Monday, November 05, 2007


Dr. Joy Bliss of Maggie's Farm:
Women's Lib, with its leftist leaders, spoke about independence and autonomy and freedom but acted, politically, as if they wished to exchange dependence on men for dependence on the taxpayer: that has become the family farm, and the "village," and the "tribe" of the present.


Anonymous said...

Are you implying that women who believe in equality of power between men and women are lefties?!

During the entire time period of male domination of society there has been war, poverty, and all forms of misery. Female domination won't work any better.

We need genuine equality in all sectors between men and women, if we are to have a peaceful, loving, society that produces positive products and services that improve the well-being of our species. Life can be a win-win situation for men and women, when power in all realms is equalized between women and men.

It certainly seems worth a try, if you consider the happiness level of humanity under male domination.

Carl said...


Don't get me wrong: I'm a firm believer in legal equality, which itself demonstrates that I don't confine the concept to the left. But you demand the equalization of "power" between the genders, a policy beyond the authority of government.

So the hard questions involve the Constitutional source and scope of equality. What's your view?--does equal power mean the Army has to draft women (if there's a draft) though they don't want to? And how does your approach apply to non-governmental conduct?, as shown in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), whose reasoning I reject. Aren't you worried about the state arbitrarily intervening in private conduct for the vaguely defined purpose of "equalizing?"

Anonymous said...

Perhaps "government" is not the only way to accomplish important moral and rational objectives.

I wonder what individuals such as you can do to cause true equality between women and men so that we can live in a loving, positive world (which does not exist under male domination).

Carl said...


I'm not sure what you're driving at. My relationships with women (even including an ex wife) were/are positive and loving: anything but "male domination." That's true for most people I know as well. Doesn't that mean that -- at least here in America -- we're resolved the problem?

Anonymous said...


What about EQUAL PAY for EQUAL WORK? Have you noticed the difference between the pay and position of women and men in places where you have worked?

What about EQUAL POWER throughout American institutions, e.g., college campuses, banks, religions, industry, law?

Where do women provide equal input into the DESIGN of our systems?

Maybe the lack of equal input from women in the design of our institutions, religions, business, etc. is why they function inefficiently and ineffectively.

Are honest relationships between men and women possible, when men (or women) have dominant power?

Doesn't seem likely. Fear prevails. Lies, money, sex are used to manipulate and neither men nor women get what they really want.

Carl said...


We already have implemented equal pay for equal positions--there is no difference anywhere I've worked. We have, with a few exceptions like the military, legal equality between the genders. It's up to individuals to compete for power and to leave their imprint on design and institution: equalizing outcome is beyond the ambit of state power and overrides the liberty of the individual. And it's an odd argument to make when Hillary is leading the polls.

Since unaminity is impossible, we rely on popular sovereignty in setting policy. "Men" and "women" register what they really want like all Americans: by voting. There is no other legitimate way to record such preferences, and thus no legal or moral scope for assigning outcomes from above, based on your, or anyone else's vision. If you want change, quit complaining about fear and power: start convincing 50.1 percent of the voters.

Anonymous said...

12/12/2000 - The Supreme Court decided voters' choices aren't really all that important. During most of our history, when we did have Democracy in the USA, votes were hand counted. I wonder when and how we will get Democracy back into the USA.

Carl said...


Anyone can have an opinion; yours is especially ill-informed. America is home to the oldest written democratic Constitution in the world. With occasional and largely ephemeral imperfections, we are a republic reflecting the will of the people.

Regarding the 2000 election, you know neither facts nor law. There was no fraud:

1) No count of Florida votes ever showed Gore ahead: "What happened in Florida was that George Bush won every official recount."

2) Many Florida officials and judges, were lawless. At the U.S. Supreme Court, "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy." (See Per Curium opinion, Part II B, last para.) As the liberal Justice Souter said (see Part C of his dissent):

"But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads). See, e.g., Tr., at 238-242 (Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing varying standards applied to imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach County during precertification manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly describing varying standards applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of Hearing 8-10 (Dec. 8, 2000) (soliciting from county canvassing boards proposed protocols for determining voters' intent but declining to provide a precise, uniform standard). I can conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly arbitrary."

3) On the issue of whether or not to halt the recount (a position supported by five U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the Supreme Court of Florida actually agreed that a final decision had to be rendered by December 12th (the day of the final SCOTUS decision) in an opinion issued the day before:

"What is a reasonable time required for completion will, in part, depend on whether the election is for a statewide office, for a federal office or for presidential electors. In the case of the presidential election, the determination of reasonableness must be circumscribed by the provisions of 3 U.S.C. § 5, which sets December 12, 2000 as the date for final determination of any state's dispute concerning its electors in order for that determination to be given conclusive effect in Congress."

Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, Nos. SC00-2346, SC00-2348 & SC00-2349, Slip Op. at 19 n.17 (Fla. Dec. 11, 2000). Ironically, therefore, the Bush v. Gore liberal dissenters were more intrusive of state law than the SCOTUS majority.

4) Third-party, post-election Florida recounts showed more votes for Bush than Gore under all reasonable assumptions.

Conclusion: You seem to define a democracy as a system where your viewpoint triumphs--without, or regardless of, the vote. That's called a dictatorship. Take the time to learn the difference.

Anonymous said...

This matter of who won in 2000 can easily be settled by taking a look at the Yellow Pages of New York City and Miami. If Miami is larger than New York City, what are Democrats doing complaining that they lost the presidential election in 2000? By comparison, Democrats should outnumber Republicans 2-1. However, on this matter, they negate the reality of it while crying about a non issue!