A Pyramid DESIGNED to Collapse

A financial post as the country's finances are little more than a pyramid scheme these days:

From Scott Blier of iBankCoin.com:

It is beyond the scope of comprehension that the FED actually wants and needs to CREATE inflation when their job is to supposedly suppress and limit it. But it is all a part of the perverting of the price mechanism of today’s markets. Does this sound legal to you?

1. The FED and Treasury (THEY) creates money out of thin air.
2. THEY then lend it to banks for nothing (0%, free money).
3. Banks then lend back to THEM.
4. THEY allow banks to act as intermediary to make a guaranteed profit.
5. THEY buy Treasuries from banks for cash and allow them to Hypothecate that money the standard 11:1.
6. THEY allow banks to take the hypothicated money and buy other assets on margin.
7. THEY allow commodities to have the lowest margin requirements of any financial instruments other than Treasuries.

Can you see the money machine at work? THEY create a dollar and it can become $100 and allows it to buy anything and everything market-related. Then prices rise and everyone is happy!

Do you wonder who is buying stocks and commodities? All this price perversion in the name of “saving the system”.

The desire is to get everyone hurrying to spend and invest before prices go too high. But the continuously rising prices crowd out end users because they can no longer afford the materials in question for end usage. The only buyers then become financial speculators. That is until the price is so high that nobody can buy and then prices crash from lack of buyers. Then speculators will need to sell to meet their margin calls.

The end result is that all the money THEY created will go to money heaven and we’ll be knee deep, again. And the higher the price of materials go, the closer we come to that end.

Ali-money, money, money

Read this and then remind yourself women make nearly as much as men and individually, in separate instances, much more than many men.

My lawyer was a woman, judge in my son's custody case was a woman. G.A.L. in custody case was a woman (all made six figures plus). My boss's boss is a woman, my boss's boss's BOSS is a woman (and we're talking a software company). And on the list goes.....

From wikipedia:

History

Alimony has been discussed in ancient legal texts including the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (#137-#142)^[1] and the Code of Justinian. ^[2] The concept of modern alimony in the United States derives from English ecclesiastical courts which awarded alimony in cases of separation and divorce. Alimony Pendente lite was given until the divorce decree, based on the husband's duty to support the wife during a marriage that still continued. Post-divorce or permanent alimony was also based on the notion that the marriage continued, as ecclesiastical courts could only award a divorce a mensa et thora, similar to a legal separation today. As divorce did not end the marriage, the husband's duty to support his wife remained intact.^[3] The term alimony comes from the Latin word alimonia, and was a rule of sustenance to assure the wife's lodging, food, clothing, and other necessities after divorce.^[4]

Liberalization of divorce occurred in the nineteenth century, but divorce was only possible in cases of marital misconduct. As a result, the requirement to pay alimony became linked to the concept of fault in the divorce.^[5] Alimony to wives was paid because it was assumed that the marriage, and the wife's right to support, would have continued but for the misbehavior of husband. Ending alimony on divorce would have permitted a guilty husband to profit from his own misconduct. In contrast, if the wife committed the misconduct, she was considered to have forfeited any claim to ongoing support. However, during the period parties could rarely afford alimony and so it was rarely awarded by courts.^[3] As men's incomes increased, and with it the possibility of paying alimony, the awarding of alimony increased, generally because a wife could show a need for ongoing financial support and the husband had the ability to pay.^[3][6] No-fault divorce led to changes in alimony. Whereas spousal support was considered a right under the fault-based system, it became conditional under the no-fault approach.^[6] According to the American Bar Association, marital fault is a "factor" in awarding alimony in 25 states and the District of Columbia.^[7] Permanent alimony began to fall out of favor, as it prevented former spouses from beginning new lives,^[6] though in some states (e.g., Massachusetts, Mississippi and Tennessee), permanent alimony awards continued.^{[8][9][10][11]} Alimony moved beyond support to permitting the more dependent spouse to become financially independent or to have the same standard of living as during the marriage or common law marriage though this was not possible in most cases.^[3][12]

In the 1970s the United States Supreme Court ruled against gender bias in alimony awards, and the percentage of alimony recipients who are male rose to 3.6% in 2006.^[13] In states like Massachusetts and Louisiana, the salaries of new spouses may be used in determining the alimony paid to the previous partners.^{[11] [14]} Most recently, in several high profile divorces women such as Britney Spears, Victoria Principal and Jessica Simpson have paid multi-million dollar settlements in lieu of alimony to ex-husbands who were independently wealthy.^[15][16] According to lawyers, men are becoming more aggressive in the pursuit of alimony awards as the stigma associated with asking for alimony fades.^[16]

Some Women are Not All Women

For some reason, be it the singular minded view of television anchors or the monomania perpetrated by N.O.W., but people need to start announcing to the world and to themselves that we are all very different. Men and women both have mutually exclusive programming that goes back to hunter-gatherer times, but let's face it, while many men may seem to be the same and many women seem to be the same, some men aren't all men. Some women aren't all women. Every guy isn't Tiger Woods. Every woman is not Anna Nicole Smith. We are all shaped by our experiences and we are all born different people. From our very inception in the womb, every time an embryo is formed, even from the same parents, the formation of that embryo is EVERY TIME RADICALLY DIFFERENT! Ever meet a brother and sister who are total opposites? A Father and son who can't get along and you wonder how one could come from the other?

And I'm sure you've met a man who is as gentle as a kitten and a woman is seems to be as hard and icey as the most distant man. Now men and women are inherently made differently, one from an x and a y chromosome, the other from two x chromosomes, but as they grow older, the differences begin to melt. Men and women mature at different rates, generally speaking. Girls are born 6 months more mature than boys. At 2 years old - just 2 years being alive - they are A YEAR more mature than boys. That said, some boys certainly mature a bit faster than others. I know I did.

Now to the meat of the article, dear reader. You will hear such things in the press... MEN do this... WOMEN do that.... its usually spoken in a derogatory way. When you hear this, you should hear SOME men... SOME women... etc.

Further, know that many of the "men" and "women" who make the news or make the spotlight to be judged are Hollywood starlits. These are not normal people. They are often liquid to the tune of millions and some have a net worth of well into the hundreds of millions. Super athletes, the famous... these people have access to resources that the normal people do not. This allows them to behave in a wanton and selfish manner and AVOID EVER HAVING TO COMPROMISE. Marriage is compromise and any therapist or even priest worth his or her salt will tell you that. So be sure to laugh hysterically should ANYONE ever suggest "going back to" a single male breadwinner would result in chaos and female subjugation. [My family had a female breadwinner and they managed to stay married for going on 4 decades. My father did more than his fair share in other ways... in fact he very well qualified for the so called title of "stay-at-home-mom" who liberal think-tank studies state are worth 100 grand plus given their contributions. More in his case and he worked a full time job as well as did the cooking and cleaning. But I digress].

In fact, be sure to note that American Indian tribes had the ultimate "patriarchal" society and "subjugated" women but somehow instituted marriage unions and THRIVED as a people for hundreds of years or longer. In fact in many tribes, women had the right to leave their husband at any time for any reason or no reason (she simply wasn't allowed to seize his property or income - I guess those crazy savages just never realized women should be able to leave men as penniless, dependent and unable to provide for anyone else). But of course the fact that women had ENORMOUS influences on their husbands in tribal culture gets lost on modern society. Hell, even president's wives in the 18 and early 1900's bent their husband's ear about everything from support for the poor to women's suffrage to war and clearly had an impact. Hillary Clinton didn't bother with informality, despite not being an employee of the government she sought to fix the healthcare crisis nearly single-handedly when Bill was in office. (Now the Health Care industry owns her as it does every other politician).

But always bear in mind that men and women live together. They always have, they always will. Period. Its in their best interest. They cooperate. They enjoy the financial, time and energy savings of living under one roof. They build intimacy and trust. They take care of one another. Its not the alpha-male way to live, but its clearly in our best interest; in society's best interests as well. Once children come along, you MUST cooperate and work hard if your children are to be successful, healthy adults.

Now, onto women. Sorry, but this post will be about women. Comment about men if you'd like. Women are designed and behave as societal creatures... that is, group animals. Women are designed to cooperate, they are MUCH more intuitive than men and are famous for being able to communicate with eachother without speaking. This has its roots in hunter-gatherer society as most things do, and like all instincts, it is not to be ignored. Women simply care about what others think more than men do. It is in their nature, it is part of who they are and how they were made. In this case, the design and the behavior was to ward off predators, and help take care of their young, which they were left alone to do while men hunted. Like a sponge, or a mirror, women detect and sense almost CONSTANTLY. For that reason it was the poet Byron who said that women are a reflection of all that is wrong with society. What he meant of course, is that women sense and detect ALL things around them, not just some things. And much of what society seems to preach in media, news and "society" is pretty ugly: greed, lust, sloth, materialism, sensationalism, rumor, innuendo, judgement, hate, cruelty, violence, etc..

Men are taught from a young age that women are delicate, fragile and sensitive. For better or worse most men extend that to the way women think. THIS is a terrible mistake. But its done. Like thinking a panda bear is sweet and lovable just because it looks that way and moves slowly. And many men, myself included, recoil in a mixture of horror and disgust when many women reveal that they can be very shrewd; they can assess, judge and punish with the toughest of any man. They can hate, spy, cheat, lie, steal, cajole, threaten, kill, maim, poison, stab, fantasize, abuse and exploit. Are all women evil? No. But don't think they do not have the capacity for evil. Just as men do. Mary Wollstencraft hinted at this years ago, quite brilliantly. The way many men discover this is when a woman casually looks at another and coldly sums up her appearance or fertility potential: "her butt is big and her legs are chunky." Or something like "she needs to get a bikini wax and supportive bra." Or sometimes much worse. The horror author Stephen King was an odd child, of course and was teased in high school and when asked about it often recalls that what he endured was gentle compared to what unfavored girls endured. One female classmate of his was teased so mercilessly by other girls she developed severe depression and despite growing up to eventually get married and have children, she one day blew her head off with a shotgun.

Are all women this evil? Are they wicked and disgusting? Are they shrill harpies who are lusty and conniving? No. In fact many women are very giving, loving, and charming people who love to help others, give themselves selflessly and are devoted to their families. Unfortunately, these women are not ALL women. And I have to openly wonder, cruel as it may be, how many of these women there are with a 50% divorce rate and 50% of children being born out of wedlock. Now these numbers are not a result of more women being evil or anything like it. They are a result, in large part, of women being led astray. Remember reader, that children raised in broken families - divorced, abused, etc. - are more likely to have broken families of their own. Does the evidence not strongly suggest this problem is accelerating? 60% of divorces, studies report, are requested by wives. Not husbands. Wives. While men certainly bear blame in many instances of divorce, the statistics show women are the larger driving force. This is highly unnatural. Women are inherently designed to 'nest'. They seek out stability in romance, work and friendships. They start families, they stay close to their parents - these are all well proven facts. Why are they breaking up their own families? What could be causing this?

It is assumed, in the media, of course, that men are to blame for families breaking up. "Tiger Woods!" they say (as if all men were philandering, billionaire playboys). But I'm afraid that simply isn't what is happening across the broader spectrum. Stepping into anecdotal evidence for a moment... I am appalled to personally know friends or family friends that had occurrences of wives quite literally coming home one day and ambushing their husbands with "I don't feel like being married anymore." That is literally the statement of two different women with no relation to eachother! Now there may have been underlying reasons for these women leaving their husbands, but in both cases I can confidently say that infidelity, poverty, joblessness, drugs, alcohol, and abuse were not factors. Simply, their husbands were simple, hardworking family men whose trespass was known only to their wives. Further their wives suspiciously gave NO reason for wanting out! This would've been HIGHLY suspicious and irregular 30 years ago but is today considered appallingly common. I can't help but suspect that fickle and capriciousness nature of Hollywood movie stars and the public's obsession with them is at least partly responsible. To make the situation even more absurd, these women are entitled, under the law, to alimony, which is still comically contained in all state law books. I say "comically" because more women than men receive college degrees these days and women's earnings have been skyrocketing for the past 10+ years. The fastest growing market segment is women in the 18-25 age range. Yet in Mississippi, Massachusetts and Tennessee, alimony is usually awarded for life. Give me a break, for chrissake. Life? So the women I see divorcing for no reason have literally hit some kind of lottery, whereby they receive a portion of the earnings of someone who is their earning equal, thereby reducing them to being a kind of running debt slave to her, yet the divorce was her decision and she must not give any reason or cause for it!

The marriage of today is not the marriage of yesteryear. Marriage is being entered into lightly by many and being equally discarded by many. Many women simply don't 'need' marriage for financial reasons. Women truly are men's equal, for better or worse. The statistics reveal it, simple observation reveals it. And with divorce rates at obscene levels, its obvious that people have neither the moral nor the practical reasons to shun divorce that they once did. Yet in light of effortless divorce, a completely self-sustaining female population, and equality between the sexes, women are being handed a portion of her ex-husband's earnings for the rest of her life? A husband who might've been her husband for all of 3 or 4 years? This no-fault-divorce-between-equals system of ours has nothing to do with commitment, love or marriage. Its become a ticket to rent-a-slave. A small proportion of the time, men are actually being awarded a portion of their ex-wife's earnings for life. This is equally obscene. A completely healthy man with a good education just being GIVEN (stealing, in essence) a portion of his wife's income that she works hard for every day in exchange for.... nothing? This isn't justice or equality or any of that nonsense. This is a mafia-style shakedown with the divorce lawyers laughing all the way to the bank. How long before a man and a woman get together and soon think that being the higher earner is the WORST thing for him or her? After a divorce, despite being a higher earner who most likely has more education and works harder at a difficult job, you could find yourself POORER than your ex, who you may have been married to for only a matter of months and who you most likely have not associated with for years. You are now legally obligated to enrich a stranger. They don't sleep with you, rub your shoulders, cook for you or sacrifice for you in any way, nor do you for them yet this transfer of wealth takes place regardless, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. Think about what that means if you divorce in your 20s or 30s!

Welcome to the pinnacle of stupidity. The United States of Blow-'em-out. While Barry Ritholtz's book "Bailout Nation" was an apt description of the financial farce that is our banking sector, a book about our family and social structure ought to be entitled Blow-Out Nation.

Hang 'em High and Dry Nation.

SELF-EXPLANATORY

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/relationships/blog/2010/12/sick_of_the_hunt.html

This is so awesome, I don't even know where to begin. Actually its not awesome. Its sad. Sorry. But I have to laugh because the woman writing it is so damn naive. She's plainly past her prime and apparently in denial of that fact. She's also in denial that she is a woman and not a man, and that her primary attractive features are not her career or education.

I'm 32 and I live in rural New England. I moved here for a job after completing a master's degree. The job is great and the area offers lots of outdoor activities that interest me. The problem? A man shortage. And from talking with friends who live in more populous areas, this "shortage" isn't necessarily unique to my rural life -- so we're not thinking that moving is necessarily the answer. I travel enough for work to mingle outside of my local network.

Women are not men. Men don't elbow eachother and say "Look at the Ph.d on that chic!" Why has this not sunk in? Is there a blockage in your head ladies? Wear snug clothes (not like a whore), heels and show off your figure, then talk to many men. Mother Nature does the rest you bonehead. Researchers in England found one thing that every man looks for - hip to waist ratio - its a sign of fertility. Its what sells all those trashy fashion rags - YM, Cosmo, etc.. "How to hook a better mate than you otherwise might" is what they should be called. They spend pages and pages on clothes that make your pear-looking figure more like an hourglass. Why? Men's eyes don't lie to them.

Any guy growing up in this country that went to High School will tell you the truth: women went for the alpha males (imagine that), usually sports stars or maybe the charming, funny guys who were quite smart. But usually the sports gods. Why? Because they were the most physically dominant. Just as women did in the hunter-gatherer days. We're still animals, kids. Nothing has changed but our latest theories and hair-brained ideologies, all of which fail quickly when going toe-to-toe with mother nature and her bag of from-the-gut instincts she gave to each of us at birth.

"I've been in several long-term relationships, including a five-year romance in my 20s that I thought would lead to marriage but didn't. It ended over three years ago, so it is safe to say I've recovered and made it out to the other side wiser and more confident."

Notice the waste of critical time when she was in her prime? Romances don't take 5 years sweetheart. The guy wants you or he doesn't. So what was the problem? Was he a mangina? Was he not into you and you were waiting for him to come around? You never should've wasted so much time. You should've pressed him after year 2 for chrissake and then moved on. Patience is great, but love doesn't take that long. Period. Selma Hayek wants to marry me? Done deal. We're work out the details later. How long did that take?

A host of movies have come out tackling our damsel's little fantasy that men and women are exactly the same. Namely, "The Ugly Truth," "The Truth About Cats and Dogs," "Someone Like You," and "The Backup Plan." In those movies women with similar fairy tale opinions of men and women are disabused of them rather fast. All stem from a total misunderstanding of how men and women work. How men and women are designed is not that hard to understand, nor should it be. Think about how long cars have been in existence. Now go to the library and look up all the books on cars. There are millions. Are we confused about cars? No. Or how about whales? Or chimpanzees? Or clothes. Men and Women are much older than any of those things and much more interesting. We have teraflops of research on men and women and their motives and workings. Modern media groups, in an effort to sell literature or movies or books or whatever make it all out to be some kind of mystery. Its no mystery. Go to India, or the Middle East, or any of those "traditional" countries and tell them new-fangled ideas about men and women. How men are really in touch with their feelings and should help with child rearing constantly and use skin care products, or how women are really happy working all day and leaving strangers to raise their children or worse, leaving budding adolescents alone in the house surfing for internet porn or experimenting with drugs. They will stare at you in disbelief and think you just plain idiotic. But I digress.

The woman in the Boston Globe article above is truly lost, the poor dear. She's taken her leisurely time through life... as is her right. But what she never figured out is that there is no free lunch in life. Men are programmed... PROGRAMMED by mother nature to have sex with young, healthy female animals.. mammals in our case - young women, for the purpose of procreation. Its not a thought, its not an idea or a theory. ITS INSTINCT. Respect it. Girls are born 6 months more mature. At 2 years old, they are a year more mature. What is mother nature's goal? To get her quickly to a point where she can breed. Don't blame me. Its not my idea. Its not my design. But its a design we have to respect, like it or not. In the article, our dear writer figures it out... too late.

I'm old enough to realize that at this point, I may find love with someone who is already divorced, has kids, or has some other situation that at one point would have been on my "deal-breaker" list.

No honey. Not 'may' find love. Your ONLY CHANCE is to hope AND PRAY for love with whatever man still finds you attractive and desirable. That was the part of your life that just ended. Sorry if that's mean. Its true. You're past your prime. You're not as healthy as a 23-26 year old to breed with. Men will figure this out and ignore you. Except for EXACTLY THE TYPE OF MEN YOU FIND.... THE LEFTOVERS: divorced and if he's also single, then he didn't leave his wife for someone else.. SHE DITCHED HIM, meaning he's emotionally shattered, broke, and probably battling depression and all that goes with it. Welcome to the era of women choosing and discarding men if and when they see fit. She got the house, the kids and all his money; you get whatever scraps she left you... literally.

But our writer thinks she's going to "strategize" her way to a "quality" man with a good job. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm very social and have a large network of friends. I'm out and about in many clubs, from alumni activities to athletic organizations. I've spent plenty of time dating online and am open to these opportunities. I'm not shy at all! Blind date? Sure. Want to set me up? Go right ahead. Speed dating? Done it.

And yet, where are all the educated and employed men? Am I asking for too much? (I'll even make concessions for employment, given the economy.)

Seriously? What are you snorting? I love the line "Where are all the educated and employed men?" WITH OTHER WOMEN, THAT'S WHERE. With women who somehow figured out relationships aren't carefree, timeless marathons with no goal. Women who were aggressive and motivated. Women who worked at it. They went out EVERY NIGHT in their 20s or close to it. They dressed sexy and they let many men know they were marriage material.. maybe they were "traditional" or "conservative" in their views, or they laughed at his jokes and admired his charm and intelligence, or let him know how impressed they were by his drive at work, I really don't know, I'm not a girl. But I'm sure these women didn't wait 5 years through a dead-end relationship. They found a good man and let him know at some point that they were going to be taken or lost to some other guy. Get it?

I had a friend (female).. an old roomate.. she found a handsome guy at a club and they started dating. He told her before getting any more serious, he wanted to date around a bit. She said "No." Just that. "No: you're with me or you're not. That's it. And there's no coming back. You're in or else get going." Where are they now? Married with kids. Take a lesson.

Secondly, being open to new opportunities or whatever is fine, writer. But forget about that. Look down. See what's under that Master's educated brain? That's what you're selling. That's your primary offer. Shutup with that nonsense about your deep soul. That's for AFTER he's sold on your body. Respect Mother Nature or die alone. Go to the gym, forget about your big shot career for a second. GYM, GYM, GYM. Get in the shape of your life. Then show it off. After you meet a guy (and you will with a good body... trust me. Suddenly they will just appear), then keep yourself in shape. Let the guy make some decisions. Ask him what he wants to do. Don't plan everything. The rest will work out fine. If its taking too long, mention you're after marriage eventually and that you can still date. See what he says.

Failure knows no end. Her friends fail with the same style as she and she apparently wants to pool their failure into a collection of what-not-to-do:

I know I'm not alone: I have plenty of female friends (both gay and straight) who are well-educated, many of them own their own homes, and live independently and yet yearn to share their lives with someone. The seven-weddings-a-year pandemic has passed us by and we're now all invited to baby showers and wondering when it is appropriate to consider freezing our eggs (no joke).

Live independently. Good for them. But are they selfish? Do they stay in shape? Are they, you know, PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE. Listen to yourself! They own homes and are well educated. Congratulations. What has that gotten them? A big basket of nothing, that's what. Want someone? What does your someone want? Nice breasts and a sexy legs. Sorry, but this is The Ugly Truth. Get as sexy as you can (I don't like plastic surgery - that's extreme), and be honest with the man who chooses you. IS THAT SO HARD?

Yet More:

the last thing I want to do is go "munting" (man hunting). Everyone knows that husband hunting gives off a whiff of desperation. And yet the alternative is to "give it time," "be patient," and "let fate do its thing" while the biological clock keeps ticking.

DON'T BE PATIENT. Jesus Christ. YOU'VE BEEN TOO PATIENT. Remember Mr. 5-year failure? How did that work out for you? He treaded water while you lost 5 years of prime perkiness off of your figure. The kind of perkiness youth buys without the gym. Now you'll have to REALLY earn your figure. Did patience help your figure? YOUR FIGURE IS THE PRIME MOTIVATOR FOR MEN. Patience is good for 17 year old girls. Not 32 year old wanna-be spinsters. You are almost twice as old as super-hot 17 year old girl. You are aiming for spinster-hood. STOP IT.

Is this a lose-lose situation? Who's better off: the single ladies who put their name in their hat online or those who refuse to submit to the (somewhat justified) stereotype that we’re all munting and wait it out? I'm turning to you because advice from married friends is exhausting and not helpful. And the rest of us haven't figured it out.

How is someone so educated so stupid? There is the word 'wait' again. STOP WAITING FOR CHRISSAKE! You should have two new best friends in life: the gym and thong underwear. You are selling sex appeal. Period. That gets you looks, from looks come conversation and opportuntiy. Get it? Say Hi to every guy you get near. EVERY SINGLE GUY. Be Mrs. Gym-rat and Mrs. I-COULD-BE-YOUR-NEW-BEST-FRIEND. Period. Make yourself say Hi to at least 10 guys in the bar and at least 10 guys out and about during the week. No luck? Make it 20. No luck? MAKE IT 50. AND AREN'T YOU LATE FOR YOUR APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR PHYSICAL TRAINER!?!??!?!

Every man reading this is nodding.

What does the pro at the Globe tell her? Oh Boy.....

You're telling us that you're doing what you need to do to meet someone nice. I guess my advice is to keep doing that -- and to stop thinking of it as your desperate search for a husband. It's really your search for love. That's got a better ring to it, doesn't it?

And take the pressure off yourself to speed this along. Again, only fictional characters have awesome and interesting partners all of the time. I know it's exhausting and that your clock it ticking, but love isn't easy to find and maintain. Even the marrieds have to work like crazy to keep it going.

– Meredith

The worst advice ever. From a girl. Girls don't hunt girls (mostly). Why the Hell would you ask one what to do. Your girlfriends aren't going to tell you your boobs are too small in your choice of shirt and bra today. They don't have the guts. Ask a ruthless man and do exactly as he says, you dumbass. Doing what you're doing and not changing anything is moronic. They have a saying in Tennis: Always change a losing game, never change a winning one. Same here. You have a losing game and your online therapist says keep it up. I'm mounting your spinster trophy now. I suggest your don't keep your personal trainer waiting.....

Still a Virgin? Don't Worry, THERE'S TREATMENT!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/still-a-virgin-billboards_n_704116.html

"Still A Virgin?" signs have been posted in tons of places it seems, around cities country wide. What can I even say here? They're right up there with the "Life is short, Get a divorce" billboards with big breasts and ripped abdomens on them. Classy. Seriously. Yes, this is America, and you can post anything and say anything and yada yada yada, and I'll always love America for that. This sort of thing you just have to put up with. Like if I put up a sign that said "Feminists are tainting your thoughts with poison." What a minute, that one's true. Nevermind.

The "sexual revolution" was anything but, kids. It was just a pack of young kids (like we all were), telling their parents, "You have it wrong, WE know what's best!" and failing as all kids too. So they grew up, became conservative and learned being married is better than hopping from bed to bed, from relationship to relationship and never settling down. Duh. Find me one old person who think that system is bunk. Its not "the government's" plan or a male or female supremacist plot. Its just what happens. Ask a grandparent for chrissake. Selfish people die alone and those willing to make a deal get married and get to have a family and children and all the fun (and grief) that goes with it. Better than realizing your life was ultimately futile, if you ask me.

But the signs are beyond stupid. They are only a sign of what has become of us. So virginity is bad? Really. So we need more STD's? More half-drunk girls accusing men of rape the next day? More children born out of wedlock? We need more abortions? Those who made this sign are making people who have not had sex FEEL GUILTY OR ASHAMED for not having done so, regardless of age. Well that's clever and sweet of you. Heaven forbid they not have some drunk sex they regret or a one night stand, after all. We wouldn't want women to only have sex with men who want to marry them or men to find a woman who wants them for a husband and not a sex conquest, a woman who will blow him out for his life savings and 50% of your salary in "child support," should a child come of it, now would we? Not to mention catching a life-threatening disease and having to tell everyone you have romantic feelings for that you are infected. How fun must that be?

And guess what folks. These problems that I mention? They're getting WORSE, not better. Not sure we have this rabid problem of TOO MANY virgins running around. I've read that the average age for girls to lose their virginity is 15-17, so let's speed that the Hell up, because that's just too damn old! And every man I know is just DYING to discover their fiance has been with half a dozen men before she met him! Oh joy! Isn't love SPECIAL? So quick, find some guy or gal and screw them BEFORE ITS TOO LATE. This is like a terrible mortgage commercial from 2005; hurry up and BUY! Ignore statistics and the fact you know you don't have the money - BUY DAMMIT! Sorry Jane, you didn't nail some stray man fast enough and now no one wants you because you're just a rookie. Yeah, right. What would you rather have guys, a rookie who you can guide and who can discover her sexual limits with you in an open and trusting way, or a pro who brags she knows "WAY MORE" than you do? A woman who can SHOW YOU a thing or two? Yuck. No thanks. Guess what ladies - guys who have slept around are not sexual tyrannosaurs; they are emotional basket cases, sluts or both.

So why would you be in a big damn hurry to join the ranks of that group? Its not something to be proud of. If you want to see your boyfriend smile, tell him you've only been with 1 or 2 men (yeah, LIE) and watch the big smile come onto his face. Or else go sleep around some more and get PLENTY of EXPERIENCE as if you were trying to study up for some big job interview that require you have physician-like knowledge of the male sexual organ. Your husband in waiting will be very impressed with you, right before it dawns on him how you know so much and he jumps into a 2 hour detox chamber then refuses to touch you without a HAZMAT suit on. The media is basically out to ruin you as it envies your yet-to-be-corrupted soul. See those signs for what they are - absolutely LUDICROUS. If it really improved your life to sleep around, you wouldn't need a billboard for it. Billboards are for shit you don't need, don't want, and typically are trying to convince you to do something that is NOT in your best interest.

Recession? TIP OF THE ICEBERG

Written by Graham Summers
Forget a Recession, The Empire is Crumbling

I look around me and I see an Empire in Decline.

The US economy is clearly in a depression… not a recession, not a recovery, but a DEPRESSION of a moral, social, and financial nature.

More than 40 million Americans (12%) are on Food stamps. Nearly one in five of us are unemployed of underemployed. Folks go to Wal-Mart at 11PM waiting for their government checks to clear at midnight so they can buy baby formula, milk and other necessities.

Three out of every five Americans are overweight. One in five are obese. Indeed, there are only two areas (one state, Colorado, and Washington DC) where obesity rates are under 20%.

Nearly three in four of us don’t get enough sleep. Almost one third of us report having trouble falling asleep EVERY night. And almost half of us report that day-time sleepiness interferes with normal activities including work.

Half of marriages end in divorce. One out of ten married couples report sleeping alone. The average American watches 28 hours of TV a week (enough to qualify for a part-time job). Two thirds of us eat dinner while watching TV, preferring the fake, sensationalized lives of others to engaging with our own families.

The TV and media are filled with foul, ungodly images of sex, violence, and hate. The most watched shows of the last decade all feature ordinary folks becoming superstars in lottery-esque competitions (American Idol, Survivor, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, etc) OR crime sagas detailing the most sordid and disgusting elements of society (CSI, Law and Order, etc) OR amoral social dramas in which notions of personal responsibility, fidelity, and common decency are unknown (Desperate Housewives, the Bachelorette, etc).

Today, brain dead, vapid human beings who have contributed nothing to society are idolized and followed as though they invented the wheel. We’ve actually got two industries devoted to presenting the illusion and reality of celebrity: Hollywood shows the photo-shopped, CGI-enhanced, scripted version, while the paparazzi and weekly glossies reveal the drug-addicted, affair-crazed, family breaking, soul-less emptiness.

Sex or violence are plastered on virtually every flat surface available. Even the check-out lines at the grocery store feature endless images of barely clothed women along with headlines sensationalizing gruesome behavior, right out in the open for children to see. And if the kid can actually read the headlines… God only knows what ideas this stuff is putting into their heads.

Financially, we’re all pretty much bust or going bust (except those on Wall Street).

New home sales in July were a RECORD low. Not record as in for the year, but the lowest since 1963. The talking heads are high fiving because sales improved in August, but failed to note that they were still DOWN 19% from August 2009 levels.

Americans two primary assets for retirement (stocks and their homes) have both been absolute disasters. Home prices are down 30%, stocks haven’t produced gains in over a decade. Every moron on TV talks about the Dow 10,000 like it’s a miracle. But when you adjust the Dow for inflation, (using the BLS’ ridiculous CPI measure) the Dow is SUB-500 in terms of purchasing power.

Our money system is controlled by an elite banking oligarchy fronted by academics who have never run a business, invented anything, or had any interaction with commerce aside from vying for tenure. Our currency is now worth less than 1/20th of what it was a century ago. And we are ALL in debt up to our eyeballs on a personal, corporate, local, state, and federal level.

Heck, even USA TODAY (not exactly the cutting edge in financial research) notes that in order to pay off our current liabilities, every US family would have to pay $31,000 a year… for 75 YEARS!!!

And we’re talking about an economic recovery?

According to David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff:

* Wages & salaries are still down 3.7% from the prior peak;
* Corporate profits are still down 20% from the peak;
* Real GDP is still down 1.3% from the peak;
* Industrial production is still down 7.2% from the peak;
* Employment is still down 5.5% from the peak;
* Retail sales are still down 4.5% from the peak;
* Manufacturing orders are still down 22.1% from the peak;
* Manufacturing shipments are still down 12.5% from the peak;
* Exports are still down 9.2% from the peak;
* Housing starts are still down 63.5% from the peak;
* New home sales are still down 68.9% from the peak;
* Existing home sales are still down 41.2% from the peak;
* Non-residential construction is still down 35.7% from the peak.

The American Psychological Association reports that 73% of Americans cite money as a source of significant stress. Personal bankruptcies have fallen 8% month over month from July to August. However, August 2010 bankruptcies are up 6% from August 2009… so much for the recovery.

And yet, despite all of this, assumedly intelligent people write op-ed articles and appear on TV claiming that things are swell in the US, that we’re actually OK and that the recession is over. Some of these people even have advanced degrees or have won international prizes for economics.

Let’s be honest. Forget recessions, forget even Depressions, the US is an empire in decline.

You can literally see it crumbling right in front of you. Just start looking at how people live, eat, and act on a day to day basis. Look at how our Government runs itself, how it manages our affairs, how it spends our tax Dollars. Look at how our justice system works, who it protects and who it punishes.

It’s all out there, right in the open for you to see. You don’t need an expert degree or some kind of advanced education. It’s OBVIOUS to anyone who bothers looking around.

The fact we don’t admit it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Best Regards,

Graham Summers

Best of Craigslist Summarizes Feminist Juxtaposition

I rest my case.


http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/561877622.html

LISTEN TO THE GUY WHO CALLED IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED

ITS BECAUSE WE'RE EFFED.

NEW RULE: YOU BAIL OUT RICH BANKSTERS FOREVER!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gold-Digger Paradise

This is obviously not representative of all women, but.... Please. Ladies? This is what men contend with. And if you married a wealthy guy, remember this next time you accuse him of having a wandering eye.

GOLD-DIGGER PARADISE.

{The Russian girls party at clubs like Dune, RdV East and Madame Tong’s and frequent pool parties thrown by Southampton resident Michael J. Lohan, father to Lindsay. Mr. Lohan could not be reached for comment.

But the girls are not out for one-night stands for money. Rather, Boles said, “they go in there, entice the guy, have him fall in love with them, disassemble his life, the guy proposes, they come in with a heavy duty Russian lawyer to negotiate the pre-nup, with very heavy benchmarks." The girls, Boles said, take jobs because doing so sets themselves up “to look humble." He said he knew of an older film producer who had left his wife for a young Russian girl, but declined to provide names.

A long-time Southampton resident who works as a personal trainer said that the girls “are landing them, that’s for sure. We see all the time on the street these Russian women with nannies and babies. They’re marrying these wealthy American men, and becoming trophy wives.”

But even then, some are still on the prowl. “My husband was sitting on a bench, and this Russian girl with a baby came up and started chatting him up,” the trainer said.

“This place used to feel so WASP-y, but now it’s like South Beach. I’ve never seen so many gorgeous Russian girls in my life. So decadent.”}

Yep.

Misquoting is Slander and Libel

Read this whole article and adjacent sub-articles: http://glennsacks.com/blog//?p=4359

The radical feminist involved simply twists the quotes of men's right's members to fit their agenda.

Period.

Sodini and Joyce - both of whom should be without a job for this little stunt of theirs, practically call Mark Rosenthal and Glenn Sacks women-hating psychos who support those that murder them in cold blood. This is beyond absurd. The editor at "The Slate" has to be either drunk, stupid or else happy to inflame a dispute to get more hits on their website. As usual the Slate, and the children they employ - Joyce and Sodini - will only "remember" to accurately quote people when legal action is taken and they are sued for libel and slander.

Labeling someone as being sympathetic with a man who committed cold-blooded slaughter is not funny. Its scandalous and whoever does it BETTER HAVE A DIRECT QUOTE. If EXACTLY what these men said is not what was quoted, IT IS A BIG DEAL. It directly changes the meaning of what they intended to say. This is why many newspapers are practically worthless and bankrupt. Yes, sensationalism sells. But the truth is that most people (not including the man-hating radicals Joyce and Sodini) are quite moderate in their views. Its not hard to tell what's reasonable and what's not. Most people simply aren't so stupid as to get that confused.

Thankfully we have people like Joyce and Sodini who are so radical and hateful they expose just how FAR away from reason they actually are.

This is one of the parts about the "gender wars" the average layman doesn't understand.

Radical feminists blame men for divorce, war, famine, disease, child dysfunctions, female depression, life, death and just about everything in-between including breathing the wrong way. When men's rights opponents (the major ones) respond in a reasonable, but still outraged manner, radical feminists like Joyce and Sodini misquote, misrepresent and completely falsify quotes and facts in order to serve their cause: this is utterly despicable as it casts men's rights supporters as radicals who hate and want to physically torture women, children, puppies and anything cute. It reminds me of observations from the movie Che (which I was watching last night) when the Bolivians ran a disinformation campaign against him - whether he had a right to be in Bolivia or not is a very good question to debate - but that's not what they addressed; instead the Bolivians accused he and all of his followers - who rightly or wrongly, were merely trying to uplift the Bolivian peasant class - of being Godless, rapacious, bloodthirsty animals.

Sound familiar, Ms. Joyce and Sodini? Men's rights groups love murderers, hate women, and want to let rapists go free, right? These radical feminists are so afraid of actually confronting the issues at hand they resort to lies and misinformation in vain attempts to distort the issues and mislead the public.

In a Feminist cult, I expect it. From The Slate? Its an embarrassment of the highest order.

See here for specifics: http://www.breakingthescience.org/DoubleXMisrepresentation.php

Where do I even begin?

Some time ago an "author" for the Slate published this:

http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/mens-rights-groups-have-become-frighteningly-effective?page=0,3


After reading it, you'll see that the article is as terrible as the title suggests: Men's Right's groups have become "frighteningly" effective! Whoa! Should we be scared? Hey, I'm interested! What should I be scared of? Is the boogey man coming? Seriously?

For those of you too tired/bored/lazy/inundated-with-information to think, I'll start out for you - Who are the "men's right's groups"? What do they want? Why did they form? Who is their "enemy"? How are they different from women's right's groups? What do the women's right's groups want? Aren't men and women equal now? Why do we (you, me) need or want either of these people?

Think about those things first.

Then read the article and you can realize, as I did, nearly instantly, that this woman is another crusader for woman's cause that no longer exists. The author is yet another radical that believes unless men are held in dungeons at gunpoint, and threatened with their life whenever they refuse to crush their wife's latest panic attack with a 3 hour diatribe of soul-barring love and understanding, that men would otherwise be leaving women left and right and chasing... another woman who will wind up being just like wife #1. In other words she thinks men are unthinking animals now posturing to steal the kids TOO after abandoning her to her withering sexuality in her old age. In actuality, this isn't an article but a scared little girl who thinks she's not good enough, sexy enough, whatever, to be loved.

Remember: the underlying premise of any of these lunatics is that 1) All men leave, 2) All men leave them and 3) All men are sex-driven maniacs who always lie, especially when they're telling you they love you and/or trying to marry you.

Welcome to the asylum.

Mel Gibson

I don't really like Mel Gibson. Well, I don't really know him either. But he seems ok. Aside from obviously bad-mouthing every religion but his own and boozing up before driving. But then that could make him a congressmen or priest and those people are supposed to be a-ok too.

But Mel is getting shafted here so I must speak up. He may have left a very nasty phone call with his ex-girlfriend. Well guess what, folks? Mel was probably just told by his lawyer what his ex has demanded for payments and settlement - first FULL CUSTODY of their 9-month old, million dollar homes, cash settlement - the works. Perhaps a ploy? I don't know. But trust me, if someone whom you accused of "shaking your baby so violently you allegedly tried to make her stop by accosting her" tried to take the baby, shake you down for millions, and accused you of being everything but a white man, you would have some pretty choice remarks. In fact, most men do - you see swearing at her is all we can really do. The law and the lawyers say your f-cked so guess what? YOU'RE F-CKED. Its like being metaphorically sodomized by someone in a business suite who is chuckling the whole time. Trust me, when you hear your ex's lawyer depict you as being a slovenly, violent scoundrel when you are anything but, you'll have a few words in mind as well. And not the sort you use at church.

Mel is accused of being bi-polar. Maybe, maybe not. He was married for 28 years, which in Hollywood is like winning the Olympics 4 times in a row. He has 7 children. He's 54 years old. Why EXACTLY should he not see his daughter, whom he adores? Is there HARD EVIDENCE of physical violence? His former wife says he's not violent. She would know. She's known him over 30 years. There is no evidence, police reports, hospital reports, ANYTHING PEOPLE - NOTHING to suggest he attacks his family or others. If he did savagely attack her, that's a different story. But the man has 7 children people. SEVEN. He gives to charities, including those for children. Even being a Hollywood superhero, he knows a few things about kids and his track record for evil is drunk driving and a drunken tirade along with religious views I don't agree with but views he nonetheless has EVERY RIGHT to harbor in a FREE COUNTRY.

He has a temper? Maybe, but so what, a lot of people do. And by 54 years old I should think most people can control it enough not to attack others. He made a nasty phone call. Yeah? So wouldn't you or I if someone was trying to blow you out and take your child from you and slap you with restraining orders. Making a nasty phone call is just a bunch of words. That's what you do INSTEAD OF PHYSICALLY ATTACKING SOMEONE. What, did he hurt her feelings? Imagine how he feels. He's about to get taken to the cleaners. The law is all on her side. She dated him for 9 months, had his baby and now wants out. Is it for a good reason or any reason? We really don't know. ALL states use "no-fault" divorce. So she can just walk at any time with baby and his money. Its like he never existed to them after that. Oksana is going to walk away smelling like a rose no matter what. So she's not yelling. Mel is getting gutted no matter what.
He's yelling.

If she wants joint custody and no money, then fine. But the whole kaboodle? For what? Nine months of dating? How much of hard-work marriage did his ex-wife endure? Lots. She deserved at least a portion of his earnings. I would say no more than $100 million because I think even celebrity divorces should be capped and that $100 million is an obscene number anyway that makes anyone set for life. After all, Mel was jumping out of planes and doing stunts and taking the risks. He should keep most of what he earned. I didn't see his wife out there risking her life. She and her kids would be MORE than flush with 100 mil. Instead she will more likely get at least 5-600 million worth of estates and property. For what? Sleeping with her husband? She had his kids, yeah, and she wanted them too, that's a wash. The guy is obviously no picnic, but guess what? LOTS OF HUSBANDS ARE NO PICNIC. And their wives don't live like kept heiresses like his did (and does).

So now Oksana wants to play kept heiress. Kept heiress - after 9 months. Listen closely to Mel's call. He calls her a Gold Digger. Um, no offense, but SHE IS A GOLD DIGGER. Baby comes, they hit a rough patch and POOF, she's gone. In the OLD days the judge (her mother first) would say, What? Every couple with babies has rough patches. You're not going to blow the guy out lady. Leave with what you have or stick it out. No get out of my court - there are people here with real grievances.

Mel made a bad choice in women, fine. And he took some bad actions, fine. But what is the punishment? Millions and the loss of his daughter?

People, think.

The punishment doesn't fit the "crime." There was no crime. Just mistakes by two people.

Kids aren't cash crops. Their not mutual funds, they're not annuities. They're not meal tickets and using them as such is degrading and inhumane. Pick husbands you intend to keep ladies and only have babies you intend to keep in a nuclear family. That alone would save a lot of pain and money.

Now you'll love what's next. She'll get a little less than the fortune she wants (and be "devastated" by it), move to Milan with custody and marry a fashion mogul. But not after the lawyers get at least a million of Mel's money and turn this into a bleeping circus.

Ah, American values. Now everyone make sure to repeat what the smart people in Hollywood do.

Its Simple: Theft.... end of statement.

The states are BROKE people. Period. The country is in an unrecognized Depression and pretending it doesn't exist with "extend and pretend schemes" including borrowing more and rolling over debt, compounding us with more debt does NOTHING to fix the problem. States are broke due to massive pension promises they can't fund and overpaid state employees who pay as little as $5/month for their healthcare and retire at 55 on 80% of their peak earnings. Arizona, which is full of old people and immigrants - immigrants they are throwing out - is more bankrupt than most states. They need money. How can they get it?

The Feds give the states reimbursement payments for every dollar they collect in "child support." THIS is why the states "claim" it suddenly costs every man $1,500/month to raise one child. States collectively profit HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS off child support collection (see shakedown). Nothing is as easy to manipulate as ACCOUNTING, people. Two different accounting models based on "assumptions" can make a can of soda seem to cost 30 cents or 3 dollars (as my mother says, there are liars, damn liars, and accountants). The states found accountants singing the right tune and murdered unpopular, culturally-denigrated citizens - divorced and unwed fathers - for millions of dollars in "support," and made themselves a fortune in the process. The child support collection "program" the Feds run costs the federal taxpayers a cool $1 BILLION dollars. The states want as much of that as possible for slush funds, fat pensions, kickbacks, dead-end programs, non-productive, overpaying jobs and giveaways to rich businesses and the well-connected. Such a policy bankrupts millions of men that struggle to support 1 and many times 2 families, but the states don't give one flying fig - they need their money. And like a busted junkie or gambler, they're desperate.

Now, they're squeezing the vice a little harder because it doesn't matter - divorced and unwed men are too broke to fight it and the public is convinced every divorced guy is a womanizing playboy and/or thug anyway, thanks to groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) who espouse lies and mistruths nearly every time they open their mouths.

WELCOME TO THE MURDER-HOLE.

Via fathersandfamilies.org:

Arizona Poised to Radically Increase Child Support Payments

July 8th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The State of Arizona is poised to implement radical changes to its child support guidelines. The result will be sharp increases in levels of child support most dads are required to pay. The result will also be further inducement for mothers to file for divorce, thus increasing the divorce rate. Put simply, it is the intention of the new guidelines to ignore the actual cost of raising children and focus on transferring income from the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent.

Because the new guidelines would mean such steep new obligations and because they frankly aim to transfer income from one parent to the other irrespective of the needs of the child, the process of amending the guidelines has been very hush-hush. There have been only two poorly publicized public hearings on the guidelines in the four years they’ve been under consideration. Although the state was poised to implement them, word leaked out, a challenge was made and a four-month grace period allowed in which to raise challenges to the new rules. That period will end this October.

I’ve received a lot of email traffic about this, and, because the good folks in Arizona know more about the issue than I do, I’ve decided to publish one of the emails as the blog post below. It’s written by a woman who prefers that her name not be used, but whose new husband stands to see his payments to his ex increase by over 76%.

{In the middle of a pseudo-depression no less - what guile}

Here’s what she told me.

The premise of the new guidelines, which they are calling Child Outcome Based Support (COBS), is that the child should have a roughly equal standard of living in both the custodial parent and non custodial parent households. Sounds good, right?

The new guidelines are based on a paper, published by Professor Ira Ellman, who is a voting member of the Child Support review committe. He and his wife published this some years back. It is a direct application of the American Law Institute child support principles. Professor Ellman was a member of ALI back when this theory was first put out, in 1998.

The new COBS has nothing at all to do with the actual cost of the child; that is not even considered. All that is considered is the income of dad, the income of mom, and the disparity between the two. If Dad makes more, he is obligated to give a higher amount to mom so that the two earn closer to the same.

{Like many divorcees and EX-GIRLFRIENDS (when did that become a "kept" status in society?) my ex - a scholarship high school student and private college school graduate - quit her white collar job with benefits in the 55k-60k range and went back to school to become....ready? A part-time masseuse. She's basically a stay-at-home mom. She works about 10 hours a week or "whenever she has clients" according to my son. The judge learned this, frowned and docked her - ready? - $200 dollars per month - from $1,200 down to $1,000/month for me to pay in "support." Big, bad judge! What a meanie!}

They accomplish this by taking the gross income of the non custodial parent, and the gross income of the custodial parent. In situations where the custodial parent makes more than the noncustodial parent, support levels would go down, albeit slightly, but that is a small number of cases. In MOST cases, the noncustodial father is making more money than the custodial mother. That is true in every state but particularly ominous under these new guidelines.

You must be kidding. Didn't you read my story above? What woman wouldn't make DAMN sure she didn't make more than her ex-husband? Newsflash: WOMEN AREN'T STUPID AND THEY'RE NOT CHILDREN. Good grief.

Under the new guidelines, in situations where Dad makes more ( 80% of all cases in Az), a larger portion of dad’s income will be taken to move the income in both homes toward the middle. The more money dad makes and the less money mom makes , the higher the percentage of after-tax income will be required in support.

This is directly in opposition to the current “Income Shares” system, used by many states, in which support is based on the marginal cost to add the child to the household. In Income Shares, the amount of support required as a percentage of income, goes DOWN, as the person paying support increases his income. The fact is, the more money someone makes, the lower the percentage of it that’s required to provide for children.

The theory is that the children suffer by having less in the custodial parent’s home, and so the noncustodial parent should give her enough so that there is rough parity in both homes. Of course, by doing so, every person in the custodial home benefits, and every person in the noncustodial parent home suffers. The guidelines assume that every custodial parent is a single parent and the only income available is her earnings, and that the noncustodial is also single and not supporting anyone else.

Isn't Arizona the "conservative state that elects Republicans? Old people with "values" who believe you deserve what you work to get? This is a socialist, nay, COMMUNIST agenda! My ex-girlfriend of 9 months that I was with years ago has a claim on my income (for 20+ years!) as long as she keeps her grip on my son nice and tight? What am I, a Hollywood playboy impregnating every starving actress for 500 miles??!?! NO. I'M NOT. And neither are a lot of other men WHO DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO GET DIVORCED TO BEGIN WITH!

Arizona law does NOT allow the income of a new spouse to be added. They are considering a “may” clause, in which a new spouses contribution to living expenses can be added, but that’s a “may” not a “shall,” and open to interpretation by the judge. Also, adding in a spouse’s contribution to rent , etc, only reduces the required payment by about 50 dollars for every 20k of income added - if you can even get the judge to agree to it.

In situations in which there is a large disparity between dad’s income and mom’s, the new amounts are so large that they are obviously alimony in disguise. In fact, the Committee doesn't even attempt to sugar coat the fact that this amount will benefit everyone in mom’s home and detract from everyone in dads. It’s alimony without even the tax benefit of alimony. Its not deductible because it is supposedly child support.

The following examples are directly from the current guidelines and from the new COBS calculator. I left parenting days out, since there is an adjustment in both systems (Income Shares and COBS) for that. However, as well as increasing support awards dramatically. COBS also cuts the credit for parenting days by about one third.

For example, in a situation where mom is making $2,000 per month and dad is making $10,000, under the current Income Shares, the support payment would be 1215, divided 82/18. The support payment would be $996 per month (82% of 1215). For two children the payment would be $1500.

Under the new COBS guidelines, the support payment would be $2,125 dollars (FOR ONE CHILD!).

For two children, it would be $2,425.

This is a link to the new Calculator, although all of this information and the theory behind it, are found at the Arizona Child Support review committee website. This site contains the methodology behind this new system, which dates back to the suggested reforms of the American Law institute, from over a decade ago. They were rejected at that time because equalizing standards of living was presumed to be against the intent of child support.

The link to the Arizona Child support review committee page is http://www.azcourts.gov/cscommittees/ChildSupportGuidelinesReviewCommittee.aspx

The link to the new calculator is http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/CSGRC/SIMPLIFIED%20COBS%20Calculator%20Locked%20Draft%204-6-10.xls

As for the legality:

The COBS was designed by Professor Ira Ellman, who is a member of the ALI and was one of the formulators years ago, of the standard of living equalization method of child support, which every state has rejected. His wife wrote the economic program. Both are voting members of the board who approved this. I am not sure if it is fully legal for someone to be able to vote on a system they designed.

Professor Ellman is also personally benefiting by this; having been the keynote speaker for the Divorce Lawyers of America conference in May of 2010, in which the topic of his speech was the new AZ guidelines to equalize standards of living. (Keep in mind that these haven’t had final approval and he is already being paid to speak of them.)

There has only been one public hearing, for two hours, a week before it was due for final approval. It had been taken to the judiciary before anyone had even heard of it. It was approved by the AZ judiciary on March 25th, before anyone was informed, and then on June 4, they had another public hearing. It was then sent to the AZ judiciary for final approval on June 25th. People who found out about it after March 25, lobbied to have it delayed, and a final approval has now been delayed until October, since the court agreed that not enough public input had been received. The entire thing was under the table and very sneaky. If you look at the original work of the committee, it appeared they were going to just update the Income Shares model. They made a drastic tack in the direction of COBS after the updated Income shares was presented.

No papers in AZ have picked up the story, despite repeated attempts. The governor’s office is not returning any communication, nor is the judiciary. This still must be finally approved by the Supreme Court, but NO ONE out there knows about it, except for a very few. I can assure you, the average support-paying father here has no idea. Its been kept very hush hush. This will keep the courts in Arizona busy, and the lawyers employed for a very long time, since it will come as a shock to most fathers on January 1.

The few that do know about it, have been trying to make a statement, but with only one public meeting before the Judicial final approval meeting, they have been blindsided. I was not present at the meeting on June 24 for final approval at the court, but from what has been told to me, the few that showed up were denigrated as being “fathers rights radicals”, as if no sensible person would oppose this.

I am not a member of a fathers rights group and I am horrified by the implications of this. I suspect most of the other fathers out there, going about their daily business, will also be shocked and appalled when this hits the fan.

It has been a long-standing aim of the American Law Institute, to help solve the problem of poverty after divorce, for women and children, to take large amounts from the former husband to balance the income in both homes. They feel that is the best way to reduce child poverty etc. So far, they have been rejected in every state. It looks as if Arizona is going to be the first to follow their ideals, and if they succeed here, I suspect other states will follow. Fathers everywhere will find themselves punished for making more than their ex, and marginalized in the lives of their kids by financial disaster.

Thank you for helping to find a way to wake people up before it is too late. If this happens here, its a matter of time before it happens elsewhere.

Fraud by Another Name

Allow me to translate - all of the banksters were greedy, alpha-aspiring, lustful lunatics who chased money and returns on their stock with fraud, greed and intentional ignorance of the facts at hand.

There, now listen to how some fancy accounting (which eventually will blow up in their face), made the banks appear to "make" money again this quarter.

From analyst Dick Bove, who along with Meredith Whitney, Nouriel Roubini, Charles Nennar and a few others, is among the most widely respected analysts on the banking "industry:"

A Top To Bottom Joke

From the illustrious Cleveland "Plain Dealer" of Ohio:

Making sense of child support in Ohio: editorial

Published: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 4:26 AM

The Plain Dealer Editorial Board

Most dads in Cuyahoga County are responsible men who take care of their children.

The same cannot be said of the 40 percent of the Cuyahoga Child Support Enforcement Agency's 147,000-parent caseload who refuse to pay despite, officials say, having the means to do so.

147,000 parents? Are you out of your mind? For Cuyahoga county alone? How many people even live in that county? How many people does it take to manage that massive caseload? How much does it cost THE TAXPAYERS - YOU AND ME to pay the people managing that caseload? (Don't forget that if your county, city and/or state is running a large deficit - and it probably is - you are, in part, BORROWING MONEY in the debt markets to pay those people.)

Furthermore, why are 58,800 people refusing to pay? That's quite a number, if its correct. Hmmmm. I'm curious. Let's speculate, shall we? Are they asked to pay $50 dollars per week? $100? $500? $1,000? (Guess what, its probably closes to the last amount). How much would you, dear reader, refuse to pay? Why else might one refuse to pay? Hmmmmm. Maybe because ITS STATE-SPONSORED EXTORTION? Maybe because your ex makes more than you do? Maybe because she or he got remarried and lives in a great big home that they claim on court documents they pay for single-handedly when in reality, they pay half of the mortgage? Maybe your ex got a false restraining order applied to you (very simple and very commonly done - just google "false restraining order divorce"). Maybe because you were not even married to your ex and the child support award is nearly half your income, crippling you financially while making her rich? Maybe your ex lied, cheated, AND stole from you before taking you to court to get "what she is 'entitled' to?" Just maybe?

Or maybe there are 58,800 jerks in Cuyahoga county. Right.

For them -- especially for the 70 deadbeat parents, mostly dads, facing felony charges for stiffing their children -- jail time may well be appropriate.

Timeout. Felony? Jail time? What the hell is appropriate about that? Do you know what A FELONY is people? RAPE, MURDER, ARSON. Those are felonies. Why? THEY'RE BRUTAL, VIOLENT CRIMES. Failure to pay one's ex, a person who may be a lying, cheating, stealing asshole? Sorry. Not a felony. Not the same as burning a building down and killing people inside. Call me a sympathetic jerk, but I don't see the connection. In fact, even the expression "apples and oranges" doesn't cut it.

Now, JAIL? No. we are a free country. Sorry, its not always convenient. But we don't throw regular people in jail with violent murderers because they didn't give their ex tens of thousands of dollars. Anyone enforcing such a 'law' has got to feel infinitely foolish. Further, these dads are not "STIFFING THEIR CHILDREN." How do I know? Ask these guys if they want custody of their kids and to pay for their expenses while their kids live with them. Nearly all will say Yes. I guarantee it. All except the trashy, irresponsible men, of course. No one can do anything about those guys, so don't even try.

And no, putting taxpaying citizens in jail for not making their ex rich, and turning them into a drain on the system instead of paying into the system doesn't sound too smart to me. Putting men who are working out of a job and into jail with a felony conviction so that they can no longer make money or get another job doesn't really help him, his kids, or his ex. Call me crazy.

Further, you have to love how these guys are portrayed as screwing their kids over. Um, ever consider, dear Editorial Board, that these guys are barred from seeing their kids? That these kids are being USED by women and lawyers as pawns in an extortion racket to fleece the man of every dime he has? Why don't you find out how many women QUIT THEIR JOBS OR TAKE LESS SALARY WORKING PART TIME because they have TENS OF THOUSANDS in "child support" coming in every month? Why don't you state that a man's "first family" lives on TWICE the disposable income of his 'second' family (a fact)?

Fathers'-rights groups adamantly disagree, saying that only a fraction of deadbeat dads deserve jail and that the majority of those hounded by officials are too poor to support their children.

Yet even writing a modest check could help a child in need.

They don't ask for a modest check, you morons. They demand full remittance and if you don't pay, they claim you're lying or "hiding it." By the way, how does one 'hide' one's own money?!?!? Further, a guy making minimum wage can't write much of a check, can he? Not when his missed "child support" is compounding WITH INTEREST. What a brilliant idea that was.

In Cuyahoga County, where 77 percent of those seeking child support are poor, single mothers, that matters.

So did ALL of those women marry a deadbeat? Or did all of those women have no education and no job and then married said deadbeat and have 5 kids? Did any quit their jobs? Did any do all that they could to STAY MARRIED? Or stay together with ex-boyfriends? How many of those women petitioned for divorce themselves or left their ex? Helping poor women is easy - mate them with a man that makes money to support them and then make sure THEY STAY PUT. Otherwise, they'll be welfare queens for decades. Making a poor ex-father slightly poorer? He'll starve to death. Great solution.

Which is not to say that some reforms aren't needed. The courts should consider shared parenting when possible. Stronger bonds between fathers and children would encourage prompter payments. The General Assembly also needs to update Ohio's ossified child-support laws.

WoweeZowee, stronger bonds would encourage "prompter" payments. That's sweet of you to consider. If I loved my child more, I'd pay more and make sure it was 'on-time'? What else can I do for you with the money that I make from working at my job?

How about stronger bonds for the sake of stronger bonds and healthier children, dumbass? Remember those kids you were trying to help a few paragraphs ago? The point isn't to make mom rich and hope she lavishes it on the kids (as well as forget to mention the money came from dad). The point is to make sure the kids don't starve and have clothing and shelter. Remember? And by the way, that doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. It can be done for much less and can be - easily, considering so many women make salaries EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN their ex-husbands and boyfriends.

The Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency Directors' Association and other advocates have recommended that courts be required to consider lowering payments when a child stays with a noncustodial parent 40 percent or more of the time -- an adjustment that rarely happens now -- and that payments be tied to the child rather than to a custodial parent.

Wait, WHAT? They 'recommend' the payments be tied to .... THE CHILD? HERESY! You swine! How do you dare! If they're not tied to the child now, then who are they tied to? Lemme guess.... MOM? Want to talk about why 58,800 people don't want to pay that 4 figure child support bill again? What a radical 'suggestion.' Dad's money going to his children and not his ex. How cruel.

The 40 percent idea is a stupid one. Mom will merely ensure the kids spent 39.9 percent of the time with dad and take more vacations with the pile of money she gets. And she can do that easily. Dads have practically no say in how much time they get. Charge dads extra to see their kids less and what do they do? They spend more time with their kids, enriching their children's lives - remember those KIDS again? The SUBJECT of this article? Forget that any parent has a right to see their own kids, regardless or money. Make the law 50-50 custody period unless the guy is a murderous, drunken thug. There, years of court time and millions of taxpayer dollars saved. That was tough. Parents get two chances to make a schedule, otherwise the judge sets it. One parent keeps screwing up the schedule? They lose custody and go to visitation. Period. More money and time saved.

Mary Denihan, a spokeswoman for Cuyahoga CSEA, says the county would need money to monitor such reforms. It should get it.

No Mary. No more money. LESS money. You see taxpayers are broke. Get it? You don't work for RJR Nabisco. You don't get unlimited funds for your little pet projects. Its called being an adult. Let people takes responsibility for their actions. People may divorce for no reason - but if they do, they get nothing. Otherwise, if they want a divorce, they must show cause. If there is no grounds for the divorce, they may have it - but without any money or assets from their spouse. At all. Ever. No 'monitoring' No welfare state. No wasted jobs and taxpayer money. ZERO. Want your husband's money? Or wife's? Stay married. I know. Its no picnic. Get over it. Don't want to be married? Fine. Walk. But you will not get one cent out of it. We don't encourage or reward divorce here... that would result in a massive increase in divorce and split apart the nuclear family, causing dysfunctional children and a non-functioning society. Oh wait, that's what they've already done.

The changes might not be popular with some grown-ups, but they sound right for kids. Ohio legislators should rally around these recommendations.

Ohio should rally around the family. What do families need? A good family makes good children into good adults. What the family needs is incentive to stay together and disincentive to split up.

WE HAVE THE OPPOSITE OF THAT NOW.

The result? Obscene divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, fractured families, bankrupt families, bankrupt men and rich lawyers; the dissolution of the foundation of society. Get a clue people.

You Didn't MEAN to Lie? You've Got to be Kidding!

Boston College Researchers Slam Slate Article Claiming Fathers Lie About Parenting
By Robert Franklin, Esq.



It seems I'm not the only one to criticize the Slate piece entitled "Why Do Dads Lie on Surveys About Fatherhood?" (Slate, 6/17/10). In fact, the article has received such a storm of complaints that the author, Katherine Lewis, has posted her own comment to it, trying to make a silk purse and failing. First, she used a recent study done by Boston College researchers for the proposition that fathers lie when asked about their parental behavior. Here's the response to her assertion by the people who conducted the research.

"While we appreciate your time and attention to this topic, the study authors at the Boston College Center for Work & Family want to make it clear that our research never addressed nor did it imply that the fathers we interviewed were "lying" about the time spent with their children. On the contrary, in the interviews we conducted we were impressed with the earnest and heartfelt commitment expressed by these men toward their families and their new role as fathers. As a qualitative research study, we sought to chronicle these men's personal experiences as fathers and professionals. While we did not validate their self-reported estimates of time spent in parenting activities through other sources (e.g. their spouses or direct observation) as one might do in a time-use study, that was never our intent. We therefore [have] no basis to state that these numbers are accurate or inaccurate.

Our hope was that our research would provide a view into the quiet revolution that is taking place as men become more highly engaged in parenting. We believe all of us should be supportive of the efforts of these men and hope research like ours will lead to more equitable treatment of all workers as they deal with the challenges of balancing their professional and personal lives. To infer that our study is about how men misrepresent their parenting role is out of touch with our intent and in no way reflects our findings. We encourage readers to access the full study report here.

Stated more bluntly, it's a lie to say that their study was about men lying about their parental behavior.

Now, to be scrupulously honest myself, Lewis never said in so many words that the study was about dads lying. But what it did do (and, I would argue, intentionally so), is leave that impression. That's what happens when a writer entitles her piece, "Why Do Dads Lie on Surveys About Fatherhood?", leads off with the study, and then moves into the phenomenon of aspirational lying. If you don't believe that's the impression the piece leaves, just ask yourself, "Why did the Boston College researchers feel the need to post a comment describing what their research actually does as opposed to what Lewis suggests?"...

In Lewis' comment to her piece, she claims, "I'm surprised at the perception that this piece was an attack on men."

Well, Ms. Lewis, that's what happens when you call people liars in the headline of your article. It makes them angry. Toss in a little intellectual dishonesty of the sort I pointed out in my first piece, and they get angrier still.

Look UP "Reversion to the Mean"

Prices can only remain at levels where they are supported by real wages produced by the sale of goods and services. In a system such as ours, which has enjoyed ever expanding amounts of credit for nearly 20 years, when that credit is removed (massive excess credit), which it inevitably must be, prices do something very typical called REVERSION TO THE MEAN. That is, they wildly fluctuate around (in a general downward trend) until they find a level of price support, meaning HOME PRICES WILL FALL UNTIL REGULAR PEOPLE MAKING GENUINE, DURABLE SALARIES CAN AFFORD THEM. This little nugget of wisdom is otherwise known as supply and demand or else, COMMON SENSE. Buttressing this common sense argument is something very important in economics called DEMOGRAPHICS, that is, the layout in a given region of women, men, age, race, education and the like. Our current demographics in the U.S.? DREADFUL. We're not Japan, but the picture ain't pretty. Essentially, we are mostly baby-boomers, that is people between the ages of 46 and 64, roughly. These people will be looking to retire. This almost always means DOWNSIZING and selling their McMansion to.... someone. See, that's the sticky part of economics. Prices (stock, bonds, real estate, etc.) are up! Sell! Get rich! Ok, sell to whom? If there is no buyer, no sale can take place. Now every government imbecile (official), every realtor, bankster and fraudster (mortgage broker) for 6,000 miles is preaching YOU MUST BUY NOW! PRICES HAVE FALLEN! They have also completely corrupted most government programs making home ownership loans so as to encourage you to buy more house than you can afford by raising the limits of the loan awards in these programs to 4, 5, and 600,000 dollars. This is of course, insane and will be a total failure. You can give Joe Sixpack a home loan for 800 grand, but if he can't cover utilities, taxes and insurance plus the mortgage plus all his other bills with 36% of his income (banks and mathematicians know what you can afford far better than you can, genius), called Debt to Income ratio or DTI, then it doesn't matter how much he's loaned. He can't pay it back Cuz he JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY. And when his interest rate resets or when the house needs a new roof or water heater or furnace or mold removal or if his wife loses her job or has his hours cut or his income cut, THAT'S IT, GAME OVER.

People late on their mortgage? They're right here:



And sadly, THEY'RE SCREWED. They're not paying because they can't afford to pay. They were sold a home they couldn't afford and now they're extremely screwed. Meanwhile, the bankrupt banks holding their "paper" (loan documents) are insolvent, that is BANKRUPT FOR THE NEXT TWO DECADES OR MORE. But these banksters own - literally have bought - our government officials, men and women who seem to have made a life out of trying to sink to new depths of deceit and corruption.

NOW we shall revert to the mean. We shall revert to what people can afford and by people I mean that small chunk of folks in their late 20s and early 30s who can afford a 200k to 350-400k (at the very high end) home with many starter homes of 1000-1400 square feet going for much less. Or as your grandfather will tell you: "You know what something's worth son? WHAT SOMEONE IS WILLING TO PAY YOU FOR IT." Good luck baby-boomers. You'll need more than luck to sell that McMansion to someone your kid's age. You'll need a goddamn miracle. And banksters don't take miracles as collateral.