Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Protective Order as Salvation

The media seems constantly to be reporting increasing numbers of cases involving protective orders, assaults, sexual-abuse, even murder vis-a-vis women caught up in abusive relationships with men. It’s rarely the other way around. In the Kentucky legislature, there is yet another effort to address this situation, the protection, of course, being directed toward the women. The latest high-profile case in Kentucky involved a protective order and the alleged murder of a woman by a former legislator and candidate for the governor’s seat, who was the recipient of the order.

The social engineers – current edition – are appalled by this state of affairs, notwithstanding that they have adopted “political correctness” as their credo, which, translated, simply means “if it feels good, do it as long as nobody gets hurt.” Thus, everything from the weirdest perverted and/or homosexual behavior to most any form of devil-worship to any sort of shack-up arrangement to men-marrying-men and women-marrying-women, with the appropriate reeducation in the public schools concerning these things, of course, is perfectly okay.

But those things are not perfectly okay. Leaving religion out of it altogether, those things are completely contradictory to the natural order of things – biologically, emotionally, intellectually and from a plain-common-sense standpoint. Even though one man’s concept of orgy is the same as another man’s concept of morality, common sense dictates that some things are just plain wrong. There are black-and-white issues, meaning that not everything comes in a shade of gray.

So...how does this relate to the abuse/protective-order mess that clogs up law enforcement, often leads to policepersons getting hurt or killed when caught in domestic cross-fires, requires countless hours of wasted money and other resources, and often amounts to absolutely nothing of consequence?

On September 23, 2008, the Census Bureau released a report explaining how Americans lived in 2007. The report indicated that for the third consecutive year, the majority of the nation's households were headed by unmarried Americans. The report listed 23 states falling into the unmarried-majority category in terms of households and living arrangements – more states than in any previous year. Michigan was added to this list for the first time. In terms of raw numbers, more than 101 million American adults were unmarried – 50.3%. In other words, a huge number of the arrangements were what are commonly called “shack-ups,” and a huge number involved children.

This at one time was the arrangement used by the murdered woman and the alleged killer alluded to above. She was about half his age when they moved in together and they seemed to have been friendly with the bubbly. In other words, they had made no documented commitment to each other, such as a marriage certificate. They co-habited. Then, their arrangement fell apart and the lady, feeling threatened, perhaps justifiably, got a protective order against the guy, something he claimed cost him his job. She was subsequently shot dead one morning on her way to work. Then, all the hand-wringing began.

The hand-wringing began because it was just naturally assumed that society/government/law-enforcement/whatever had failed this woman. This is the case nowadays when a social disruption occurs. The public – the citizens – have somehow caused it all by not being enhanced enough as “Big Brother” looking out for people who might just cause their own problems. The Fort Hood massacre is another example. The toady-headed progressives are wondering how the system failed the murderer of 13 unarmed people on a government installation, of all things. The fact that he was a cold-blooded killer contemptuous of the system doesn’t register with them. They consider him a victim.

It’s politically incorrect to bring up the possibility that an awful lot of the abuse/protective-order business is caused by both men and women who haven’t the depth to make commitments to each other and are mostly interested in the mutual exploitation accruing to just shacking-up. Or...they may be married and lack the will – even when children are involved – to put forth the effort to make their commitment succeed. Either way, mostly out of self-interest, they bicker, fight, do drugs (including alcohol), and, often, abuse occurs. They are contemptuous of the natural order of things. The result: yet another protective order...and maybe much worse.

Included often in the “much worse” is the intolerable torture and killing of children, sometimes by a “significant other” with the mother’s complicity, or a stepfather. To people only interested in lust rather than love, a child can be an inconvenience too bothersome to tolerate. The hardest thing to understand, even in these circumstances, is the torture inflicted upon a child when it would be far more merciful to just slit his/her throat and be done with it.

The person most responsible for this problem is the woman who chooses to let her hormones instead of her brain run her life and hooks up with a stud having the same approach. Women scream for equality, but when they do something this dumb and incur the wrath of the co-habiting scumbags, they run whining to the judge for a protective order. It shouldn’t be this way, political correctness be damned.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

No comments: