Sunday, September 23, 2012


Foster Friess, a prominent backer of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, demonstrating the versatility of aspiring.  The non-medical SuperPac funder very early in 2012 suggests that aspirin is great at developing the muscles around the knees and thus  prevents unwanted pregnancies. -Mock, Paper Scissors 

The last two years have been pretty tough on women when it comes to things men say *about* them. Most people know by now where this attitude is coming from.  So I won't mention the Republican presidential platform when it comes to social issues nor the litany of early candidates for president  pushing a religious conservatism so far right of today's  consensus on social issues it truly fits a categorical nonrepresentative political bloc whose outcomes are creating undue chaos and derision that continues to reek havoc with the well-being of women  unbalancing with an intent to topple their true social consent.  Let the example speak for itself and listen to the unbelievable moment Foster Friess  undoes a truly stunned Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC. 



"Paternalism" comes from the Latin pater, meaning to act like a father, or to treat another person like a child. ("Parentalism" is a gender-neutral anagram of "paternalism".) In modern philosophy and jurisprudence, it is to act for the good of another person without that person's consent, as parents do for children.

                     –Peter Suber, “Paternalism”

Paternalism when applied to the citizen status of women, if it appropriates a woman’s citizen right to participate equally in self-government, for example, passing laws which may not reflect social self-consent to control access to abortion, oral contraception, gynecological healthcare insurance, etc., may reflect not consensual self-paternalism but rather minoritarian or majoritarian tyranny. There is a difference between government and self-government in shaping the laws you and I will go on to live by. Consider this important insight from Peter Suber’s essay,

In a democracy, paternalism in the criminal law can to some extent be construed as self-paternalism. If "we" made the laws against usury and gambling, then "we" are restraining only ourselves. Before we justify these laws as self-paternalism, however, we must ask whether we are describing our democracy accurately or platitudinously. If laws to protect citizens from themselves were made by one non-representative faction, class, or bloc, or if the electoral process is distorted so that the outcomes of elections do not represent true social consent, then we may be dealing less with consensual self-paternalism than with majoritarian (or even minoritarian) tyranny. To overlook this possibility would justify paternalism by turning a blind eye to one of its most objectionable features.

In an even larger way, you can see an example of paternalism’s conceit operating right now in Mitt Romney’s remarks regarding “the 47%.” Paternalism works unfairly a redistribution of power over all citizenship status, not just female status. In western psyche’s mythic inheritance paternalism’s moral code seems to begin in a religious philosophy of kings and prophets (not to mention profits). And then, as times moved on, times changed. Or, to say this another way, *gd* took on the image of god, the creator likened to that of “clockmaker”.

When *gd* Was a Clockmaker

Set within this context the Constitution underwent shaping in the 18thC giving face and body to the law of our land. The Constitution is not grounded in the Bible per say. Ideas forming constitutional language are influenced by the image of god as clockmaker inherent in mythic patterns of deism in an epoch of enlightenment and work between images of many gods not merely the one god of monotheism. (see These images of the many gods are none other than inborn patterns of the racial archetype of the specie. You don’t have to be a deist, nor believe in deism over Christianity or vice versa, for these inborn patterns in the psyche to be operating or for their affects to have effect. One resultant constitutional effect is the upholding of separation of church and state. Within it is the premise that when majority rules take shape, the lawgivers must protect the interest of minority rights to life and to liberty and to preserve citizen ability to pursue a happy life to the fullest extent.

Once more let me say it. The Constitution is grounded in the idea that whoever rules must work on behalf the equal rights of all the people not just their own preferred kind (religion, business interest, cultural ethnicity, age group, city, neighborhood, etc) The idea that underlies the Constitution, something the President, before he/she can take office must vow to uphold, is based in majority rule with respect the citizen status rights of the minority; these rights are guaranteed equal under the law. Congress, under the sway of the 2012 tea party entrance into lawmaking, has been using the tactic that redefines what a term means to narrow meaning and pass law that does not respect certain citizens’ rights to equal representation. They are appropriating and speaking on your behalf against your right to equal coverage to health insurance, opportunities for meaningful work, equal access to affordable education, etc.

UP NEXT PT.3  But, How Did It Get This Way?