Of gander, geese and mindin' yer own $^&#^$^*&!)#^ business thankyouverymuchforasking

Bear with me as I must use a fusion-hot topic to start today's rant. I switch off that very quickly. Promise.

I keep hearing people saying men have no right to make a decision (abortion) for women 'cause men cannot have children.

M'kay.

Jes f'r the purpose of today's rant, I accept that logic. As I understand the logic it is -

If you do not understand, you cannot be part of the decision making process.

If you do not participate, you cannot be part of the decision making process.

If you are not a part of, you cannot be part of the decision making process.

If you are not directly affected, effected or impacted, you cannot be part of the decision making process.

If it cannot directly affect, impact, effect or otherwise actually matter to your life in a way that can be empirically measured, you cannot be part of the decision making process.

If you did not participate in the series of decisions that led to the need for a decision, you cannot be part of the decision making process.

Even if you did participate in the decisions, unless the situation has an empirical affect, impact, effect on you, you cannot be part of the decision making process.

Did I miss anything? Did I get something wrong here? Did I misunderstand? If so, I sincerely ask you to correct me in the comment section. I will update and revise. (Rene Alsept, if yer reading this, I welcome a rational comment.)

LOGICAL APPLICATION

By accepting that logic, I agree to its application in other matters. If you agree my summation above is correct, then you also agree to its application elsewhere

Do you live in Africa and live next to big game animals like elephants, rhino and lions? Do you understand the life cycle of these megafauna? Is your life directly affected by attacks by these land tanks? Are you willing to pony up the bucks needed to provide proper habitat, food, water and etc for these walking modes of destruction?

Are you gonna support the people whose crops were destroyed by elephants & rhinos?
https://allafrica.com/stories/201905130538.html

What about the people the big animals kill? Will you bring them back to life?
https://people.com/human-interest/lion-rips-off-4-year-old-girls-scalp-south-africa-big-cat-farm/

No? Then please excuse yourself from any discussion regarding the hunting and preservation of these critters.
https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2019-05-24-thula-sindi-weighs-in-on-botswana-vs-ellen-degeneres-fight-over-elephants/

Being less polite, shut up and go away. You don't get to make a decision on this.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/22/botswana-lifts-ban-elephant-hunting-plan-manage-population-9655006/

A CLUE X 4

While I'm giggling insanely swinging my cluex4 upside some haids, lemme slap more information on you.

"TROPHY HUNTING CAN play an essential role in the conservation of African wildlife, according to a growing number of biologists. Now some experts are calling for a program to regulate Africa's sport-hunting industry to ensure its conservation benefits."

So says National Geographic, which of the past 15 years or so has turned more liberal than Rolling Stone and New York Magazine. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2007/03/trophy-hunting-africa-save-animals-conservation-news/

A SIMPLE SOLUTION

Of course, there is a simple solution to all this. I can take no credit for the idea as Jonathan Swift was the first to popularize the idea.

As Botswana, according to the folks living there who DO get to make the decision (your logic, your rules, I just apply them across the board) cannot support the growing people population and elephant population, we have a choice. Well, some have a choice to make.

As some folks can't bear the thought of an elephant being killed, then they need to journey their unhappy butt down to Botswana and start thinning out the second most dangerous animal on the planet. This thinning can be done however the person wants. Bring #2 back home and care for 'em out their own pocket. Go Soylent Green. Declare war. Get Genocidal. Start a holocaust.

Or, adopt an elephant, rhino, lion, etc. Bring it home, feed and care for it. That is if you can stomach the thought of caging a wild animal for the rest of its life.

Something has to be done. Lives will end, one way or another, unless other people step in with massive amounts of regular, constant and consistent aid in the form of cash, food and other necessary supplies.

Donating 10 bucks here & there as a salve for the conscience makes things worse. It creates an expectation that more is coming. When it does not come, the result is crushing. People literally die. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/feb/19/dambisa-moyo-dead-aid-africa

NO HELP HERE

Ms. DeGeneres, a mega multi-millionaire, can complain loudly. Will she do anything to actually help? Nah. Will people like her do anything to actually help? Nah. Air-conditioned ivory towers are too comfortable.

Who is helping? People who preserve the animals for hunters. Who is helping? The hunters who drop the bucks to go to Africa to hunt. Again, National Geographic - "As big game populations dwindle further under pressure from human encroachment, shifting climate norms, and widespread criminal poaching,.."- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-hunting-killing-saving-animals/ - Not licensed hunts, in other words.

As PH in the NG story asks, "Who’s going to pay for the party?"

SPEAKING FOR THE SPEECHLESS

Just 'cause someone is gonna throw this at me, yes, animals cannot speak in their own defense.

Ahem.

That's all I'm saying on that subject.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

Yes! Act now and you get a whole lot more than you bargained for!

You get the "social contract" that allows you to bully other people at will while loudly complaining about being bullied yourself. You get to be part of a group that can ruin the lives of individuals and you don't have to care, at least until it happens to you.

You get to hire people to kill other people and be completely immune from prosecution. You get to hide behind voting, or not voting, as a way to excuse yourself from trampling the rights of other people because your elected reps made the decision.

Our elected reps are supposed to work for us. They are supposed to do what WE ask them to. Public servant. We give orders. They carry 'em out.

As the boss, you are accountable.

When the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

Be kind and help others or we'll arrest you; no, that's IF you help ... hang on

To this I add, the left also seeks to make voluntarily helping the less fortunate illegal.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/27/federal-court-first-amendment-protects-sharing-food-with-homeless-people/

Someone, as happened on Facebook, is going to say these local ordinances were enacted by Reboobicans.

I do not say which side of the oligarchy coin passed these local laws. I do say these laws are done in leftist communities.

Proof you say?

http://nationalhomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Food-Sharing2014.pdf

See Page 5. If you look at the cities, most listed there are considered Damnocrat strongholds. Leftist communities. These are same people who believe it is entirely fine to send armed law enforcement to someone's house and take what that person has and give whatever is taken to other people who did nothing to earn it,

Of course, Reboobicans do exactly the same thing. They send armed law enforcement to take what is yours and give it to someone who did not work for it.

My sole point above is these anti-homeless-feeding communities are aligned with the D side of the oligarchy, that group that publicly professes to want to help the less fortunate, Obviously, as proven by their actions, they only want that help forcibly taken from others. Voluntary help is not allowed. Volunteering to help the less fortunate puts you in front of the same gun that comes to take what you have and give to the less fortunate.

In case you don't wonder, I've been there. A local effort was launched a few years ago to shut down the local food bank where I am a director. Why? We give away raw meat, meat that comes from the Second Harvest warehouses I add. Same meat you can buy in a grocery store. Why? I, not the food bank, give away raw deer and raw wild hog. Apparently spending my own time, money and other resources helping people in need is wrong, at least according to the people who tried to shut the program down.

This was done by leftists.

Lemme share you a story.

A band of guerrilla fights swept through the small village. As they went through they shouted "Liberation! Freedom! Power to the people."

One of the fighters stopped at an old man's hut and grabbed two chickens.

With rheumy eyes, the old man looked at the young revolutionary. "The government, they took my chickens too,"

The idealist looked down at the sad and broken man and said, "The liberation fighters, we fight for you. We must have food to carry the fight to the oppressors to free you!"

The old man cast his eyes to the ground. "My chickens," he said. "my chickens, they do not know the difference."

Demanding inequality and unequal rights

As the nation again loses its collective mind over the issue of pregnancy, I have a few things to point out.

1) The Alabama bill was signed by a woman.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/politics/alabama-governor-signs-bill/index.html . Yes, the law was passed by the state legislature, mostly men.

The Alabama governor could have vetoed the bill.

2) It takes 2 to tango. Yet, the law does not see it that way.

Yes, a man can decide to NOT have anything to do with the child. This requires going to court, hiring a lawyer, getting a judge to rule, signing paperwork, etc etc etc. A man must get permission from a bunch of other people to not be the father/dad. This is not cheap.

A woman makes an appointment, pays some fees and gets an abortion. No lawyer, no judge, no hearing.

Men should NOT be forced to support a child they do not want if a woman can abort the fetus at will.

Men should have an equal right to decide to NOT be a parent.

S'called parity.

It doesn't happen that way. The article linked just below reads like something from a sociology textbook, but it definitely points out how the legal system is heavily slanted toward mothers and against fathers, despite what is said.
https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1268&context=fac_works

3) In divorce, women get custody the vast majority of the time.

"As a general rule, most states require that the mother automatically be awarded full custody of her child if she is unmarried -- unless the father makes an effort to receive custody as well." https://family.findlaw.com/child-custody/who-gets-custody.html

"There was once a presumption that children should always stay with their mother following a divorce. Most states no longer honor that presumption, however. (In fact, some states have passed laws stating that there is no custody preference for women over men.) Despite this change, mothers are still more likely to get custody when parents divorce."

https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/divorce/for-men/divorce-for-men-why-women-get-child-custody-over-80-time

"Women are typically awarded custody of the children. Because our predominant social values suggest that children are best situated with their mothers, women often do the lion's share of child rearing in divorced families, even in shared custody cases." https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/men-v-women-who-does-better-in-a-divorce

My considered opinion is - A parent who uses their children as a tool of revenge against the other parent does not deserve custody at all.

4) 'Cause someone will bring THIS up, yes, women usually get the short end of the financial stick in a divorce. "Women who worked before, during, or after their marriages see a 20 percent decline in income when their marriages end, according to Stephen Jenkins, a professor at the London School of Economics." https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-divorce-gap/480333/ This is not the point of this morning's diatribe, but again, someone will bring it up.

5)