Politics

Hello my name is Paul Darr and I am a survivor of all forms of child abuse

Hello my name is Paul Darr and I am a survivor of all forms of child abuse. Some of you might know me from different walks of life and might be barely aware of my past. I mean, I am a 42 year old man now, but I can tell you those physical and emotional scars you gain as a child are still there under the surface the rest of your life. I used to talk about it more when younger but I do so less often now.

Today I saw someone casually calling someone a “child abuse advocate” when the person they accused has never advocated on behalf of any abuse and has done so against it. I have also seen people call people child molesters (chomo) and groomers because they identify as part of, or support the Gender & Sexual Minorities (GSM) community. In other conversations I have seen foster children invoked as part of the conversation with reproductive rights, no matter the side of that issue. 

In all of the cases, I find it disgusting that individuals that genuinely show little to no real empathy towards those of us that have been victims will then invoke us for their own arguments. Since we are victims, do they see us as weak and unable to defend ourselves from that use? By using us as pieces in that argument I think they weaken the focus on our actual abusers and they themselves are the actual abuser advocates. This is an argument I have had with people in my political life and also some with church policies. I would just ask these people to stop misusing us and leave us out of arguments that are not meant to really help us.

That will end my rant on something that has been bothering me for a while but maybe I should talk about some of the abuse I have experienced in my life. My first memory of abuse was actually of my biological mother being the victim. I remember one evening seeing my biological father beat the living crap out of her while he was drunk. I screamed at him to stop but he continued on and beat me later but I don’t remember the details of that beating too much. This was around when I was 4 or 5 and lived in Sun City, CA. My brother luckily slept through the whole thing.

After that, my biological parents divorced and my brother and I lived with our biological father with his girlfriend and several other people that lived in the home. That is when I experienced all the other forms of abuse before entering foster care. Neglect was the first one that comes to mind. My brother and I were often left to ourselves for the day. That included me getting up and ready for school and finding food to eat. I remember finding some stale ice cream cones in a cupboard and having that for a meal one day. I also remember the dogs would get fed but we would not, so I remember grabbing dog food and eating that. Since we lived in California, there were also plenty of orange and pomegranate trees around for me to raid and get food from. So food was scarce but I found ways to obtain it for my brother and I.

At the time, my biological father worked at the local card house and sold drugs. I think he mainly sold marijuana and cocaine. He was also an alcoholic. During this time of living at his girlfriend’s house is when he started beating me on a more regular basis when he came home drunk. He had this thick leather belt with a heavy metal buckle. He would swing it, hitting the buckle against the back of my knees or the center of my back. With my back, it would just make me curl back in pain and the back of the knees would cause my knees to collapse so I would fall forward. He would then tell me to, “get the fuck back up” so that he could swing again and knock me back down. During these beatings he would typically say other things like wishing I was never born but really that felt minor compared to what was going on at the time.

Another memory was the time my uncle told me to run while my biological father was there. As I took off he pulled out his paintball gun and took careful aim before shooting me in the back of the knee. I don’t know what it was with going after the knees but they must have enjoyed seeing me tumble and fall.

This sort of thing was my daily life until the day my biological mother kidnapped my brother and I but I think I will split some of this up into follow up blog posts.

Hello my name is Paul Darr and I am a survivor of all forms of child abuse Read Post »

Why the death penalty should be abolished!

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is the practice of putting a person to death as a punishment for a crime they have committed. It has been used throughout history and is still used in many countries today. However, there is a growing movement to abolish the death penalty. In this post I will argue that the death penalty should be abolished.

The first reason to abolish the death penalty is that it is not an effective deterrent to crime. Many people assume that the death penalty will deter potential criminals from committing serious crimes, but there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, research has shown that the death penalty has no more of a deterrent effect than other forms of punishment, such as life imprisonment.

Secondly, the death penalty is inherently flawed because it is irreversible. Once a person has been executed, there is no way to undo the mistake if it is later discovered that they were innocent. This has happened many times throughout history, and it is likely that innocent people have been executed even in the modern era. The risk of executing an innocent person is simply too great to continue using the death penalty.

Furthermore, the death penalty is often applied in a discriminatory manner. Studies have shown that people of color and those who are poor are much more likely to be sentenced to death than those who are white and wealthy. This raises serious questions about the fairness of the criminal justice system and whether the death penalty is being applied in a just and equitable manner.

Another reason to abolish the death penalty is that it is very expensive. In many cases, the cost of prosecuting a death penalty case is significantly higher than the cost of a case where the defendant is sentenced to life in prison. This is because death penalty cases require extensive appeals and often involve a long and complex legal process. These costs are ultimately borne by taxpayers, who may not support the use of the death penalty in the first place.

Finally, the death penalty is morally wrong. It violates the fundamental human right to life, and it sends the message that killing is an acceptable form of punishment. It is not the job of the state to take human life, no matter what the circumstances. Instead, the state should focus on rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders back into society.

In conclusion, there are many compelling reasons to abolish the death penalty. It is not an effective deterrent to crime, it is irreversible and can lead to the execution of innocent people, it is often applied in a discriminatory manner, it is very expensive, and it is morally wrong. Instead of using the death penalty, we should focus on developing more effective and fair forms of punishment that prioritize rehabilitation and the protection of human rights.

Why the death penalty should be abolished! Read Post »

What is Eminent Domain?

Eminent domain is a legal power that allows the government or other authorized entities to take private property for public use, provided that the owner is fairly compensated. While this power is theoretically used for the public good, it often has negative consequences for individuals and communities.

One of the main criticisms of eminent domain is that it can be used to take property from individuals who are not willing to sell. This can be especially problematic in cases where the government is taking property to make way for private development projects, as it may be difficult to argue that the public benefit of such projects justifies the taking of private property against the owner’s wishes. In these cases, the use of eminent domain can be seen as a violation of property rights and an abuse of government power.

Additionally, eminent domain can have negative impacts on communities, particularly those that are already marginalized or vulnerable. For example, if the government takes property from a low-income community to make way for a high-end development project, this can exacerbate existing economic inequalities and displace residents from their homes and neighborhoods. Similarly, if the government takes property from a historically significant site or a community with cultural significance, this can erode the community’s identity and sense of place.

Overall, while eminent domain is theoretically used for the public good, it must be severely limited from current use to protect the rights and well-being of individuals and communities affected by its use.

What is Eminent Domain? Read Post »

National Divorce?

The idea of the United States breaking up into different regions has been proposed by some in recent years. The proponents of this idea argue that it would create smaller, more manageable governments that are better able to respond to the needs of their citizens. However, this idea is not a workable option, and it is unlikely to bring a marked improvement in human affairs.

Firstly, the breakup of the United States into different regions would lead to political and economic instability. The US is one of the largest and most powerful countries in the world. Its political and economic systems are intricately interconnected, and breaking them up would cause significant disruptions. It would lead to the creation of new borders, currencies, trade agreements, and political systems. This would create uncertainty and instability, making it difficult for businesses and individuals to plan for the future. Additionally, it could lead to conflicts between the newly created regions, leading to violence and unrest.

Secondly, the breakup of the United States would have severe consequences for minority groups. The US is a diverse country, with people from different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds living together. If the country were to break up, these minority groups would be at risk of persecution and discrimination. They may be forced to flee their homes, leading to a massive refugee crisis. Moreover, smaller, more homogeneous regions would be less likely to embrace diversity, leading to further marginalization of minority groups.

Thirdly, the breakup of the United States would weaken its global position. The US is a global superpower, with significant political, economic, and military influence around the world. Breaking up the country would lead to a loss of power and influence, weakening its ability to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. Additionally, it would create opportunities for other countries, such as China and Russia, to expand their influence in the region, leading to a shift in the global balance of power.

Fourthly, the breakup of the United States would not address the underlying issues that divide the country. The US is a deeply divided society, with significant political, economic, and social disparities. The reasons for these divisions are complex and deep-rooted, and breaking up the country would not solve them. Instead, it would create new divisions and exacerbate existing ones, leading to further social unrest and political instability.

Lastly, the breakup of the United States is not proposed by those seeking more freedom. The idea is primarily proposed by those who wish to exert their own form of control on a local area. The breakup of the United States is seen as a means of splitting control between different authoritarian regimes. The solution would not lead to more freedom and would in fact lead to less as proposed by most current proponents.

In conclusion, the breakup of the United States into different regions is not a workable option likely to bring a marked improvement in human affairs. Instead, it would lead to political and economic instability, pose a significant threat to minority groups, weaken the US’s global position, reduce freedom, and fail to address the underlying issues that divide the country. The US must focus on addressing its divisions and finding ways to promote unity and understanding, rather than resorting to drastic measures that could have severe consequences.

National Divorce? Read Post »