From: Bill Lucy 

In article <3920bb79{at}w3.nls.net>, billy-m{at}pacbell.net says...
> I've never argued that the interest of the remaining parent should be
> ignored, or even trivialized, as I am a strong supporter of parental rights
> under most circumstances, and certainly more so than those who have the gall
> to claim this advocacy for themselves... only NOW.

You are claiming that everyone who supports this view is toeing the WH
line. I have never changed my view on this, because I have a wife who deals
with family issues *every day*.


> What I have maintained, however, is that this matter involves far more than
> a simplistic (and I believe, WH driven) "fathers rights"
mantra is capable
> of explaining and therefore deserves a much more careful assessment of the
> complex circumstances surrounding it, among which includes the reality --
> like it or not -- of a particularly powerful political dynamic.

I have not ignored the political dynamic. I think it's rather interesting.
But it doesn't change the decision *I* would make in the same
circumstances.


> Those who
> advocate that all of this be ignored and that we simply toss the child back
> into the sea ASAP based upon a WH provided sound bite

I frankly have never heard a "WH provided sound bite" which
affected my view on this.

> are not doing so
> because they believe in fathers rights, but are generally doing so either
> out of extreme naivet‚ or political inclination with an inherent sympathy
> toward Castro's Cuba...

Does the fact that I want Castro to die tomorrow affect my decision on this
issue? No. Does that make me "left-leaning"? I don't think so.

> Regardless, this entire episode has been rich in metaphor for who we have
> been, and who we are today.

Only to the clueless, Bill.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5