:: Friday, 19 October 2007 ::
"It's the stupidity, economists"
Hmmmm. That Steyn. He makes you think, like.
But I do maintain the reason for "partners" rather than just plain old marriages is because of lawyers.
Bear with me here.
Lawyers, you see, love to craft new rights and one favorite is the de facto hetero sexual couple, too lazy, cheap and godless even to hire a $50 celebrant to marry 'em, getting all the same property, custody and succession (that is 'wills' if you do not already know) rights as the married folks. "Partners".
How easy is it to split up from a partner? As easy as walking out the door or as hard as you wanna make it fighting over who gets the house and the car and the kids and the art and the dog and the superannuation.
And if you have no house, kids, art etc? Well, just walk out. Your "partner" being no more important than some boyfriend or girlfriend.
Now work it out with no money but with kids.
Well, lawyers to the rescue = how about some welfare payments, eh?
And if the kids are feral = how about some complex juve justice rules, eh?
And if the kids are wogs?
Well, how about some sensitivity training for the coppers and the courts to make sure people ignore that wog thing as much as possible.
See where it goes? On and frickin' on.
Pah. Too much law. Not enough discipline.
And wile I am pondering all this, how about this: I have always maintained there should be a wog defence in family court cases. You know, where the do nothing trophy wife tries to get her hands on half of the millions made by husband, working in the family business or starting from scratch. See, skippy trophy wives get half cos, even though they do nothing, they really do arrange dinners and support hubby while he makes the millions for the family. Well, maybe a bit. Calling the caterers and such. But your wog trophy wives, while being infinitely better looking than the skips, do no such supporting. Their job is quite specificaly not to offer any support or get any ways involved with hubby. It is simply to breed and look gorgeous. I have seen this happen and it is a damn shame that when that marriage falls over(and it is always a marriage - we are dealing with wogs here, and it always falls over for infidelity....wogs, natch) no lawyer has run that argument in court.
Cos of course to do that would be breaking another law about never actually seeing wogs or noticing wog behaviour. Colour-blind, culture-blind. My arse.
And doubleplus it would be breaking the law that says women are weak weak weak.
Now, I am not addressing, here, real partners, real de factors and marrieds who do share life and work and who bust up cos they need to. I am just thinking to the end of a very squiggly line started by Steyn who thinks a lot about population. Me, I think about what it takes to ... make a population, know what I mean?
:: WB 4:33 pm [link+] ::