Father-Absence Is Not A Problem

2005-12-28
By

In 1995, David Blankenhorn made an earth-moving statement: “father-absence is the greatest social problem we face”.

America was transfixed. Someone had hollered “fire” in a political tinder box. The idea instantly became the talk of the nation.

Blankenhorn liberals, who loathed mounting political pressure to reform the Great Society, had motive for minting the father-absence paradigm while blaming it on men in the same sentence. Their policy goal was more child support enforcement.

This prairie fire brought on a stampede justifying paper conversion of the welfare state into a “child support” state, thus neutralizing nascent pro-marriage welfare reforms sought by the original Republican sponsors.

Classic liberalism teaches us to fix a problem by making someone else pay for it. The Great Society has been doing this for fifty years. We have pumped sums greater than the national debt into it, and have not fixed anything.

Nothing improved because David Blankenhorn was wrong. Father-absence is not a problem. It is a consequence of no-fault divorce. We cannot fix consequences, but they do go away if we fix the problem.

Father-absence is only one of many consequences of no-fault divorce. Some complain about the “child support” problem. Academics ponder why men are not going to college in record numbers. Sociologists wonder why marriage rates are still decreasing. The Army is seeing serious recruiting problems. These are not problems. They are all consequences of no-fault divorce.

The term “ownership society” bears an important clue. When mens’ property, families, life savings, and social position can be easily taken away in a no-fault divorce, intelligent men might find something else to do.

Too many young men now settle for sub-social existences. They are opting-out of college educations in record numbers. A high income is not important when attracting a quality life-mate is not a priority.

It is now common for young men to say that marriage is “too risky”. The Great Society taught them well. Churches who failed to defend marriage now wonder why men now practice faith informally, if at all. “Shacking up” is the consequence reflected in the latest marriage data.

The Army had a rough recruiting year in 2005, despite record incentives. In 2004, 10,477 of the roughly 153,000 soldiers and officers deployed by the U.S. Army became casualties of no-fault divorce.

Ponder this: Casualty rates stateside are far higher than in Iraq. Of all eligible married men, who is going to risk a four-year enlistment facing a 24% marriage-casualty-rate and a twenty-one year sentence slaving for a conveniently-estranged family?

Boys who do not grow up anticipating a secure long-term homeland investment, as husbands and fathers, have nothing valuable to defend. Ancient Rome learned this lesson the hard way. We are headed there now.

Are we listening attentively to the meaning of these mass value judgments yet? If not, then consider some other serious consequences.

We often put children at serious risk of child abuse in divorce and illegitimacy situations because court process procedurally presumes custody of children to mothers. The aftermath: two-thirds of serious child abuse is caused by single custodial mothers, while natural fathers are the lowest risk group.

Divorce is not the wise solution in most situations of family conflict. Eighty-six percent of serious domestic violence involves a spouse abusing mood-altering chemicals. Domestic violence rates are approximately three times higher in non-intact families. Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse.

We need laws that positively help the responsible spouse get the troubled spouse into chemical-abuse treatment. When this fails, we must ensure that custody of children never goes to a chemical-abusing parent.

Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives. There is no reason to hold divorced men to a higher standard of support than we expect of their married counterparts.

Marriage is a haven compared to the divorce trap. Divorce has left more women and children in poverty, uninsured and at risk, than any other event in American history. Men are getting off the marriage bus in record numbers. We must act now.

Reform of no-fault divorce laws will quickly tip the balance in favor of marital responsibility. “No-fault” actually means “no responsibility”. Law and public policy must expect spouses to work responsibly through the normal processes and problems of marriage and aging.

The two-year blues, the four-year boredom, the seven year itch, the fifteen-year mid-life crisis, menopause, and retirement are normal stress-points of any marriage. These life events overlay precisely with peaks in today’s longitudinal “no responsibility” divorce rates.

Americans should be able to divorce if they really want to, but not at the expense of a responsible spouse. If there is no valid cause for divorce, there’s the door if you want one that badly.

We will know in many ways when we have restored a vibrant marriage culture. Divorce, illegitimacy, military recruitment, poverty, child support, crime, child abuse, neglect, health care, and domestic violence will no longer be major risks to our national well-being and security.

David R. Usher is President of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

1 views

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14105708 MrBidden

    David Usher – you rock!

    >>Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives. There is no reason to hold divorced men to a higher standard of support than we expect of their married counterparts.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14105708 MrBidden

    David Usher – you rock!

    >>Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives. There is no reason to hold divorced men to a higher standard of support than we expect of their married counterparts.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14105708 MrBidden

    David Usher – you rock!

    >>Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives. There is no reason to hold divorced men to a higher standard of support than we expect of their married counterparts.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14105708 MrBidden

    David Usher – you rock!

    >>Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives. There is no reason to hold divorced men to a higher standard of support than we expect of their married counterparts.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/7080243 Sgt. Raymond

    I love the line, “Classic liberalism teaches us to fix a problem by making someone else pay for it.”

    Father-absence is made worse by women who deny visitation. Although it’s hardly ever as blatant as “I absolutely refuse to let you see Fred Jr.” it typically involvesw something devious like, “Oh, I forgot; he’s at my mom’s,” or “Susie has ___ practice this weekend.”

    Another key line is, “When mens’ property, families, life savings, and social position can be easily taken away in a no-fault divorce, intelligent men might find something else to do.” Frankly, I’m surprised men still get married. My hunch is that marriage exists only because of the momentum of tradition, coupled with the expectation that everyone will eventually get married.

    Good editorial.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/7080243 Sgt. Raymond

    I love the line, “Classic liberalism teaches us to fix a problem by making someone else pay for it.”

    Father-absence is made worse by women who deny visitation. Although it’s hardly ever as blatant as “I absolutely refuse to let you see Fred Jr.” it typically involvesw something devious like, “Oh, I forgot; he’s at my mom’s,” or “Susie has ___ practice this weekend.”

    Another key line is, “When mens’ property, families, life savings, and social position can be easily taken away in a no-fault divorce, intelligent men might find something else to do.” Frankly, I’m surprised men still get married. My hunch is that marriage exists only because of the momentum of tradition, coupled with the expectation that everyone will eventually get married.

    Good editorial.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/7080243 Sgt. Raymond

    I love the line, “Classic liberalism teaches us to fix a problem by making someone else pay for it.”

    Father-absence is made worse by women who deny visitation. Although it’s hardly ever as blatant as “I absolutely refuse to let you see Fred Jr.” it typically involvesw something devious like, “Oh, I forgot; he’s at my mom’s,” or “Susie has ___ practice this weekend.”

    Another key line is, “When mens’ property, families, life savings, and social position can be easily taken away in a no-fault divorce, intelligent men might find something else to do.” Frankly, I’m surprised men still get married. My hunch is that marriage exists only because of the momentum of tradition, coupled with the expectation that everyone will eventually get married.

    Good editorial.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/7080243 Sgt. Raymond

    I love the line, “Classic liberalism teaches us to fix a problem by making someone else pay for it.”

    Father-absence is made worse by women who deny visitation. Although it’s hardly ever as blatant as “I absolutely refuse to let you see Fred Jr.” it typically involvesw something devious like, “Oh, I forgot; he’s at my mom’s,” or “Susie has ___ practice this weekend.”

    Another key line is, “When mens’ property, families, life savings, and social position can be easily taken away in a no-fault divorce, intelligent men might find something else to do.” Frankly, I’m surprised men still get married. My hunch is that marriage exists only because of the momentum of tradition, coupled with the expectation that everyone will eventually get married.

    Good editorial.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11703401 snootfish

    That expectation is changing really, quick, it seems to me.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11703401 snootfish

    That expectation is changing really, quick, it seems to me.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11703401 snootfish

    That expectation is changing really, quick, it seems to me.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11703401 snootfish

    That expectation is changing really, quick, it seems to me.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16612803 Scott

    Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives.

    Restricting child support orders to families with “dependent children.” This term of art is described in the Social Security Act. It is the subject of the Title IV public assistance programs, and determines the means test for eligibility for assistance under the Child Support Program.

    An award in an equity proceeding is a different kind of support entirely. The common misconseption is that the so-called guidelines may be used in either proceeding.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16612803 Scott

    Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives.

    Restricting child support orders to families with “dependent children.” This term of art is described in the Social Security Act. It is the subject of the Title IV public assistance programs, and determines the means test for eligibility for assistance under the Child Support Program.

    An award in an equity proceeding is a different kind of support entirely. The common misconseption is that the so-called guidelines may be used in either proceeding.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16612803 Scott

    Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives.

    Restricting child support orders to families with “dependent children.” This term of art is described in the Social Security Act. It is the subject of the Title IV public assistance programs, and determines the means test for eligibility for assistance under the Child Support Program.

    An award in an equity proceeding is a different kind of support entirely. The common misconseption is that the so-called guidelines may be used in either proceeding.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16612803 Scott

    Revision of federal and state laws that order “child support” benefits greater than what men actually earn will end perverse divorce incentives.

    Restricting child support orders to families with “dependent children.” This term of art is described in the Social Security Act. It is the subject of the Title IV public assistance programs, and determines the means test for eligibility for assistance under the Child Support Program.

    An award in an equity proceeding is a different kind of support entirely. The common misconseption is that the so-called guidelines may be used in either proceeding.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16654605 Iron Grace

    This post has been removed by the author.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16654605 Iron Grace

    This post has been removed by the author.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16654605 Iron Grace

    This post has been removed by the author.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16654605 Iron Grace

    Hmm. Maybe the fact that we are IN A WAR just MIGHT have something to do with the low soldier turnout for the 2005. FYI, people don’t want to put their lives at risk. Do you think MAYBE the reason these husbands and fathers don’t want to go do war is because they could die? Perhaps they want to stay with their loved ones. I have to say, I have read some illogical assesments of American culture, but this has got me rolling on the floor.
    Do you want to know WHY “family values” have changed? You can’t blame it on manditory child support. It is because America has become an increasingly selfish, selfindulgent, I want my it way and I want it now, I don’t want to deal with the consequences, let’s just sweep this under the rug, sex obcessed society. American culture has changed. And guess what? If you help bring a baby into this world you better damn well be willing to support it. You don’t want that responsibility? Then get have a vesectimy. If these deadbeat dads would pay the child support like they are supposed to, we would have a lot less single mothers on welfare. That’s what the republicans want right? Less dependence on the government? Well if individuals would actually take responsibility for their actions we wouldn’t have to have programs like welfare to support families that were made and then abandon. Until that time comes, and people like you stop making completely illogical assumptions like “men won’t fight because they don’t care about their families” rather than they want to stay with the ones they love, and “men won’t get married because they don’t want to pay child support after divorce,” rather than society being a sex obcessed animal that no longer holds commitment to MARRIAGE or CHILDREN as a priority.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16654605 Iron Grace

    Hmm. Maybe the fact that we are IN A WAR just MIGHT have something to do with the low soldier turnout for the 2005. FYI, people don’t want to put their lives at risk. Do you think MAYBE the reason these husbands and fathers don’t want to go do war is because they could die? Perhaps they want to stay with their loved ones. I have to say, I have read some illogical assesments of American culture, but this has got me rolling on the floor.
    Do you want to know WHY “family values” have changed? You can’t blame it on manditory child support. It is because America has become an increasingly selfish, selfindulgent, I want my it way and I want it now, I don’t want to deal with the consequences, let’s just sweep this under the rug, sex obcessed society. American culture has changed. And guess what? If you help bring a baby into this world you better damn well be willing to support it. You don’t want that responsibility? Then get have a vesectimy. If these deadbeat dads would pay the child support like they are supposed to, we would have a lot less single mothers on welfare. That’s what the republicans want right? Less dependence on the government? Well if individuals would actually take responsibility for their actions we wouldn’t have to have programs like welfare to support families that were made and then abandon. Until that time comes, and people like you stop making completely illogical assumptions like “men won’t fight because they don’t care about their families” rather than they want to stay with the ones they love, and “men won’t get married because they don’t want to pay child support after divorce,” rather than society being a sex obcessed animal that no longer holds commitment to MARRIAGE or CHILDREN as a priority.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16654605 Iron Grace

    Hmm. Maybe the fact that we are IN A WAR just MIGHT have something to do with the low soldier turnout for the 2005. FYI, people don’t want to put their lives at risk. Do you think MAYBE the reason these husbands and fathers don’t want to go do war is because they could die? Perhaps they want to stay with their loved ones. I have to say, I have read some illogical assesments of American culture, but this has got me rolling on the floor.
    Do you want to know WHY “family values” have changed? You can’t blame it on manditory child support. It is because America has become an increasingly selfish, selfindulgent, I want my it way and I want it now, I don’t want to deal with the consequences, let’s just sweep this under the rug, sex obcessed society. American culture has changed. And guess what? If you help bring a baby into this world you better damn well be willing to support it. You don’t want that responsibility? Then get have a vesectimy. If these deadbeat dads would pay the child support like they are supposed to, we would have a lot less single mothers on welfare. That’s what the republicans want right? Less dependence on the government? Well if individuals would actually take responsibility for their actions we wouldn’t have to have programs like welfare to support families that were made and then abandon. Until that time comes, and people like you stop making completely illogical assumptions like “men won’t fight because they don’t care about their families” rather than they want to stay with the ones they love, and “men won’t get married because they don’t want to pay child support after divorce,” rather than society being a sex obcessed animal that no longer holds commitment to MARRIAGE or CHILDREN as a priority.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16654605 Iron Grace

    This post has been removed by the author.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16654605 Iron Grace

    Hmm. Maybe the fact that we are IN A WAR just MIGHT have something to do with the low soldier turnout for the 2005. FYI, people don’t want to put their lives at risk. Do you think MAYBE the reason these husbands and fathers don’t want to go do war is because they could die? Perhaps they want to stay with their loved ones. I have to say, I have read some illogical assesments of American culture, but this has got me rolling on the floor.
    Do you want to know WHY “family values” have changed? You can’t blame it on manditory child support. It is because America has become an increasingly selfish, selfindulgent, I want my it way and I want it now, I don’t want to deal with the consequences, let’s just sweep this under the rug, sex obcessed society. American culture has changed. And guess what? If you help bring a baby into this world you better damn well be willing to support it. You don’t want that responsibility? Then get have a vesectimy. If these deadbeat dads would pay the child support like they are supposed to, we would have a lot less single mothers on welfare. That’s what the republicans want right? Less dependence on the government? Well if individuals would actually take responsibility for their actions we wouldn’t have to have programs like welfare to support families that were made and then abandon. Until that time comes, and people like you stop making completely illogical assumptions like “men won’t fight because they don’t care about their families” rather than they want to stay with the ones they love, and “men won’t get married because they don’t want to pay child support after divorce,” rather than society being a sex obcessed animal that no longer holds commitment to MARRIAGE or CHILDREN as a priority.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    Dear Iron Grace,

    Without reading anyting into your screen name, its pretty clear you only have one perspective — that of radical feminism. The woman gets children, and collects child support from all those deadbeats she did not marry.

    Before it was possible for women to do this, which began with changes to the family support act in 1968, we did not have outrageous levels of illegitimacy and divorce.

    The culture has changed only because law entitles everything except marriage. The so-called “marriage tax” imposed by the IRS is nothing compared to this.

    And yes, all this is impacting men’s enlistment decisions, and in very major ways. This is confirmed with my contacts in the military. It is of great concern to the military, in fact.

    In 2001, a lot of folks either went into the reserves or were called up. Many took a beating. Things are actually safer for our men in Iraq, but they aren’t going in, because they aren’t going to let themselves be wiped out at home.

    All: please note the approaches this woman uses. She is only interested in child support. Everything else is intended to blow smoke and pretend that selfishness is only something that men do.

    Finally: a question for Ms. Iron Grace: If we gave men $250,000 for each child out of wedlock, and gave them full custody of children 85% of the time, women would go ballistic. It would be a Victorian abuse of women.

    Women have all sorts of birth control methods, the most effective ones are invisible. They don’t use them when they feel like it. In Missouri, a woman earns about $700/mo for the first child she has with each man. So, women have 3-4 children with different men, collect $2,100-$2,400 per month in income, and then shack up for free with the next sucker.

    Follow the money, folks. It speaks volumes.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    Dear Iron Grace,

    Without reading anyting into your screen name, its pretty clear you only have one perspective — that of radical feminism. The woman gets children, and collects child support from all those deadbeats she did not marry.

    Before it was possible for women to do this, which began with changes to the family support act in 1968, we did not have outrageous levels of illegitimacy and divorce.

    The culture has changed only because law entitles everything except marriage. The so-called “marriage tax” imposed by the IRS is nothing compared to this.

    And yes, all this is impacting men’s enlistment decisions, and in very major ways. This is confirmed with my contacts in the military. It is of great concern to the military, in fact.

    In 2001, a lot of folks either went into the reserves or were called up. Many took a beating. Things are actually safer for our men in Iraq, but they aren’t going in, because they aren’t going to let themselves be wiped out at home.

    All: please note the approaches this woman uses. She is only interested in child support. Everything else is intended to blow smoke and pretend that selfishness is only something that men do.

    Finally: a question for Ms. Iron Grace: If we gave men $250,000 for each child out of wedlock, and gave them full custody of children 85% of the time, women would go ballistic. It would be a Victorian abuse of women.

    Women have all sorts of birth control methods, the most effective ones are invisible. They don’t use them when they feel like it. In Missouri, a woman earns about $700/mo for the first child she has with each man. So, women have 3-4 children with different men, collect $2,100-$2,400 per month in income, and then shack up for free with the next sucker.

    Follow the money, folks. It speaks volumes.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    Dear Iron Grace,

    Without reading anyting into your screen name, its pretty clear you only have one perspective — that of radical feminism. The woman gets children, and collects child support from all those deadbeats she did not marry.

    Before it was possible for women to do this, which began with changes to the family support act in 1968, we did not have outrageous levels of illegitimacy and divorce.

    The culture has changed only because law entitles everything except marriage. The so-called “marriage tax” imposed by the IRS is nothing compared to this.

    And yes, all this is impacting men’s enlistment decisions, and in very major ways. This is confirmed with my contacts in the military. It is of great concern to the military, in fact.

    In 2001, a lot of folks either went into the reserves or were called up. Many took a beating. Things are actually safer for our men in Iraq, but they aren’t going in, because they aren’t going to let themselves be wiped out at home.

    All: please note the approaches this woman uses. She is only interested in child support. Everything else is intended to blow smoke and pretend that selfishness is only something that men do.

    Finally: a question for Ms. Iron Grace: If we gave men $250,000 for each child out of wedlock, and gave them full custody of children 85% of the time, women would go ballistic. It would be a Victorian abuse of women.

    Women have all sorts of birth control methods, the most effective ones are invisible. They don’t use them when they feel like it. In Missouri, a woman earns about $700/mo for the first child she has with each man. So, women have 3-4 children with different men, collect $2,100-$2,400 per month in income, and then shack up for free with the next sucker.

    Follow the money, folks. It speaks volumes.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    Dear “Iron Grace”

    Marriage gets goverment out of the family. Child support does not. In fact, child support causes 20 years of big government all over your family.

    Only 15% of children in poverty live in married families. This is because very few men and women can support two households — which is what divorce and illegitimacy entail. By your argument, men are supposed to fully support two households. Women gestate and own men like slaves.

    Above you have just outlined the exact goals radical feminists laid out in the 1970′s. This old blimp is running out of gas. Folks are not this stupid any more.

    Sorry, but your arguments fall far short of making sense to anyone other than a radical feminist.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    Dear “Iron Grace”

    Marriage gets goverment out of the family. Child support does not. In fact, child support causes 20 years of big government all over your family.

    Only 15% of children in poverty live in married families. This is because very few men and women can support two households — which is what divorce and illegitimacy entail. By your argument, men are supposed to fully support two households. Women gestate and own men like slaves.

    Above you have just outlined the exact goals radical feminists laid out in the 1970′s. This old blimp is running out of gas. Folks are not this stupid any more.

    Sorry, but your arguments fall far short of making sense to anyone other than a radical feminist.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    Dear “Iron Grace”

    Marriage gets goverment out of the family. Child support does not. In fact, child support causes 20 years of big government all over your family.

    Only 15% of children in poverty live in married families. This is because very few men and women can support two households — which is what divorce and illegitimacy entail. By your argument, men are supposed to fully support two households. Women gestate and own men like slaves.

    Above you have just outlined the exact goals radical feminists laid out in the 1970′s. This old blimp is running out of gas. Folks are not this stupid any more.

    Sorry, but your arguments fall far short of making sense to anyone other than a radical feminist.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337605 Whraglyn

    Usher, where have you been all my life!?
    But seriously, folks:
    USHER FOR PRESIDENT!

    Your analysis is entirely correct in fact and conclusion, succinct and cogent in expression, and I hope, inspiring in effect.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337605 Whraglyn

    Usher, where have you been all my life!?
    But seriously, folks:
    USHER FOR PRESIDENT!

    Your analysis is entirely correct in fact and conclusion, succinct and cogent in expression, and I hope, inspiring in effect.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337605 Whraglyn

    Usher, where have you been all my life!?
    But seriously, folks:
    USHER FOR PRESIDENT!

    Your analysis is entirely correct in fact and conclusion, succinct and cogent in expression, and I hope, inspiring in effect.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337605 Whraglyn

    Usher, where have you been all my life!?
    But seriously, folks:
    USHER FOR PRESIDENT!

    Your analysis is entirely correct in fact and conclusion, succinct and cogent in expression, and I hope, inspiring in effect.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/9960443 ericatruth

    This is why Usher’s column should be in every daily newspaper instead of the ilk that’s being published.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/9960443 ericatruth

    This is why Usher’s column should be in every daily newspaper instead of the ilk that’s being published.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/9960443 ericatruth

    This is why Usher’s column should be in every daily newspaper instead of the ilk that’s being published.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/9960443 ericatruth

    This is why Usher’s column should be in every daily newspaper instead of the ilk that’s being published.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    All,

    Thank you for the positive comments.

    There is no danger I will be in a position to run for president. I did meet George W. Bush for about five minutes, but didn’t have time to get into anything more than superfluous conversation. I think he would do the right thing if he just knew what that was.

    Our job is to educate enough people in politics so that they do know what to do.

    What I do is not magic. Anybody can do it. I just spent enough time learning the political ropes and learning the English language to work the issues effectively and write some halfway decent columns.

    I hope that a year from now there are 50 others who can write circles around me, and that some of them are published in very important places.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    All,

    Thank you for the positive comments.

    There is no danger I will be in a position to run for president. I did meet George W. Bush for about five minutes, but didn’t have time to get into anything more than superfluous conversation. I think he would do the right thing if he just knew what that was.

    Our job is to educate enough people in politics so that they do know what to do.

    What I do is not magic. Anybody can do it. I just spent enough time learning the political ropes and learning the English language to work the issues effectively and write some halfway decent columns.

    I hope that a year from now there are 50 others who can write circles around me, and that some of them are published in very important places.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    All,

    Thank you for the positive comments.

    There is no danger I will be in a position to run for president. I did meet George W. Bush for about five minutes, but didn’t have time to get into anything more than superfluous conversation. I think he would do the right thing if he just knew what that was.

    Our job is to educate enough people in politics so that they do know what to do.

    What I do is not magic. Anybody can do it. I just spent enough time learning the political ropes and learning the English language to work the issues effectively and write some halfway decent columns.

    I hope that a year from now there are 50 others who can write circles around me, and that some of them are published in very important places.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11611308 David R. Usher

    All,

    Thank you for the positive comments.

    There is no danger I will be in a position to run for president. I did meet George W. Bush for about five minutes, but didn’t have time to get into anything more than superfluous conversation. I think he would do the right thing if he just knew what that was.

    Our job is to educate enough people in politics so that they do know what to do.

    What I do is not magic. Anybody can do it. I just spent enough time learning the political ropes and learning the English language to work the issues effectively and write some halfway decent columns.

    I hope that a year from now there are 50 others who can write circles around me, and that some of them are published in very important places.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13979578 Robert Stevens

    wait a minute I forgot what I was going to say…… OK now I remember, there is nothing wrong with women that 15 or 20 years of social,legal and moral maturity won’t fix. Somewhere along the line they forgot to tell women that equallity is a two way street and they would have to take their turn on the “payside” of that equal sign.
    I am begining to see that men are starting to not put up with a stacked deck. They opt out of a game that is rigged for them to lose. But we are losing out by not playing. We will play again, but it will be by a more fair and reasonable set of rules.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13979578 Robert Stevens

    wait a minute I forgot what I was going to say…… OK now I remember, there is nothing wrong with women that 15 or 20 years of social,legal and moral maturity won’t fix. Somewhere along the line they forgot to tell women that equallity is a two way street and they would have to take their turn on the “payside” of that equal sign.
    I am begining to see that men are starting to not put up with a stacked deck. They opt out of a game that is rigged for them to lose. But we are losing out by not playing. We will play again, but it will be by a more fair and reasonable set of rules.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13979578 Robert Stevens

    wait a minute I forgot what I was going to say…… OK now I remember, there is nothing wrong with women that 15 or 20 years of social,legal and moral maturity won’t fix. Somewhere along the line they forgot to tell women that equallity is a two way street and they would have to take their turn on the “payside” of that equal sign.
    I am begining to see that men are starting to not put up with a stacked deck. They opt out of a game that is rigged for them to lose. But we are losing out by not playing. We will play again, but it will be by a more fair and reasonable set of rules.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13979578 Robert Stevens

    wait a minute I forgot what I was going to say…… OK now I remember, there is nothing wrong with women that 15 or 20 years of social,legal and moral maturity won’t fix. Somewhere along the line they forgot to tell women that equallity is a two way street and they would have to take their turn on the “payside” of that equal sign.
    I am begining to see that men are starting to not put up with a stacked deck. They opt out of a game that is rigged for them to lose. But we are losing out by not playing. We will play again, but it will be by a more fair and reasonable set of rules.






Search