Here is our chance to unseat feminist Claire McCaskill. Josh Hawley is the Republican challenger. McCaskill is a hard line misandrist so she has to go. Do you guys in Missouri want to be represented by someone who backs Kavenaugh's accusers? If not vote for Josh Hawley to be your Senator.
UPDATE: It seems that most of Claire McCaskill's donations are coming from outside Missouri. Mainly from California. Also she is losing but the gap could be wider. In favor of Josh Hawley.
Little boys are also cannon fodder to McCaskill. Her anti-male hatred is so intense not even male children are safe.
Showing posts with label california. Show all posts
Showing posts with label california. Show all posts
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Calif. High Court Signs Off On Prosecutor Ethics Rule
By Melissa Daniels
Law360, Los Angeles (November 3, 2017, 9:05 PM EDT) -- California prosecutors have new ethical guidelines to abide by after the California Supreme Court signed off on state bar rules requiring them to inform defense counsel of discovery and exculpatory evidence in more cases as an attempt to address prosecutorial misconduct.
The California Supreme Court signed an order Thursday that approves an amendment to the State Bar of California’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5-110.
The new language says prosecutors must "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense or mitigate the sentence," except when the court grants them a protective order when the prosecutor thinks the disclosure of the evidence could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest. The rules are effective immediately.
“Prosecutors must be held to a high standard to ensure public trust in the justice system and to protect defendants and their rights,” Leah Wilson, executive director of the State Bar of California, said in a statement.
The amendment to Rule 5-110 was made as part of a broader overhaul to the California State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, the first of its kind since the 1980s. The California Supreme Court had allowed the state bar to send in updates to the prosecutorial ethics rules on an expedited basis compared to the rest of its rule updates.
Prior updates were approved to Rule 5-110 in May, but the court sent back the provision about the ethical disclosure obligations for further revision. The state bar’s board of trustees returned a revised version in August.
Michael Ogul, a board member and past president of the California Public Defenders Association, wrote a letter to members Thursday to announce the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the amendment. The group had supported the change and actively pushed for it by writing letters and testifying before the Rules Revision Commission and state bar’s board of trustees, publishing columns in legal newspapers and having members submit public comments.
“Prosecutors will no longer be able to shirk their disclosure obligations by rationalizing that the exculpatory information doesn’t matter,” Ogul said in the letter. “Instead, they will now be subject to discipline any time they fail to disclose exculpatory information.”
Ogul, who is a deputy public defender in Santa Clara County, told Law360 that the net effect of the new rule will be that California prosecutors must abide by the laws of disclosure or else face professional discipline. Prior to this change, some prosecutors could have withheld evidence that they didn’t think would make a material difference to the case, he said.
“I’m not saying they don’t all the time, I’m not saying they don’t a majority of the time, but I am saying that scores, if not hundreds of prosecutors, at least on occasion, fail to turn over exculpatory information that they are required to turn over under California law,” Ogul said. “And this rule is designed to put that to a stop.”
The new prosecutorial ethics rules are in sync with the American Bar Association Model Rule 3.8. Ogul said this rule is already in play in 49 others states and California was the last to adopt a version of it.
A representative for the California District Attorneys Association didn’t immediately return a request for comment Friday.
Source
Law360, Los Angeles (November 3, 2017, 9:05 PM EDT) -- California prosecutors have new ethical guidelines to abide by after the California Supreme Court signed off on state bar rules requiring them to inform defense counsel of discovery and exculpatory evidence in more cases as an attempt to address prosecutorial misconduct.
The California Supreme Court signed an order Thursday that approves an amendment to the State Bar of California’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5-110.
The new language says prosecutors must "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense or mitigate the sentence," except when the court grants them a protective order when the prosecutor thinks the disclosure of the evidence could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest. The rules are effective immediately.
“Prosecutors must be held to a high standard to ensure public trust in the justice system and to protect defendants and their rights,” Leah Wilson, executive director of the State Bar of California, said in a statement.
The amendment to Rule 5-110 was made as part of a broader overhaul to the California State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, the first of its kind since the 1980s. The California Supreme Court had allowed the state bar to send in updates to the prosecutorial ethics rules on an expedited basis compared to the rest of its rule updates.
Prior updates were approved to Rule 5-110 in May, but the court sent back the provision about the ethical disclosure obligations for further revision. The state bar’s board of trustees returned a revised version in August.
Michael Ogul, a board member and past president of the California Public Defenders Association, wrote a letter to members Thursday to announce the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the amendment. The group had supported the change and actively pushed for it by writing letters and testifying before the Rules Revision Commission and state bar’s board of trustees, publishing columns in legal newspapers and having members submit public comments.
“Prosecutors will no longer be able to shirk their disclosure obligations by rationalizing that the exculpatory information doesn’t matter,” Ogul said in the letter. “Instead, they will now be subject to discipline any time they fail to disclose exculpatory information.”
Ogul, who is a deputy public defender in Santa Clara County, told Law360 that the net effect of the new rule will be that California prosecutors must abide by the laws of disclosure or else face professional discipline. Prior to this change, some prosecutors could have withheld evidence that they didn’t think would make a material difference to the case, he said.
“I’m not saying they don’t all the time, I’m not saying they don’t a majority of the time, but I am saying that scores, if not hundreds of prosecutors, at least on occasion, fail to turn over exculpatory information that they are required to turn over under California law,” Ogul said. “And this rule is designed to put that to a stop.”
The new prosecutorial ethics rules are in sync with the American Bar Association Model Rule 3.8. Ogul said this rule is already in play in 49 others states and California was the last to adopt a version of it.
A representative for the California District Attorneys Association didn’t immediately return a request for comment Friday.
Source
Monday, January 2, 2017
Patricia Krenwinkel may be a domestic violence victim
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Latest on a parole hearing for Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California (all times local):
8:40 p.m.
Anthony DiMaria, the nephew of victim Thomas Jay Sebring, said a Los Angeles County prosecutor who attended the hearing told him that the parole officials want to research whether Krenwinkel was a victim of intimate partner battery.
‘For this investigation to be initiated at this point is mind-boggling,” said DiMaria, who attended the hearing but left before a decision was postponed. “I don’t understand where we go from a murder, the killing of eight people (including Tate’s unborn child) to an intimate partner battery victim. It’s absurd….It seems like the world is turned upside down. How do you kill eight people and now you’re the victim?”
Jean Guccione, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, said prosecutors would not comment until the parole panel makes its recommendation after the investigation.
8:20 p.m.
After a daylong hearing, the panel from the California Board of Parole Hearings postponed a decision on whether to free Patricia Krenwinkel “because they felt information discussed at the hearing was cause for an investigation,” spokeswoman Vicky Waters said in an email.
The hearing will be continued once the investigation is concluded, she said
Sharon Tate’s sister, Debra Tate, said the parole officials told her the hearing was likely to be postponed about six months while they research to see if Krenwinkel meets the criteria for having battered women’s syndrome.
Krenwinkel’s attorney, Keith Wattley, did not immediately return telephone and email messages.
“She totally minimized her action and blamed everything on other people the whole hearing,” Tate said.
Tate said she didn’t buy the concept that Krenwinkel was a victim because she was free to leave at any time and participated in murders two nights in a row.
“We all have to be accountable for our actions. I don’t buy any of this stuff. She was there because she wanted to be there. Nobody held a gun to her head,” Tate said.
7:50 p.m.
A two-member parole panel has delayed making a decision on whether to release Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California.
The decision to delay Thursday by the panel came after the 69-year-old Krenwinkel was previously denied parole 13 times, most recently in 2011.
Krenwinkel helped kill pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people at the urging of Manson 47 years ago.
The hearing was held at the California Institution for Women, about 40 miles east of Los Angeles, where Krenwinkel is imprisoned.
She has a clean record behind bars, earned a bachelor’s degree and taught illiterate inmates to read.
Gov. Jerry Brown has the power to block the release of inmates if parole is granted. He previously stopped the parole of two other Manson followers.
__
10 a.m.
A parole hearing has started for Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California.
The hearing Thursday comes 47 years after Krenwinkel helped kill pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people, including grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary.
The 69-year-old Krenwinkel has been denied parole 13 times since her conviction in the 1969 slayings.
Los Angeles County prosecutors say she carved the word “war” into Leno LaBianca’s stomach then wrote “Helter Skelter” in blood on the couple’s refrigerator.
Krenwinkel contended at her previous parole hearing in 2011 that she’s a changed woman.
She has a clean disciplinary record, earned a bachelor’s degree behind bars, taught reading to illiterate inmates and trained service dogs for disabled people.
Source
8:40 p.m.
Anthony DiMaria, the nephew of victim Thomas Jay Sebring, said a Los Angeles County prosecutor who attended the hearing told him that the parole officials want to research whether Krenwinkel was a victim of intimate partner battery.
‘For this investigation to be initiated at this point is mind-boggling,” said DiMaria, who attended the hearing but left before a decision was postponed. “I don’t understand where we go from a murder, the killing of eight people (including Tate’s unborn child) to an intimate partner battery victim. It’s absurd….It seems like the world is turned upside down. How do you kill eight people and now you’re the victim?”
Jean Guccione, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, said prosecutors would not comment until the parole panel makes its recommendation after the investigation.
8:20 p.m.
After a daylong hearing, the panel from the California Board of Parole Hearings postponed a decision on whether to free Patricia Krenwinkel “because they felt information discussed at the hearing was cause for an investigation,” spokeswoman Vicky Waters said in an email.
The hearing will be continued once the investigation is concluded, she said
Sharon Tate’s sister, Debra Tate, said the parole officials told her the hearing was likely to be postponed about six months while they research to see if Krenwinkel meets the criteria for having battered women’s syndrome.
Krenwinkel’s attorney, Keith Wattley, did not immediately return telephone and email messages.
“She totally minimized her action and blamed everything on other people the whole hearing,” Tate said.
Tate said she didn’t buy the concept that Krenwinkel was a victim because she was free to leave at any time and participated in murders two nights in a row.
“We all have to be accountable for our actions. I don’t buy any of this stuff. She was there because she wanted to be there. Nobody held a gun to her head,” Tate said.
7:50 p.m.
A two-member parole panel has delayed making a decision on whether to release Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California.
The decision to delay Thursday by the panel came after the 69-year-old Krenwinkel was previously denied parole 13 times, most recently in 2011.
Krenwinkel helped kill pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people at the urging of Manson 47 years ago.
The hearing was held at the California Institution for Women, about 40 miles east of Los Angeles, where Krenwinkel is imprisoned.
She has a clean record behind bars, earned a bachelor’s degree and taught illiterate inmates to read.
Gov. Jerry Brown has the power to block the release of inmates if parole is granted. He previously stopped the parole of two other Manson followers.
__
10 a.m.
A parole hearing has started for Patricia Krenwinkel, an accomplice of cult killer Charles Manson and the longest-serving female inmate in California.
The hearing Thursday comes 47 years after Krenwinkel helped kill pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people, including grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary.
The 69-year-old Krenwinkel has been denied parole 13 times since her conviction in the 1969 slayings.
Los Angeles County prosecutors say she carved the word “war” into Leno LaBianca’s stomach then wrote “Helter Skelter” in blood on the couple’s refrigerator.
Krenwinkel contended at her previous parole hearing in 2011 that she’s a changed woman.
She has a clean disciplinary record, earned a bachelor’s degree behind bars, taught reading to illiterate inmates and trained service dogs for disabled people.
Source
Thursday, October 6, 2016
George Will does not get it or MGTOW in action
Why Are Millions of Men Choosing Not to Work By George Will
American men who choose not to work are choosing lives of quiet self-emasculation.
The “quiet catastrophe” is particularly dismaying because it is so quiet, without social turmoil or even debate. It is this: After 88 consecutive months of the economic expansion that began in June 2009, a smaller percentage of American males in the prime working years (ages 25 to 54) are working than were working near the end of the Great Depression in 1940, when the unemployment rate was above 14 percent. If the labor-force-participation rate were as high today as it was as recently as 2000, nearly 10 million more Americans would have jobs. The work rate for adult men has plunged 13 percentage points in a half-century. This “work deficit” of “Great Depression–scale underutilization” of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt’s new monograph Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis, which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this: Since 1948, the proportion of men 20 and older without paid work has more than doubled, to almost 32 percent. This “eerie and radical transformation” — men creating an “alternative lifestyle to the age-old male quest for a paying job” — is largely voluntary. Men who have chosen to not seek work are two and a half times more numerous than men that government statistics count as unemployed because they are seeking jobs. What Eberstadt calls a “normative sea change” has made it a “viable option” for “sturdy men,” who are neither working nor looking for work, to choose “to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others.” Only about 15 percent of men 25 to 54 who worked not at all in 2014 said they were unemployed because they could not find work. For 50 years, the number of men in that age cohort who are neither working nor looking for work has grown nearly four times faster than the number who are working or seeking work. And the pace of this has been “almost totally uninfluenced by the business cycle.”
The “economically inactive” have eclipsed the unemployed, as government statistics measure them, as “the main category of men without jobs.” Those statistics were created before government policy and social attitudes made it possible to be economically inactive.
Eberstadt does not say that government assistance causes this, but obviously it finances it. To some extent, however, this is a distinction without a difference. In a 2012 monograph, Eberstadt noted that in 1960 there were 134 workers for every one officially certified as disabled; by 2010 there were just over 16. Between January 2010 and December 2011, while the economy produced 1.73 million nonfarm jobs, almost half as many workers became disability recipients. This, even though work is less stressful and the workplace is safer than ever. America ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25 to 54 male labor-force participation. Largely because of government benefits and support by other family members, nonworking men 25 to 54 have household expenditures a third higher than the average of those in the bottom income quintile. Hence, Eberstadt says, they “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today, including the millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”
America’s economy is not less robust, and its welfare provisions not more generous, than those of the 22 other affluent nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Yet America ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25 to 54 male labor-force participation. Eberstadt calls this “unwelcome ‘American Exceptionalism.’”
In 1965, even high-school dropouts were more likely to be in the workforce than is the 25 to 54 male today. And, Eberstadt notes, “the collapse of work for modern America’s men happened despite considerable upgrades in educational attainment.” The collapse has coincided with a retreat from marriage (“the proportion of never-married men was over three times higher in 2015 than 1965″), which suggests a broader infantilization. As does the use to which the voluntarily idle put their time — for example, watching TV and movies 5.5 hours daily, two hours more than men who are counted as unemployed because they are seeking work. Eberstadt, noting that the 1996 welfare reform “brought millions of single mothers off welfare and into the workforce,” suggests that policy innovations that alter incentives can reverse the “social emasculation” of millions of idle men. Perhaps. Reversing social regression is more difficult than causing it. One manifestation of regression, Donald Trump, is perhaps perverse evidence that some of his army of angry men are at least healthily unhappy about the loss of meaning, self-esteem, and masculinity that is a consequence of chosen and protracted idleness.
Source
It is George Will and other blue pill conservatives like him that do not see what is obvious to those of us in the manosphere. In fact we called it right. Feminism begets gynocentricity,gynocentricity begets misandry and the results of misandry are the situation we have today. Men are checking out and I don't blame them. Men are figuring why give a fuck about a society that doesn't give a fuck about them. Politicians cater to women at the expense of men. California is scraping its statue of limitations for sex crimes. Why? I guess to crucify Bill Cosby when he is tried there. The democrats changed the law to lynch a black man. I guess they are the Dixie party after all.
American men who choose not to work are choosing lives of quiet self-emasculation.
The “quiet catastrophe” is particularly dismaying because it is so quiet, without social turmoil or even debate. It is this: After 88 consecutive months of the economic expansion that began in June 2009, a smaller percentage of American males in the prime working years (ages 25 to 54) are working than were working near the end of the Great Depression in 1940, when the unemployment rate was above 14 percent. If the labor-force-participation rate were as high today as it was as recently as 2000, nearly 10 million more Americans would have jobs. The work rate for adult men has plunged 13 percentage points in a half-century. This “work deficit” of “Great Depression–scale underutilization” of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt’s new monograph Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis, which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this: Since 1948, the proportion of men 20 and older without paid work has more than doubled, to almost 32 percent. This “eerie and radical transformation” — men creating an “alternative lifestyle to the age-old male quest for a paying job” — is largely voluntary. Men who have chosen to not seek work are two and a half times more numerous than men that government statistics count as unemployed because they are seeking jobs. What Eberstadt calls a “normative sea change” has made it a “viable option” for “sturdy men,” who are neither working nor looking for work, to choose “to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others.” Only about 15 percent of men 25 to 54 who worked not at all in 2014 said they were unemployed because they could not find work. For 50 years, the number of men in that age cohort who are neither working nor looking for work has grown nearly four times faster than the number who are working or seeking work. And the pace of this has been “almost totally uninfluenced by the business cycle.”
The “economically inactive” have eclipsed the unemployed, as government statistics measure them, as “the main category of men without jobs.” Those statistics were created before government policy and social attitudes made it possible to be economically inactive.
Eberstadt does not say that government assistance causes this, but obviously it finances it. To some extent, however, this is a distinction without a difference. In a 2012 monograph, Eberstadt noted that in 1960 there were 134 workers for every one officially certified as disabled; by 2010 there were just over 16. Between January 2010 and December 2011, while the economy produced 1.73 million nonfarm jobs, almost half as many workers became disability recipients. This, even though work is less stressful and the workplace is safer than ever. America ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25 to 54 male labor-force participation. Largely because of government benefits and support by other family members, nonworking men 25 to 54 have household expenditures a third higher than the average of those in the bottom income quintile. Hence, Eberstadt says, they “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today, including the millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”
America’s economy is not less robust, and its welfare provisions not more generous, than those of the 22 other affluent nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Yet America ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25 to 54 male labor-force participation. Eberstadt calls this “unwelcome ‘American Exceptionalism.’”
In 1965, even high-school dropouts were more likely to be in the workforce than is the 25 to 54 male today. And, Eberstadt notes, “the collapse of work for modern America’s men happened despite considerable upgrades in educational attainment.” The collapse has coincided with a retreat from marriage (“the proportion of never-married men was over three times higher in 2015 than 1965″), which suggests a broader infantilization. As does the use to which the voluntarily idle put their time — for example, watching TV and movies 5.5 hours daily, two hours more than men who are counted as unemployed because they are seeking work. Eberstadt, noting that the 1996 welfare reform “brought millions of single mothers off welfare and into the workforce,” suggests that policy innovations that alter incentives can reverse the “social emasculation” of millions of idle men. Perhaps. Reversing social regression is more difficult than causing it. One manifestation of regression, Donald Trump, is perhaps perverse evidence that some of his army of angry men are at least healthily unhappy about the loss of meaning, self-esteem, and masculinity that is a consequence of chosen and protracted idleness.
Source
It is George Will and other blue pill conservatives like him that do not see what is obvious to those of us in the manosphere. In fact we called it right. Feminism begets gynocentricity,gynocentricity begets misandry and the results of misandry are the situation we have today. Men are checking out and I don't blame them. Men are figuring why give a fuck about a society that doesn't give a fuck about them. Politicians cater to women at the expense of men. California is scraping its statue of limitations for sex crimes. Why? I guess to crucify Bill Cosby when he is tried there. The democrats changed the law to lynch a black man. I guess they are the Dixie party after all.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
California wants to eliminate the statue of limitations when it comes to rape cases
Supporters urge governor to sign bill ending statute of limitations for prosecuting rape
Flanked by alleged sexual assault victims and their supporters, state Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) urged Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday to end California's statute of limitations for rape.
The Legislature sent Leyva's bill, SB 813, to Brown last week. He has until Sept 30 to sign the bill, which would end the time limit in California for prosecuting rape, child sexual abuse and other felony sex crimes.
"This bill does not abolish the very high burden-of-proof standard," Leyva said at a state Capitol news conference. "[SB] 813 simply ensures that the door does not slam in the face of victims."
Several of those who spoke in support of the bill said they were sexually assaulted. They were joined by attorney Gloria Allred, who said she met with representatives from the governor's office Tuesday morning. Allred is representing more than 30 women who say comedian Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them.
"For almost all of them, wherever the alleged sexual misconduct is said to have taken place, no criminal case will be filed," Allred said. "For most of these accusations it was simply too late for a prosecutor to even consider them." Several of the alleged assaults occurred in California.
Allred said that a number of Cosby's accusers "had no idea" there was a statute of limitations for rape prosecutions.
A woman identified only as Linda said at the news conference that she was sexually assaulted by Cosby in the 1970s and supports changing the law in California.
"I didn't report the assault because I was afraid of what might happen to me if I did go to law enforcement at that time," she said.
Cosby, who has said his relationships with his accusers were consensual, is being tried in Pennsylvania on three felony counts of aggravated indecent assault. The charges were filed just before that state's 12-year statute of limitations would have expired.
In California, the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years unless DNA evidence emerges later. Sex crimes against minors must be prosecuted before the alleged victim turns 40.
Source
Let's take a look at SB 813 and see what it says. On the official website all I read was blah blah blah. So I went to the website of the bitch that authored this monstrosity and this is what I read:
SACRAMENTO – On the first day of the 2016 legislative session, Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) today introduced important bipartisan legislation to end the statute of limitations for rape and related crimes in California.
Source
Now let's let that sink in. Especially if you've been accused of sexual misconduct in the past. There are a ton of problems with this bill. Memories fade,witnesses die. Who is going to remember clearly what happened 40 or 50 years ago. This is a "get men" bill and we need to oppose it. The best way to do that would be to contact Governor Jerry Brown and let him know that SB 813 is a bad bill and that he should veto it. The more of us he hears from the better and so goes California so goes the nation. Stopping it here means you can spare your state from monstrous bills like SB 813.
Flanked by alleged sexual assault victims and their supporters, state Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) urged Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday to end California's statute of limitations for rape.
The Legislature sent Leyva's bill, SB 813, to Brown last week. He has until Sept 30 to sign the bill, which would end the time limit in California for prosecuting rape, child sexual abuse and other felony sex crimes.
"This bill does not abolish the very high burden-of-proof standard," Leyva said at a state Capitol news conference. "[SB] 813 simply ensures that the door does not slam in the face of victims."
Several of those who spoke in support of the bill said they were sexually assaulted. They were joined by attorney Gloria Allred, who said she met with representatives from the governor's office Tuesday morning. Allred is representing more than 30 women who say comedian Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them.
"For almost all of them, wherever the alleged sexual misconduct is said to have taken place, no criminal case will be filed," Allred said. "For most of these accusations it was simply too late for a prosecutor to even consider them." Several of the alleged assaults occurred in California.
Allred said that a number of Cosby's accusers "had no idea" there was a statute of limitations for rape prosecutions.
A woman identified only as Linda said at the news conference that she was sexually assaulted by Cosby in the 1970s and supports changing the law in California.
"I didn't report the assault because I was afraid of what might happen to me if I did go to law enforcement at that time," she said.
Cosby, who has said his relationships with his accusers were consensual, is being tried in Pennsylvania on three felony counts of aggravated indecent assault. The charges were filed just before that state's 12-year statute of limitations would have expired.
In California, the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years unless DNA evidence emerges later. Sex crimes against minors must be prosecuted before the alleged victim turns 40.
Source
Let's take a look at SB 813 and see what it says. On the official website all I read was blah blah blah. So I went to the website of the bitch that authored this monstrosity and this is what I read:
SACRAMENTO – On the first day of the 2016 legislative session, Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) today introduced important bipartisan legislation to end the statute of limitations for rape and related crimes in California.
Source
Now let's let that sink in. Especially if you've been accused of sexual misconduct in the past. There are a ton of problems with this bill. Memories fade,witnesses die. Who is going to remember clearly what happened 40 or 50 years ago. This is a "get men" bill and we need to oppose it. The best way to do that would be to contact Governor Jerry Brown and let him know that SB 813 is a bad bill and that he should veto it. The more of us he hears from the better and so goes California so goes the nation. Stopping it here means you can spare your state from monstrous bills like SB 813.
Monday, May 30, 2016
California election endorsements
From my California correspondent:
I've written letters to the candidates on men's issues and this is what I've found: When it comes to Congressional Representative for the 31st District I would go with incumbent Pete Aguilar. For a Democrat he is willing to work with us. As far as the judiciary goes I have written to the jurist candidates seeking election about men's issues. I have received no responses so I cannot endorse anyone. As far as State Senator goes I endorse Mike Morrell and for Assemblyman Marc Steinorth.
I will be more than happy to cover you area as well just submit your information to masculistman@yahoo.com. If you've vetted the candidates in your area and you want the world to know about then it submit it here.
I've written letters to the candidates on men's issues and this is what I've found: When it comes to Congressional Representative for the 31st District I would go with incumbent Pete Aguilar. For a Democrat he is willing to work with us. As far as the judiciary goes I have written to the jurist candidates seeking election about men's issues. I have received no responses so I cannot endorse anyone. As far as State Senator goes I endorse Mike Morrell and for Assemblyman Marc Steinorth.
I will be more than happy to cover you area as well just submit your information to masculistman@yahoo.com. If you've vetted the candidates in your area and you want the world to know about then it submit it here.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Men of California
There is an organization that is dealing with the alimony laws in California. This organization is called CalAlimonyReform.org. The guy who put this together went through a lot anguish. In his own words:
Entering the world of marriage as a young man for the first time I had no grasp of the terms I would be legally bound to. My marriage lasted nearly 25 years. Having never experienced divorce before I never knew just how drawn out and costly this process could be. Below is a summary of my divorce journey:
Phase 1 – Taking Responsibility for my Happiness
At certain periods during my life I will often do what I call a “happiness checkpoint”. This checkpoint could pertain to where I’m living, my employer or even my marriage.
More
This guy is going through hell and a lot of other men are going through the same thing. Fortunately there is hope and CalAlimony is it. If you live in California and are forking over most of your paycheck to your ex wife then you'll definitely want to support this all the way.
Entering the world of marriage as a young man for the first time I had no grasp of the terms I would be legally bound to. My marriage lasted nearly 25 years. Having never experienced divorce before I never knew just how drawn out and costly this process could be. Below is a summary of my divorce journey:
Phase 1 – Taking Responsibility for my Happiness
At certain periods during my life I will often do what I call a “happiness checkpoint”. This checkpoint could pertain to where I’m living, my employer or even my marriage.
More
This guy is going through hell and a lot of other men are going through the same thing. Fortunately there is hope and CalAlimony is it. If you live in California and are forking over most of your paycheck to your ex wife then you'll definitely want to support this all the way.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Vote Neel Kashkari for Governor of California
Meet Neel Kashkari. He is the Republican candidate for Governor Of California. I don't know who he is but I know he isn't Jerry Brown. The same Jerry Brown that royally fucked us by signing SB 967 into law. Brown signed this bill to screw over college and university men over tremendous protests and now the state is going to be compensating these men royally when they win their lawsuits. The punch line is that these same men will use that money to continue their education-in another state. So if you are registered to vote in California vote Neel Kashkari for Governor and get rid of feminists such as Jerry Brown.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Join with SAVE Services and tell the California Governor to veto SB 967
From SAVE Services:
SB-967 would require California students to give on-going "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement" in order to have sex.
The bill sponsors admit they don't have a clue what this really means. But if Gov. Brown signs this bill, young adults might need to consult with legal advisors and notarize consent forms before engaging in sex.
Yes, this bill is absurd beyond belief. And it would lull potential victims into a false sense of security.
Contact Governor Brown today to tell him to VETO this flawed bill. Students deserve better than being forced to figure out a vague standard to avoid being convicted as rapists:
Call: (916) 445-2841
Email: click here
Let's define sexual assault meaningfully to protect its very real victims.
Thank you!
Gina Lauterio, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
They don't know what it means? What is this bullshit they don't know what it means. They grandstanded for this bitch and they don't know what it means. Bullshit,they voted for this bill they own this bill. Tell the Governor to veto this turkey.
SB-967 would require California students to give on-going "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement" in order to have sex.
The bill sponsors admit they don't have a clue what this really means. But if Gov. Brown signs this bill, young adults might need to consult with legal advisors and notarize consent forms before engaging in sex.
Yes, this bill is absurd beyond belief. And it would lull potential victims into a false sense of security.
Contact Governor Brown today to tell him to VETO this flawed bill. Students deserve better than being forced to figure out a vague standard to avoid being convicted as rapists:
Call: (916) 445-2841
Email: click here
Let's define sexual assault meaningfully to protect its very real victims.
Thank you!
Gina Lauterio, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
They don't know what it means? What is this bullshit they don't know what it means. They grandstanded for this bitch and they don't know what it means. Bullshit,they voted for this bill they own this bill. Tell the Governor to veto this turkey.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Lobby the Governor to veto SB 967
Let's join with the National Coalition For Men in urging California Governor Jerry Brown to to veto SB 967. This is the Hail Mary for us on this one. If we fail a lot of men on university and college campuses are in for a royal screw job. If that happens it will be lawsuits galore and let's see if SB 967's supporters are going to grandstand on that one.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
SB 967 clears Legislature on way to the Governor
(Reuters) - Californian lawmakers passed a law on Thursday requiring universities to adopt "affirmative consent" language in their definitions of consensual sex, part of a nationwide drive to curb sexual assault on U.S. campuses.
The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".
The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.
Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.
Opponents of the bill say it is politically over-reaching and could push universities into little charted legal waters.
The bill comes amid mounting pressure nationwide by lawmakers, activists and students on universities and colleges to curb sexual assaults on campuses and to reform investigations after allegations are made.
The White House has declared sex crimes to be "epidemic" on U.S. college campuses, with one in five students falling victim to sex assault during their college years.
Universities in California and beyond have already taken steps, including seeking to delineate whether consent has been given beyond 'no means no'.
Harvard University said last month it had created an office to investigate all claims of sexual harassment or sex assault, and that it would lower its evidentiary standard of proof in weighing the cases.
Under California's bill, state-funded colleges and universities must adopt strict policies regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, among other actions in order to receive financial aid money.
No college or university voiced opposition to the bill, Conlon said.
The U.S. Department of Education in May released a list of 55 colleges -- including three in California -- under investigation to determine whether their handling of sex assaults and harassment violated federal laws put in place to ensure equal treatment in higher education.
The Californian institutions on the list are University of California, Berkeley, Occidental College and the University of Southern California.
Source
This bitch cleared the Legislature. That sucks. The only thing to do now is to contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to veto SB 967. It is our only shot or a lot of young men are going to get fucked in a way they don't like. If we fail watch the carnage roll.
The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".
The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.
Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.
Opponents of the bill say it is politically over-reaching and could push universities into little charted legal waters.
The bill comes amid mounting pressure nationwide by lawmakers, activists and students on universities and colleges to curb sexual assaults on campuses and to reform investigations after allegations are made.
The White House has declared sex crimes to be "epidemic" on U.S. college campuses, with one in five students falling victim to sex assault during their college years.
Universities in California and beyond have already taken steps, including seeking to delineate whether consent has been given beyond 'no means no'.
Harvard University said last month it had created an office to investigate all claims of sexual harassment or sex assault, and that it would lower its evidentiary standard of proof in weighing the cases.
Under California's bill, state-funded colleges and universities must adopt strict policies regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, among other actions in order to receive financial aid money.
No college or university voiced opposition to the bill, Conlon said.
The U.S. Department of Education in May released a list of 55 colleges -- including three in California -- under investigation to determine whether their handling of sex assaults and harassment violated federal laws put in place to ensure equal treatment in higher education.
The Californian institutions on the list are University of California, Berkeley, Occidental College and the University of Southern California.
Source
This bitch cleared the Legislature. That sucks. The only thing to do now is to contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to veto SB 967. It is our only shot or a lot of young men are going to get fucked in a way they don't like. If we fail watch the carnage roll.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
SB 967 is back
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/23/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.)
(May 23).
FILE : SEN SECOND READING
FILE DATE : 05/27/2014
ITEM : 6
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/23/2014
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 05 Noes: 02 PASS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
It looks like new life has been breathed into this Frankenstein's monster of a bill. We've got to act fast. We need to contact the Assembly,the Senate and the Governor. I was wondering when they would try something and now here it is.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/23/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.)
(May 23).
FILE : SEN SECOND READING
FILE DATE : 05/27/2014
ITEM : 6
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/23/2014
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 05 Noes: 02 PASS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
It looks like new life has been breathed into this Frankenstein's monster of a bill. We've got to act fast. We need to contact the Assembly,the Senate and the Governor. I was wondering when they would try something and now here it is.
Friday, May 16, 2014
California elections
I've received word from my California correspondent that he vetted the the political candidates running for office in his state and this is what he said:
The following candidates are running for Governor of California:
Robert Newman-Independent newmannotes@roadrunner.com
Tim Donnelly-Republican tim@timdonnelly.com
Luis J. Rodriguez-Green Party info@rodriguezforgovernor.com
Richard William Aguirre-Republican richard@aguirreforgovernor.com
Joe Leicht-Independent jedleicht@aol.com
Cindy L. Sheenan Peace and Freedom cindy@cindy2014.org
Glenn Champ-Republican bjhancock@netptc.net
Andrew Blount-Republican andrew@andrewblount.com
The following candidates are running for Lieutenant Governor of California:
Ron Nehring-Republican ron@ronnehring.com
Alan Reynolds American Elect reynolds4california@gmail.com
Eric Korevaak-Democratic electamoderate@voteforeric.com
The following candidates are running for Attorney General of California:
Orly Taitz-Independent orly.taitz@hushmail.com
Jonathan Jaech-Libertarian jonathan@jaech.net
John Haggerty-Republican johnkhaggerty@yahoo.com
The following are running for state Assembly:
Marc Steinorth
The following email was sent to all of them:
I am a men's rights activist. I advocate for men's issues and I have the following questions for you.
Where do you stand on:
1. Capital punishment-currently in capital cases only men receive the death penalty while women are spared. Not only that but when women are sentenced they are given a finite sentence while a man would receive life without parole. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
2. When a man and a woman are arrested for the same crime the prosecutor will make a deal with the woman to convict the man,even if the woman is the mastermind. Not only that when they are sentenced men receive more time for the same crime than women do. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
3. Prisons-women's prison's are in nicer condition than men's prisons. Also women are given privileges that men are denied,such as access to their children while incarcerated. Also there are allegations of female staff members and correctional officers abusing their position to coerce sex or other favors from the prisoners. What would you do to combat this?
4. There are a lot of at risk young men out there who are fatherless. These fatherless boys often become gang members who commit crimes and populate the state's prisons. If elected what would you do to combat fatherlessness?
I await your answers to my questions.
Sincerely,
XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX,
Men's Rights Activist,Registered Voter
and Concerned Citizen
The following are their stance on gender issues:
Orly Taitz:
As I stated before, I believe in non-discrimination and equal rights for men and women.
Women fought for equal rights and they should get them.
I hope your organization helps my campaign and donates to my campaign
Eric Korevaar:
Thanks for contacting me with your questions.
1. I think we should eliminate capital punishment in California for a number of reasons. It is not administered equally (you have pointed out one example), it is very expensive, and the process drags on, delaying closure for the victims.
2. Men and women should be treated equally if the circumstances are the same.
3. I don't know enough about your 3rd question to comment on it.
4. I don't have a specific plan to combat fatherlessness. If you have some suggestions, or some material you feel I should read, please feel free to share it with me. I do support family planning and a woman's right to choose, and believe that it is best when parents want their children and have made a conscious decision to have them and nurture them.
Sincerely,
Eric Korevaar, Candidate for Lieutenant Governor
Jonathan Jaech: He states that he is in favor of equal rights for men and fathers and that he is for equality. He is against jailing men for child support. He is also opposed to victimless crimes.He also states he is open to input.
Joe Leicht:
Thanks for the inquiry, I appreciate the opportunity to reply.
1 - I am not in favor of the death penalty in any circumstance. I think that is the one penalty, on the off chance someone is wrongly convicted of a heinous crime, we as a society cannot go back and change that. 2 wrongs don't make a right, so as Governor, I would work to eliminate the death penalty as a punishment. To answer your question more succinctly, no, I do not thaink that sounds fair.
2 - Again, no, I do not think that sounds fair. The law is supposed to be colorblind and should also be gender neutral. The law should equally apply to both men and women, and, to my knowledge makes no exception based on gender. Frankly, to the victim, it means nothing if the perpetrator was a male or a female.
3 - As far as conditions in the prisons go, I would have to do some research into that issue. I think that is a question that would have to be addressed with an investigation into prison conditions, and working with the Attorney General to ensure that guards are held to the same standards of ethics.
4 - I agree that children who grow up without a father lose the opportunity to have a positive role model, and it certainly increases their risk. Obviously, that doesn't mean there won't be successful people who overcome seemingly EVERY adversity, but we could do more. I'm happy to be involved with a group called YOCF, Your Own Community Foundation, a non profit that helps families through difficult times. On my facebook page, we just recently started a campaign, "What can you do for California?" It's along the same lines as JFK's question, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." We are not asking for money, that helps, but what we are asking is that people get involved. There will always be people in need, and at risk. It's the age old question, If not now, when, if not you, who? When you see someone in need, what is your reaction? Is it, "wow, that's a shame, government should do something about that?" or is it "wow, that is awful, let me go see what we can do to help." The latter help is immediate. Often times, a lot of people want to help, but don't know how. The best way to help is get involved, either through church, or through groups suchs as YOCF. You can find out more about them at www.YOCF.org. But don't forget about the YMCA and the YWCA, Rotary Club International, Kiwanis, the Key Club, or even local community centers. There are plenty of ways to help. You may be involved in one or several already.
I don't mean to sound "preachy" but unlike Ms. Sheehan, I have a much more optimistic view of society as a whole, and I believe working together, we can effect a positive change in society. Will it happen overnight? No, of course not. But as a public servant, it would be my job (and my pleasure!) to help bring attention to issues such as these, so that working with people such as yourself, we can truly "be the change we wish to see".
Thanks again for your question, I appreciate it,
Joe Leicht
Cindy L. Sheenan: Major feminist. Not friendly to men
The following are running for Congress District 31:
Eloise Gomez Reyes
Paul Chabot
Lesli Gooch
The following email was sent to the candidates for Congress
I am a Men's Rights Activist. I have a problem with the federal government overlooking men's needs and I have the following questions for you:
1. Under the selective service program men are the only ones required to sign up if they want to stay out of jail. Women,on the other hand,are exempt from this requirement. That doesn't sound very fair. That is not constitutional as per the 14th Amendment.
2. There are federal programs for women but very few for men even though men suffer most of the on-the-job fatalities. There is a Whitehouse Commission on Women and Girls but none on boys and men. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
3. When a man and woman are accused of a federal crime the prosecutor will make a deal with the woman to implicate the man even if the woman is the mastermind. Not only that men are given longer prison sentences than women. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
Thank you for you time.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX,
Men's Rights Activist,Registered Voter
and Concerned Citizen
I have not received any replies.
The fact that he received no replies is telling. It tells me they are less than sympathetic to our plight. If that is the case then we only vote for those who were considerate enough to respond. The rest can stay in the private sector.
The following candidates are running for Governor of California:
Robert Newman-Independent newmannotes@roadrunner.com
Tim Donnelly-Republican tim@timdonnelly.com
Luis J. Rodriguez-Green Party info@rodriguezforgovernor.com
Richard William Aguirre-Republican richard@aguirreforgovernor.com
Joe Leicht-Independent jedleicht@aol.com
Cindy L. Sheenan Peace and Freedom cindy@cindy2014.org
Glenn Champ-Republican bjhancock@netptc.net
Andrew Blount-Republican andrew@andrewblount.com
The following candidates are running for Lieutenant Governor of California:
Ron Nehring-Republican ron@ronnehring.com
Alan Reynolds American Elect reynolds4california@gmail.com
Eric Korevaak-Democratic electamoderate@voteforeric.com
The following candidates are running for Attorney General of California:
Orly Taitz-Independent orly.taitz@hushmail.com
Jonathan Jaech-Libertarian jonathan@jaech.net
John Haggerty-Republican johnkhaggerty@yahoo.com
The following are running for state Assembly:
Marc Steinorth
The following email was sent to all of them:
I am a men's rights activist. I advocate for men's issues and I have the following questions for you.
Where do you stand on:
1. Capital punishment-currently in capital cases only men receive the death penalty while women are spared. Not only that but when women are sentenced they are given a finite sentence while a man would receive life without parole. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
2. When a man and a woman are arrested for the same crime the prosecutor will make a deal with the woman to convict the man,even if the woman is the mastermind. Not only that when they are sentenced men receive more time for the same crime than women do. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
3. Prisons-women's prison's are in nicer condition than men's prisons. Also women are given privileges that men are denied,such as access to their children while incarcerated. Also there are allegations of female staff members and correctional officers abusing their position to coerce sex or other favors from the prisoners. What would you do to combat this?
4. There are a lot of at risk young men out there who are fatherless. These fatherless boys often become gang members who commit crimes and populate the state's prisons. If elected what would you do to combat fatherlessness?
I await your answers to my questions.
Sincerely,
XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX,
Men's Rights Activist,Registered Voter
and Concerned Citizen
The following are their stance on gender issues:
Orly Taitz:
As I stated before, I believe in non-discrimination and equal rights for men and women.
Women fought for equal rights and they should get them.
I hope your organization helps my campaign and donates to my campaign
Eric Korevaar:
Thanks for contacting me with your questions.
1. I think we should eliminate capital punishment in California for a number of reasons. It is not administered equally (you have pointed out one example), it is very expensive, and the process drags on, delaying closure for the victims.
2. Men and women should be treated equally if the circumstances are the same.
3. I don't know enough about your 3rd question to comment on it.
4. I don't have a specific plan to combat fatherlessness. If you have some suggestions, or some material you feel I should read, please feel free to share it with me. I do support family planning and a woman's right to choose, and believe that it is best when parents want their children and have made a conscious decision to have them and nurture them.
Sincerely,
Eric Korevaar, Candidate for Lieutenant Governor
Jonathan Jaech: He states that he is in favor of equal rights for men and fathers and that he is for equality. He is against jailing men for child support. He is also opposed to victimless crimes.He also states he is open to input.
Joe Leicht:
Thanks for the inquiry, I appreciate the opportunity to reply.
1 - I am not in favor of the death penalty in any circumstance. I think that is the one penalty, on the off chance someone is wrongly convicted of a heinous crime, we as a society cannot go back and change that. 2 wrongs don't make a right, so as Governor, I would work to eliminate the death penalty as a punishment. To answer your question more succinctly, no, I do not thaink that sounds fair.
2 - Again, no, I do not think that sounds fair. The law is supposed to be colorblind and should also be gender neutral. The law should equally apply to both men and women, and, to my knowledge makes no exception based on gender. Frankly, to the victim, it means nothing if the perpetrator was a male or a female.
3 - As far as conditions in the prisons go, I would have to do some research into that issue. I think that is a question that would have to be addressed with an investigation into prison conditions, and working with the Attorney General to ensure that guards are held to the same standards of ethics.
4 - I agree that children who grow up without a father lose the opportunity to have a positive role model, and it certainly increases their risk. Obviously, that doesn't mean there won't be successful people who overcome seemingly EVERY adversity, but we could do more. I'm happy to be involved with a group called YOCF, Your Own Community Foundation, a non profit that helps families through difficult times. On my facebook page, we just recently started a campaign, "What can you do for California?" It's along the same lines as JFK's question, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." We are not asking for money, that helps, but what we are asking is that people get involved. There will always be people in need, and at risk. It's the age old question, If not now, when, if not you, who? When you see someone in need, what is your reaction? Is it, "wow, that's a shame, government should do something about that?" or is it "wow, that is awful, let me go see what we can do to help." The latter help is immediate. Often times, a lot of people want to help, but don't know how. The best way to help is get involved, either through church, or through groups suchs as YOCF. You can find out more about them at www.YOCF.org. But don't forget about the YMCA and the YWCA, Rotary Club International, Kiwanis, the Key Club, or even local community centers. There are plenty of ways to help. You may be involved in one or several already.
I don't mean to sound "preachy" but unlike Ms. Sheehan, I have a much more optimistic view of society as a whole, and I believe working together, we can effect a positive change in society. Will it happen overnight? No, of course not. But as a public servant, it would be my job (and my pleasure!) to help bring attention to issues such as these, so that working with people such as yourself, we can truly "be the change we wish to see".
Thanks again for your question, I appreciate it,
Joe Leicht
Cindy L. Sheenan: Major feminist. Not friendly to men
The following are running for Congress District 31:
Eloise Gomez Reyes
Paul Chabot
Lesli Gooch
The following email was sent to the candidates for Congress
I am a Men's Rights Activist. I have a problem with the federal government overlooking men's needs and I have the following questions for you:
1. Under the selective service program men are the only ones required to sign up if they want to stay out of jail. Women,on the other hand,are exempt from this requirement. That doesn't sound very fair. That is not constitutional as per the 14th Amendment.
2. There are federal programs for women but very few for men even though men suffer most of the on-the-job fatalities. There is a Whitehouse Commission on Women and Girls but none on boys and men. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
3. When a man and woman are accused of a federal crime the prosecutor will make a deal with the woman to implicate the man even if the woman is the mastermind. Not only that men are given longer prison sentences than women. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
Thank you for you time.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX,
Men's Rights Activist,Registered Voter
and Concerned Citizen
I have not received any replies.
The fact that he received no replies is telling. It tells me they are less than sympathetic to our plight. If that is the case then we only vote for those who were considerate enough to respond. The rest can stay in the private sector.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
SB 967 UPDATE
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/29/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Set for hearing April 7.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 04/07/2014
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Current status of SB 967,California's answer to the Federal "Dear Colleague" directive. If you are unfamiliar with SB 967 click here. Time to act is now. Go to the California government's links by clicking on the preceding link.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/29/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Set for hearing April 7.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 04/07/2014
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Current status of SB 967,California's answer to the Federal "Dear Colleague" directive. If you are unfamiliar with SB 967 click here. Time to act is now. Go to the California government's links by clicking on the preceding link.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Good news
From SAVE Services:
In a MAJOR VICTORY for us, the Dept. Of Education has backed off their Affirmative Consent proposal.
The proposal (partners would be expected to give their explicit consent to sex every step along the way) is silly, yet potentially dangerous. We asked you to oppose it, and you did. Thank you.
Together, we made a difference. On April 2, the DED released its new proposal, and guess what is missing! That's right: Affirmative Consent.
Congratulations!
But we're not done yet.
Even though the committee didn't recommend including the "Dear Colleague" letter's preponderance of evidence standard as part of the rule, it's still a concern. Please ask DED Secretary Arne Duncan to replace the "preponderance of evidence" standard (51%) with "clear and convincing" (70-80%) level of proof.
Email Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov
Thanks!
teri
PS. If you live in California, contact your lawmakers to oppose SB 967. It's an Affirmative Consent bill!
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Can you help us grow? Please share this e-lert.
This is indeed good news. Time to start writing Arne Duncan and tell him to go with "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is what the criminal courts use. Or better yet just turn the cases over to the criminal courts. After all they are the ones best suited to handle these cases. Not a bunch of faculty members and students who look at a rape kit and say:"I have no idea what I'm looking at". Not only that but judges in criminal courts are more impartial than those on some college or university board that may be influenced by the opposition. Affirmative Consent would have brought this monstrosity to life and that may still happen in California if SB 967 becomes law. If SB 967 becomes law it could spread to your state so opposing it now would be the best thing or face it later.
In a MAJOR VICTORY for us, the Dept. Of Education has backed off their Affirmative Consent proposal.
The proposal (partners would be expected to give their explicit consent to sex every step along the way) is silly, yet potentially dangerous. We asked you to oppose it, and you did. Thank you.
Together, we made a difference. On April 2, the DED released its new proposal, and guess what is missing! That's right: Affirmative Consent.
Congratulations!
But we're not done yet.
Even though the committee didn't recommend including the "Dear Colleague" letter's preponderance of evidence standard as part of the rule, it's still a concern. Please ask DED Secretary Arne Duncan to replace the "preponderance of evidence" standard (51%) with "clear and convincing" (70-80%) level of proof.
Email Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov
Thanks!
teri
PS. If you live in California, contact your lawmakers to oppose SB 967. It's an Affirmative Consent bill!
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Can you help us grow? Please share this e-lert.
This is indeed good news. Time to start writing Arne Duncan and tell him to go with "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is what the criminal courts use. Or better yet just turn the cases over to the criminal courts. After all they are the ones best suited to handle these cases. Not a bunch of faculty members and students who look at a rape kit and say:"I have no idea what I'm looking at". Not only that but judges in criminal courts are more impartial than those on some college or university board that may be influenced by the opposition. Affirmative Consent would have brought this monstrosity to life and that may still happen in California if SB 967 becomes law. If SB 967 becomes law it could spread to your state so opposing it now would be the best thing or face it later.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Protest misandric bill SB 967
Law proposal will increase access to sexual assault justice
STATE ISSUES: Proposed legislation would make it easier for victims of sexual assault to access the support they need and bring their attackers to justice.
By Senior Editorial Board | Staff
Last Updated February 14, 2014
The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable. Exacerbated by notions of assumed consent in modern ‘hookup culture,’ abundant drug and alcohol use, misunderstandings and malevolence, sexual assault — and university and government authorities’ failure to properly respond to it — has become an epidemic. Legislation proposed by three Sacramento lawmakers on Monday represents a solvent institutional response to the problem, as it seeks to tighten and standardize sexual assault policies across California colleges and make those policies more survivor-centered.
The proposed law — SB 967 — improves upon the efforts of even the most progressive universities, like the UC system, to address sexual assault. By their very nature, sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute. They are often characterized by a lack of physical evidence since the crimes tend to take place in private and are sometimes not reported until some time after the fact. For all California colleges, SB 967 would establish a “preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action,” meaning courts would give extra consideration to incomplete or inconclusive evidence in sexual assault cases. In this way, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the survivors, encouraging them to speak out and help ensure that more perpetrators of sexual assault are brought to justice.
But the law does more than simply aim to increase the perpetrated-to-prosecuted rate — it works to spark a necessary cultural shift in what it means to engage in consensual sexual activity. Though any policy is incapable of fully addressing the crux of the sexual assault problem, the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction. By setting clearer parameters and removing ambiguity around consent, this mandate places responsibility for consent on both parties and thus makes cases of assault easier to prosecute.
Tough action against perpetrators of sexual assault, and stringent, comprehensive policy standards on college campuses where many sexual assaults occur are necessary to stem this national epidemic. The proposals outlined in SB 967 represent the best policy solution to the problem of sexual assault at California schools thus far, and should be adopted by the California legislature. Although in most cases this mandate will be a simple inconvenience, it is necessary to shift the paradigm away from assumed notions of consent under which sexual assault have proliferated.
Source
This is going to be California's answer to the Department of Justice's "dear colleague" directive which stripped male students of their rights on University and College campuses when it came to false rape accusations. SB 967 is about one thing and one thing only and that is get men. This is so bad no commenters are siding with this bill.
Let's oppose this bill. If you live in California you can contact your Legislators and the Governor:
Assembly:click here
Find your Representatives and Senators
Senate: click here
Governor Jerry Brown: Governor's website
Email the Governor
If you don't live in California contact the legislative speakers and Governor, tell them that you don't support SB 967 and that you don't want to spend your money to benefit a state that passed SB 967 or similiar legislation. It's time to end the anti-male sexism.
(UPDATE: The current status of SB 967 as of 2-18-14)
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S): De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/11/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Let's keep an eye on this one,dudes. Even if you don't live in California this could spread to your state. The best way to get rid of SB 967 and Dear Colleague is to oppose them. The more of us that do that the better our chances are of prevailing over them.
STATE ISSUES: Proposed legislation would make it easier for victims of sexual assault to access the support they need and bring their attackers to justice.
By Senior Editorial Board | Staff
Last Updated February 14, 2014
The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable. Exacerbated by notions of assumed consent in modern ‘hookup culture,’ abundant drug and alcohol use, misunderstandings and malevolence, sexual assault — and university and government authorities’ failure to properly respond to it — has become an epidemic. Legislation proposed by three Sacramento lawmakers on Monday represents a solvent institutional response to the problem, as it seeks to tighten and standardize sexual assault policies across California colleges and make those policies more survivor-centered.
The proposed law — SB 967 — improves upon the efforts of even the most progressive universities, like the UC system, to address sexual assault. By their very nature, sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute. They are often characterized by a lack of physical evidence since the crimes tend to take place in private and are sometimes not reported until some time after the fact. For all California colleges, SB 967 would establish a “preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action,” meaning courts would give extra consideration to incomplete or inconclusive evidence in sexual assault cases. In this way, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the survivors, encouraging them to speak out and help ensure that more perpetrators of sexual assault are brought to justice.
But the law does more than simply aim to increase the perpetrated-to-prosecuted rate — it works to spark a necessary cultural shift in what it means to engage in consensual sexual activity. Though any policy is incapable of fully addressing the crux of the sexual assault problem, the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction. By setting clearer parameters and removing ambiguity around consent, this mandate places responsibility for consent on both parties and thus makes cases of assault easier to prosecute.
Tough action against perpetrators of sexual assault, and stringent, comprehensive policy standards on college campuses where many sexual assaults occur are necessary to stem this national epidemic. The proposals outlined in SB 967 represent the best policy solution to the problem of sexual assault at California schools thus far, and should be adopted by the California legislature. Although in most cases this mandate will be a simple inconvenience, it is necessary to shift the paradigm away from assumed notions of consent under which sexual assault have proliferated.
Source
This is going to be California's answer to the Department of Justice's "dear colleague" directive which stripped male students of their rights on University and College campuses when it came to false rape accusations. SB 967 is about one thing and one thing only and that is get men. This is so bad no commenters are siding with this bill.
Let's oppose this bill. If you live in California you can contact your Legislators and the Governor:
Assembly:click here
Find your Representatives and Senators
Senate: click here
Governor Jerry Brown: Governor's website
Email the Governor
If you don't live in California contact the legislative speakers and Governor, tell them that you don't support SB 967 and that you don't want to spend your money to benefit a state that passed SB 967 or similiar legislation. It's time to end the anti-male sexism.
(UPDATE: The current status of SB 967 as of 2-18-14)
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S): De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/11/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Let's keep an eye on this one,dudes. Even if you don't live in California this could spread to your state. The best way to get rid of SB 967 and Dear Colleague is to oppose them. The more of us that do that the better our chances are of prevailing over them.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
The U.S. Senate race in California
From one of my followers:
I've been vetting the Republicans running for U.S. Senate from California. They are Orly Taitz,Elizebeth Emken,Robert Lauten,Dan Hughes,Dirk Allen Konopik,Rogelio T. Gloria and Al Ramirez.
The following was emailed to each of them:
I am a men's rights activist or MRA and I advocate for men's issues and concerns. I was just at your website and I was wondering where you stand on issues that effect men. For instance:
1. When men and women are arrested for the same crime the man receives a harsher sentence than the woman or if she has teamed up with a man she can play the victim and testify against him even though they are equals. Not only that but when the death penalty is on the table women are spared the death penalty while men are not. Also women's prisons are much nicer than men's prisons. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
2. Only men are required to sign up for selective service while women are exempt. So men are the only ones who may have to die to get benefits that women get without any obligations. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
3. In the military the fitness requirements are lower for women than for men. Also women have it easier at the men's expense. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
4. When it comes to anti-male laws such as VAWA only men are arrested and prosecuted while female batterers go free,also male victims are ignored. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
The following is a list of men's rights websites:
http://ncfm.org/
http://www.mediaradar.org/
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/
http://www.mensvotingalliance.com/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
Thank you for your time concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX,
Men's Rights Activist,Registered Voter
and Concerned Citizen
My correspondence with Orly Taitz:
I agree with you that we do not have equality. I believe in full equality. The only area, where I would make an exception, is excluding from the military draft (if it ever happens) women with young children. Aside from that one area I believe in full equality. I wonder, what answers did you get from other candidates?
I then responded with: I've read stories about how women in the military got pregnant to get out of combat or other hazardous duty then when they are out of jeopardy they have an abortion. I also said the fathers can take care of the child(ren) while the mother is deployed.
I did not hear about women deliberately geting pregnant to get out of combat and then having an abortion, I will need to look into this. at any rate I believe in equality of rights. I am an attorney and I know that often men are not treated fairly by the family courts, this should not be happening
I thanked her for her input about the family courts.
you should get in touch with the talk show host Rick Baker, he advertises on the web site for my foundation OrlyTaitzESQ.com from what I recall he is active on the father's rights issues i should have his info on that, but in some 100,000 e-mails it will be hard for me to find
To email Orly Taitz: orly.taitz@gmail.com
Orly Taitz's website: click here
Next up is Dirk Allen Konopik:
Thank you for contacting our U.S. Senate campaign. I am in agreement pertaining to your concern that all American citizens, whether men and women, should receive equitable legal treatment when crimes are committed. As for the differing military physical requirements between men and women, it is due to naturally inherent physiological differences. Regarding the selective service, war is a terrible event that sometimes must occur. While I would wish for none to have to fight wars, the reality is, as long as there are individuals who desire power, there must be those in America that will defend our liberties from aggressors.
As to why men are mandated to sign up for the selective service and women are not is due to a plethora of issues. Yet, the practice is grounded in the fact that every standing military in the history of the world has been made up predominantly of men, due to the greater physiological capability to carry out soldiering duties such as marching long distances while carrying a great amount of weight.
That being said, I hope I have addressed your questions to a degree that is acceptable to you. I appreciate your desire to stand for the equitable treatment of the different genders. Should you have any additional questions, comments, and/or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. God bless you and yours.
Very Respectfully,
Dirk Allen Konopik
Christian, Veteran, American
2012 Republican U.S. Senate Candidate for CA
Direct Line: 909-293-9225
website
email address: campaign@konopikforca2012.com
Next is Al Ramirez:
I can see your points on items 1 and 4. As a US Senator we can make sure the judges we approve for appointing to federal benches get this message. Thanks for the question.
email address: 2012@alramirez.com
website: click here
Elizebeth Emken,Dan Hughes,Robert Lauten and Rogelio T. Gloria did not respond. If these four are going to take the men's rights movement in the light of ridicule then they are indeed getting some very bad advice.
Indeed they are bro and it may come back to bite them in the ass. The MRM is growing and for politicians to ignore it is political suicide. Perhaps these four will find that out. Thanks for taking the time to vet your candidates.
I've been vetting the Republicans running for U.S. Senate from California. They are Orly Taitz,Elizebeth Emken,Robert Lauten,Dan Hughes,Dirk Allen Konopik,Rogelio T. Gloria and Al Ramirez.
The following was emailed to each of them:
I am a men's rights activist or MRA and I advocate for men's issues and concerns. I was just at your website and I was wondering where you stand on issues that effect men. For instance:
1. When men and women are arrested for the same crime the man receives a harsher sentence than the woman or if she has teamed up with a man she can play the victim and testify against him even though they are equals. Not only that but when the death penalty is on the table women are spared the death penalty while men are not. Also women's prisons are much nicer than men's prisons. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
2. Only men are required to sign up for selective service while women are exempt. So men are the only ones who may have to die to get benefits that women get without any obligations. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
3. In the military the fitness requirements are lower for women than for men. Also women have it easier at the men's expense. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
4. When it comes to anti-male laws such as VAWA only men are arrested and prosecuted while female batterers go free,also male victims are ignored. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to us.
The following is a list of men's rights websites:
http://ncfm.org/
http://www.mediaradar.org/
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/
http://www.mensvotingalliance.com/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
Thank you for your time concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX,
Men's Rights Activist,Registered Voter
and Concerned Citizen
My correspondence with Orly Taitz:
I agree with you that we do not have equality. I believe in full equality. The only area, where I would make an exception, is excluding from the military draft (if it ever happens) women with young children. Aside from that one area I believe in full equality. I wonder, what answers did you get from other candidates?
I then responded with: I've read stories about how women in the military got pregnant to get out of combat or other hazardous duty then when they are out of jeopardy they have an abortion. I also said the fathers can take care of the child(ren) while the mother is deployed.
I did not hear about women deliberately geting pregnant to get out of combat and then having an abortion, I will need to look into this. at any rate I believe in equality of rights. I am an attorney and I know that often men are not treated fairly by the family courts, this should not be happening
I thanked her for her input about the family courts.
you should get in touch with the talk show host Rick Baker, he advertises on the web site for my foundation OrlyTaitzESQ.com from what I recall he is active on the father's rights issues i should have his info on that, but in some 100,000 e-mails it will be hard for me to find
To email Orly Taitz: orly.taitz@gmail.com
Orly Taitz's website: click here
Next up is Dirk Allen Konopik:
Thank you for contacting our U.S. Senate campaign. I am in agreement pertaining to your concern that all American citizens, whether men and women, should receive equitable legal treatment when crimes are committed. As for the differing military physical requirements between men and women, it is due to naturally inherent physiological differences. Regarding the selective service, war is a terrible event that sometimes must occur. While I would wish for none to have to fight wars, the reality is, as long as there are individuals who desire power, there must be those in America that will defend our liberties from aggressors.
As to why men are mandated to sign up for the selective service and women are not is due to a plethora of issues. Yet, the practice is grounded in the fact that every standing military in the history of the world has been made up predominantly of men, due to the greater physiological capability to carry out soldiering duties such as marching long distances while carrying a great amount of weight.
That being said, I hope I have addressed your questions to a degree that is acceptable to you. I appreciate your desire to stand for the equitable treatment of the different genders. Should you have any additional questions, comments, and/or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. God bless you and yours.
Very Respectfully,
Dirk Allen Konopik
Christian, Veteran, American
2012 Republican U.S. Senate Candidate for CA
Direct Line: 909-293-9225
website
email address: campaign@konopikforca2012.com
Next is Al Ramirez:
I can see your points on items 1 and 4. As a US Senator we can make sure the judges we approve for appointing to federal benches get this message. Thanks for the question.
email address: 2012@alramirez.com
website: click here
Elizebeth Emken,Dan Hughes,Robert Lauten and Rogelio T. Gloria did not respond. If these four are going to take the men's rights movement in the light of ridicule then they are indeed getting some very bad advice.
Indeed they are bro and it may come back to bite them in the ass. The MRM is growing and for politicians to ignore it is political suicide. Perhaps these four will find that out. Thanks for taking the time to vet your candidates.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
California endorses misandry
Received from Marc Rudov:
It never ends. Woman hitting man is funny, right?
The California Lottery, from the "sensitive state," thinks so. It has a new TV spot in which a woman slaps a man to give him good luck. Really?
Will the next promo show a man slapping a woman to give her good luck? I think not. How about you?
I'm going to protest this insult with an email to the California State Lottery and you can do the same by clicking here. Misandry coming from private industry is bad enough but when it comes from the State it is even more frightening. If you want to defeat misandry in government this is the way to do so write in today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)