Jersey: A Dispatch From America's Most Desperate Town".  The point of K T Kat is that no where in the article in Rolling Stone does the writer focus on the responsibility of the People in Camden.  That is to say, it is their City.  it doesn't belong to the cops or the State of New Jersey or Governor Chris Christie or to Federal Anti-poverty officials or to the drug gangs rampant in the city.  The City belongs to the potential voters of Camden and it looks like they gave up.

Not everyone gives up.  Reporting from Tepalcatepec, Mexico, The Washington Post gives us:

An audacious band of citizen militias battling a brutal drug cartel in the hills of central Mexico is becoming increasingly well-armed and coordinated in an attempt to end years of violence, extortion and humiliation.

What began as a few scattered self-defense groups has spread in recent months to dozens of towns across Michoacan, a volatile state gripped by the cultlike Knights Templar, a drug gang known for taxing locals on everything from cows to tortillas and executing those who do not comply.

Not the Government, state or Federal.  Not the Army.  Not the Police.  The People.

As Renee was saying, don't be a Political Zombie.

Regards  —  Cliff

AF General Fired For Cause

For John, BLUF:  Properly relieved of duty.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Washington Post is a news article on Fired Air Force General Michael Carey.  The General, a commander of 450 land based nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) conducted himself in a very irresponsible manner, per a redacted Air Force Inspector General Report.  Irresponsible while in Moscow, Russia.

Where was his staff in all this?  They had a duty to speak up.

Redacted IG Report is linked to at the article.

Regards  —  Cliff

Gun Law Violation in DC

For John, BLUF:  There are too many different gun laws and now people are proposing even more.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Poor TV Personality David Gregory.  Not only is he a hypocrite with regard to armed guards at schools, now folks want him prosecuted for violating DC's gun laws. It seems he had an illegal (high capacity) magazine on the set of his news program.♠  Well, illegal in DC.♥

I feel sorry for Mr Gregory, except, as Professor William Jacobson points out:

But I’m less sympathetic than you might expect because fear of unintentionally violating gun laws is one of the things that has kept me from purchasing a handgun.  As you know, I took the NRA safety course over a year ago.  But I’m a legal resident of Rhode Island who lives much of the year in New York, so there’s an issue of whether I could obtain a NY permit, which is needed even to keep a gun in the home.  And then there’s the issue of transportation back and forth, and complying with the requirements to avoid prosecution as I pass through Massachusetts.

It all became such a bureaucratic jungle that I just deferred for the time being.

That’s where we are with many gun laws, the law-abiding responsible citizens who worry about compliance are scared away or risk prosecution for unknowing violations, while the lunatics and criminals don’t care.

We need a clean set of laws, so we understand what is and is not legal.  Something like "full faith and credit", perhaps in the form of Article 4 of the US Constitution.♦

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  This is as opposed to New York Times talk about "high capacity ammunition", whatever that means.
♥  Someone noted today that violent crime in DC dropped after the de facto gun ownership ban ended in 2008 with the Heller decision by SCOTUS.
♦  There is, of course, always the racist Sullivan Law to deal with in New York.

Good Social Policy—Fathers

A Professor David Barash, from the University of Washington, on sabbatical in Costa Rica, has a post up at The Chronicle of Higher Education, about a law in Costa Rica regarding the responsibilities of Fathers toward their offspring.

This law, the “Ley de Paternidad Responsable”, or Responsible Fatherhood Act, which went into effect in 2001, seems like a very good idea to me.

This law, the first of its kind anywhere in the world, identifies paternal obligations in terms of the right of children to know their fathers and to be supported by them and, in so doing, also removes some of the stigma for children born out of wedlock.  The landmark legislation established an entitlement procedure whereby single mothers could identify the father of their children, who would then bear his last name on their birth record, with each father held legally responsible for contributing to his offspring’s medical costs and child care until the child is 18 years old or 25 if the child is still in school.

If the named father disputes his involvement, there is mandatory DNA testing, paid for by the taxpayers.

Results include a decrease in deadbeat dads and a drop in the national birth rate.

I fully commend this concept to our Washington delegation.

And, if this turns out to be some sort of early April's Fool Day joke, it should be acted on here anyway, as sound social policy.

Regards  —  Cliff