As anyone knows, I give most men the benefit of the doubt, especially in a court of law, where you must be convicted "beyond a shadow of a doubt," and especially when the alleged "victim" is too drunk to remember much.
But this case stinks to high Hell.
Two ON DUTY cops were called to help a drunk woman out of a cab. That means she was so drunk someone thought to call the police - THE POLICE - those folks PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS to SERVE AND PROTECT. And here was their chance to do so.
What happened?
No one is sure. They took her up to her apartment and let themselves in.
And then stayed a while. The woman claims she woke up and was being raped by one of the cops.
The cops declare one of them was asleep ON HER COUCH and the other was "cuddling with her to comfort her."
WTF is that, I ask? You guys get paid to assist the public. Assisting here meant getting her in the front door and getting the fuck out of her PRIVATE RESIDENCE. In fact, I'd be happier if you left her in the hallway if that wasn't also a little risky. WITH NO WARRANT, YOU ARE NOT TO ENTER A PRIVATE RESIDENCE. PERIOD. This case warranted a little dash into her place to set her down.
And that's what they should've done.
Instead one decided to get a little "cuddle time?" And for whose benefit was that!?!?!? She was too drunk to consent to ANYTHING including holding her hand. You set her down and walk away. Instead he lies down with her? To do what, read her a story? And the other cop decided to sleep on her couch. WHY? Its not his couch. IS HE STUPID? Is he making himself at home?!?! He has no right to be there. Period.
These things make me EXTREMELY suspicious that these two clowns were up to no good.
When a woman is drunk most guys will tell you they do and say things they ordinarily wouldn't do and say. Many men have probably gotten things they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. I don't blame men for this. They will naturally gravitate to sex with a woman. Women ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES - THAT MEANS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE DRUNK IS YOUR PROBLEM. PERIOD.
But these men - POLICEMEN - showed up KNOWING this lady was drunk and were asked TO HELP HER. If this woman stripped naked in her apartment and demanded a threesome, these cops should know enough to politely refuse, turn around and walk straight out. Instead they made themselves at home and it seems may very well have taken advantage of her, KNOWING she was drunk. Later they even lied to get back to her block and speak to her. What hoodlums.
Later this woman met with one of the cops (how did she get his contact info?) and asked him if he wore a condom during their sex. He said he didn't have sex with her, but when she asked him this question he said "Yes," but later said he was just trying to calm her down. This guy is doing this girl way too many favors. What he should've done was left her the Hell alone. Further, I think he did have sex with her. She was setting him up and that's entrapment, but frankly, he's a cop and she's not. He can clearly get away with more than the average person can: the entrapment was justified. He had no business being in her place longer than it took to set her down and he did commit a crime. What happened? HE WALKED. And his sleeze-bag partner too. They were fired as cops - these days, that's quite something, considering off-duty cops that physically assault people in front of witnesses WALK SCOTT FREE without even losing EMPLOYMENT OR RANK. Rape might've been a stretch given there was little physical evidence; and that's really horrible because the lack of evidence is due to the fact she was drunk and immobile and the cops knew this and exploited it, CLEARLY. Motive is also HUGE here. Why would she want to cuddle with a total stranger? She wouldn't. Period.
BTW, ladies, take a hint here: DON'T GET FALL DOWN DRUNK. Ever wonder why conservative cultures like Islam insist women don't drink? ITS NOT FOR THE MEN'S SAKE!
No one MUST help you, and now it appears you can't even trust the cops!
Given this woman's totally inebriated state and some physical evidence, along with the fact these men WERE IN HER APARTMENT MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LONGER THAN NECESSARY with one near the door and one IN HER BEDROOM WITH HER, these guys were on VERY thin ice. Then he affirms to her that he "wore a condom." Sexual Assault or Gross Sexual Misconduct seemed a given here at least. Rape also possible. Instead they walked. SCOTT FREE.
You want to trust a cop these days? HOW DO YOU TELL THE GOOD FROM THE BAD. These two idiots couldn't even help a drunk woman to her own apartment without getting mixed up in mischief.
By the way, the perp in question was a SEVENTEEN YEAR POLICE VETERAN.
By Pei-Sze Cheng
Two NYPD officers were cleared of rape and burglary charges but found guilty of official misconduct in the case of a woman who said she was assaulted when the officers brought her home after a night of drinking.
A jury deliberated seven days and on Thursday acquitted Kenneth Moreno, 43, and Franklin Mata, 29, of the most serious charges in the December 2008 incident, including several counts of falsifying business records.
"I'm glad it's over," an emotional Moreno said outside court.
"I just want to get on with my life," Mata said.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said later that the official misconduct conviction "warrants immediate termination from the department" and said the officers would be fired from the NYPD "today."
On the night of the incident, Moreno and Mata were initially called to help the drunken woman out of a cab. Prosecutors argued that when they took her up to her apartment, Moreno raped her while Mata stood as a lookout. Both officers denied the charges.
The accuser testified that she was so drunk she did not remember parts of the night, but told the jury that she woke up in her bed as she was being raped.
During testimony in court, Moreno said he cuddled with the woman to try and comfort her because she was ill from drinking, but said no sex took place. Mata testified that he was asleep on the woman's couch while his partner was in the other room.
Moreno did make a fake 911 call about a vagrant so that they had an excuse to return to the woman's block.
No DNA evidence was presented in the case, and experts were divided over whether an internal mark on the woman was the result of a rape. A doctor testifying for the defense said he didn't interpret it as evidence of rape.
The woman had secretly taped Moreno in an encounter a few days later, and he denied they'd had sex. But he also said "yes" when she asked if he had worn a condom. He later said he was trying to calm her down because she was threatening him.
Mata was on the force for about five years and Moreno for 17.
Defense attorney Joseph Tacopina said outside court that "we're obviously elated with this verdict today."
They face up to one year in prison for the misconduct charge and are set to be sentenced on June 28.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said in a statement that prosecutors "respect the jury's verdict, which acknowledges that the defendants' actions that night not only violated the law, they violated the victim's rights, and the public's trust."
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
To All the Princesses: Wake Up
The younger generation disgusted with some of its own members for the same reason many men are: outrageous feelings of entitlement.
No one owes you a GODDAMN THING ladies of America. Not a baby, not a house, not a car, not a diamond ring. You deserve NOTHING. You must GIVE, you must EARN gifts and respect and love. Want to be given things? Want to be a trophy wife? Find a really stupid jock and hope he goes in the first round of the draft.
No one owes you a GODDAMN THING ladies of America. Not a baby, not a house, not a car, not a diamond ring. You deserve NOTHING. You must GIVE, you must EARN gifts and respect and love. Want to be given things? Want to be a trophy wife? Find a really stupid jock and hope he goes in the first round of the draft.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Indian Killed for Carving Wood
Not running at a cop with the knife over his head and screaming. Not throwing a knife at a cop.
A native American woodcarver carving wood on the side of the street, SHOT FIVE TIMES AND KILLED after being told to "drop the knife."
When asked why he shot him, the officer said, "He was sitting there carving the wood with the knife; I told him to drop it and he didn't so I took him down."
Fellow Officer: "Good Job."
Me: Just what the fuck did they teach you idiots at the police academy?!?!!?!?
This was murder. I mean, WHAT THE %$^$&*#$$% WAS THAT COP THINKING? I've held a gun and held a knife. When you have a gun, you're not too afraid of people with knives, especially at a distance. This cop is a trigger-happy psycho.
If he did have to shoot him (HIGHLY doubtful), what is wrong with one or two shots in the leg? FIVE TIMES AT CLOSE RANGE? Against a man NOT CARRYING A FIREARM?
THAT'S AN EXECUTION.
A native American woodcarver carving wood on the side of the street, SHOT FIVE TIMES AND KILLED after being told to "drop the knife."
When asked why he shot him, the officer said, "He was sitting there carving the wood with the knife; I told him to drop it and he didn't so I took him down."
Fellow Officer: "Good Job."
Me: Just what the fuck did they teach you idiots at the police academy?!?!!?!?
This was murder. I mean, WHAT THE %$^$&*#$$% WAS THAT COP THINKING? I've held a gun and held a knife. When you have a gun, you're not too afraid of people with knives, especially at a distance. This cop is a trigger-happy psycho.
If he did have to shoot him (HIGHLY doubtful), what is wrong with one or two shots in the leg? FIVE TIMES AT CLOSE RANGE? Against a man NOT CARRYING A FIREARM?
THAT'S AN EXECUTION.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Dear VP Biden: GROW A BRAIN
VP Biden: ‘Biggest thing to overcome - society views women as chattel’
May 11th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
With this guy at the top, it’s no wonder we don’t know anything about domestic violence. OK, he’s only second from the top, but it’s close enough for government work, don’t you know.
This article is reprinted from Glamour magazine and it’s an interview with Vice President Joe Biden about domestic violence (Huffington Post, 5/6/11). Well, it’s not exactly about domestic violence. It’s more about the myth of domestic violence that’s been repeated interminably for 40 years and that the interviewer, Joe Biden and his wife (also interviewed) have all accepted without question.
It’s about 1,500 words and, by the end, knowledgeable readers are left with the burning question “Can this guy be this dumb?” Or maybe he’s just lived his life as if all his actions were directed by a GPS system manufactured by feminists. I can just hear it: “Turn left at the next corner. Read Catharine MacKinnon’s “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.”
Seriously, this is the Vice President of the United States and he volunteers this:
This attitude of how society views women as chattel — that’s the biggest thing to overcome.
Really? Chattel? It’s a fascinating theory. I suppose it would be better if it had a single iota of anything to support it. But for Biden, it’s not only self-evident but “the biggest thing to overcome.”
Chattel? Let’s see, this is a society in which women have more of the good and less of the bad than men in almost every imaginable category. Longevity? Check. Education? Check. Exemption from military conscription? Check. Exemption from combat if they do serve? Check. Lower rates of homelessness? Check. Higher rates of health insurance coverage? Check. Lower rates of suicide? Check. Numerous laws like VAWA and sexual harassment laws that are designed specifically to protect women but not men. Check. Fewer killed or injured on the job? Check.
And that doesn’t even mention family law and adoption law that seem as much as anything to be enacted for mothers, by mothers. I could go on forever about how those areas of law privilege women and mothers.
So maybe the Veep could explain to us ignorant savages how he figures that women are seen as chattel in this society. Someone should tell him to lay off the Kool-Aid.
May 11th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
With this guy at the top, it’s no wonder we don’t know anything about domestic violence. OK, he’s only second from the top, but it’s close enough for government work, don’t you know.
This article is reprinted from Glamour magazine and it’s an interview with Vice President Joe Biden about domestic violence (Huffington Post, 5/6/11). Well, it’s not exactly about domestic violence. It’s more about the myth of domestic violence that’s been repeated interminably for 40 years and that the interviewer, Joe Biden and his wife (also interviewed) have all accepted without question.
It’s about 1,500 words and, by the end, knowledgeable readers are left with the burning question “Can this guy be this dumb?” Or maybe he’s just lived his life as if all his actions were directed by a GPS system manufactured by feminists. I can just hear it: “Turn left at the next corner. Read Catharine MacKinnon’s “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.”
Seriously, this is the Vice President of the United States and he volunteers this:
This attitude of how society views women as chattel — that’s the biggest thing to overcome.
Really? Chattel? It’s a fascinating theory. I suppose it would be better if it had a single iota of anything to support it. But for Biden, it’s not only self-evident but “the biggest thing to overcome.”
Chattel? Let’s see, this is a society in which women have more of the good and less of the bad than men in almost every imaginable category. Longevity? Check. Education? Check. Exemption from military conscription? Check. Exemption from combat if they do serve? Check. Lower rates of homelessness? Check. Higher rates of health insurance coverage? Check. Lower rates of suicide? Check. Numerous laws like VAWA and sexual harassment laws that are designed specifically to protect women but not men. Check. Fewer killed or injured on the job? Check.
And that doesn’t even mention family law and adoption law that seem as much as anything to be enacted for mothers, by mothers. I could go on forever about how those areas of law privilege women and mothers.
So maybe the Veep could explain to us ignorant savages how he figures that women are seen as chattel in this society. Someone should tell him to lay off the Kool-Aid.
Girls March With 'Slut Walk': No, I'm Not Making That Up
Where do I even begin here.
'Slut Walk'? Is that someone's idea of a really bad joke? It sounds like some VERY confused young girls (women would know better) have latched onto a REALLY stupid idea.
Having read the article MANY, MANY times it seems these women are standing up in defense of women who were sexually assaulted and were accused of being "sluts" to justify the attack.
First of all, not all sexual assaults have anything to do with assault. Hell, I've seen very many rape charges that pretty much boiled down to a misunderstanding, bruised feelings, pride, or just plain vindictiveness, especially in the absence of ANY physical evidence. Further, I've seen others made from women who were quite frankly an ABSOLUTE MESS. Drunk, half-asleep, passed out, breasts falling out of their FAR TOO SMALL top, missing a shoe, and struggling to even identify or describe who they had sex with, where they were or what happened when, and no, there was no evidence of them being drugged.
Pretty tough for the police to arrest a man when you can't even tell us what happened, when you were with him, never mind what he looked like or what he did that was illegal. I'll leave out the fact that throwing yourself at the alpha male in the bar while wearing a cut-to-your-navel top and a pin saying "I like to F--k" is going to lead to a guy thinking you'll sleep with him in the near future. And if you think that doesn't happen, you didn't read the Ben Rothlesburger case very closely.
These ladies seem to be parading around the fact that women should be able to dress however they want, whenever they want and that however they are dressed, 1) that does not make them a 'slut,' and 2) being a slut does not justify sexual assault.
#1 - Yes, you can dress however you want - this is the United States of America and you can dress in whatever you like. Welcome to Freedom. But guess what? Women dress to show off their figure (or perhaps hide it) and this attracts men (or repulses them) depending on the shape of the female's body and the clothing covering it. This is just mother nature. We are mammals and that's what we do. Look it up. Its science. That said, if you dress VERY provocatively, men, right or wrong, are going to think you're cruising for some physical affection; further men are going to be VERY turned on, in a VERY PRIMAL way if you are a very well-built woman. EXPECT IT. Women are VERY intuitive. They can see men stare. They know goddamn well what reaction they're causing... that's what they're after in most cases.
If you are dressed provocatively enough, many men will consider what you're wearing to be simply TOO revealing. And men HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT. TELLING YOU that judgement may be rude or undeserved, but it is their opinion and may I remind you, that a woman who sleeps around WILL RUIN A MAN FOR LIFE if he's one of the men that sleeps with her - he will be forced to support "his" baby (that she keeps and raises). And guess what? Men don't like to be bankrupted by a child they didn't want and further, they don't like to be cheated on. So any hints that this woman sleeps around or could be unfaithful, is rather important to men; a woman with children that may or may not be yours, a woman who has incentive to lie, cheat or steal is NOT someone you want to sleep with. This has always concerned men. Dress too provocatively and men will think you may be sexy and worth having sex with, BUT ARE NOT A WOMAN WORTH COMMITTING TO. Men have the right to make that judgement and further, they should and they must.
#2 - No, looking like a 'slut' DOES NOT justify any assault of any kind. But I am forced to reiterate an older point. When you dress like a 'slut' you are inviting attention. Some of that attention is good - alpha males want you. And some of it is bad - sleazy, desperate, crazy men also want you. Now, women want to breed with the best mate they can find - again, this is entirely natural of them. And to do that you need attention and that means casting a wide net. I would further argue that the discriminatory practices of the feminazis have REMOVED good, earning, potential mates for women and that has made them MORE competitive with one another for the remaining men and that means dressing more provocatively. That said, drawing attention, especially sexual attention in heavy doses IS NOT in women's best interests. Period. In the old days (as few as 10 or 15 years ago), MODESTY in a woman was considered by many men to be attractive. And given there were plenty of men to choose from, women didn't have to try hard to 'attract' one. If anything, a form-fitting, or slightly form-fitting outfit is plenty to let men see your figure. Trust me. Every man I've ever known could make out a woman's shape in anything better than a burlap sack. Women used to know that. Today they dress like a dime store prostitute and scream at anyone that suggests they could be sending the 'wrong' message. That message is; I'm advertising for sex: interested? And when men try to have sex with them and succeed and then ditch them, these women are emotionally scarred and bitter - frankly, wake up ladies. Wearing what amounts to slightly larger than normal underwear is like giving a robber the address to an unguarded bank: expect him to show up, gun drawn. In other words, respect men's instincts. And don't expect to 'control' a man or his behavior. He's not a woman. You can't just verbally 'massage' the right response from him. He probably doesn't know and doesn't care what the Hell you're talking about. He motivated by hormones. Respect that. Its not asking too much.
Another reason for the extremism in many women's dress is their own insecurity and anxiety. To feel attractive, to feel desired and wanted, is very important to most women. To gather the attention of many men makes many women feel better about themselves and of course, allays any self-doubt they may have about their appearance. Men used to be allowed to be forward and aggressive with women and while I'm sure this was annoying, it did not leave a lot of women who were unsure about their sexual attractiveness.
Today men can do nothing. Hell, staring is practically a crime. I'm not kidding.
With even looking at women being frowned upon, with men castrated in the classroom, with divorce laws RUINING men for life, with college campuses calling a sly grin a form of sexual misconduct, with sexual harassment laws that make it illegal to even imagine women in a sexual way in the office, men have simply been put off from women most, if not all, of the time. They have largely regressed, shrunken from, and abandoned their aggressive nature with women altogether (note 'aggressive' in courting and romancing; aggressive does not entail assault).
Women are have simply become a woven basket of complexities. Men want them, but courting rituals are like the tax code in Rome. You can gawk at her... now.. oh... now. Now, but not..... wrong time. NOW! Missed it. Now she thinks you're a wuss who doesn't know how to conquer a woman like an alpha man should. Try again.....Oh, that was wrong again. Now you've offended her. Whups. Start over. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 dollars. You may touch her... now. Whups, not yet. Too soon. Start over. Actually, you have to ask permission as your are on a college campus and you will be prosecuted if you don't. And if she's drunk (pretty common these days) and goes 'too far,' you could be accused of rape and prosecuted. That is a felony. You will go to jail; you will have to check the 'felony' box on every job application you ever fill out. Oh, you say she may have been a little drunk and giggled when you grabbed her butt? That doesn't matter. You should've stopped and taken her straight home so she wouldn't have any regrets the next day. You're a man which means you're supposed to be her lover and father all at the same time and know which one she needs and when.
Men's response? What video games are available for sale, sir?
Do you blame them? I don't.
Yes, men have largely checked out. Women dominate work, they dominate home, and getting close to them requires that you think as they do, that you practically be one of them.
Respectfully, no thanks. How about I be a man and you be a woman and we do this the "old fashioned" way? If not, then you need to find some other guy.
'Slut Walk': feminist folly
This is idiocy, not liberation
May 11, 2011
Have you heard about the "slut walks" sweeping the globe?
No, they aren't being organized by frat boys. Quite the opposite: Thank the gals in the so-called feminist movement for this one.
Toronto, Ottawa, Boston, Dallas and London have all seen "slut walks" in recent weeks, with 24 more planned around the world. It was all spawned by a Toronto police officer's boneheaded comment at a January campus-safety forum that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."
Women bear responsibility for their rapes? OK, anger at that notion is plenty righteous. So, the Toronto slut walk was born to demand respect for sexual-assault victims. But the idea that being a "slut" is a bad thing also raised ire -- it's why the Toronto organizers announced on their Web site that they were "tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality. [We are] taking the [the word slut] back."
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad 'feminists' romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More 'slut walks' are planned around the world. -
AP
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad "feminists" romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More "slut walks" are planned around the world.
Just what the women of the world have been clamoring for: to call themselves sluts.
No wonder a 2008 Daily Beast poll found that just 20 percent of women call themselves "feminists," and only 17 percent would want their daughters to use the label.
Want to cringe some more? A Slut Walk Boston organizer told a reporter, "We are using these efforts to reclaim the word 'slut.' " So at one event after another, women held up signs saying, "Proud Slut," "Sluts Say Yes" and "Slut Pride." They marched in bras and fishnet stockings, some with the word "slut" scrawled on their bodies with lipstick.
And slut-supporting men beamed in their "I love sluts" T-shirts. You bet they do.
In Boston, feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman bellowed, "Today we all march under the banner of sluthood!" In Ottawa, revelers chanted, "Slut, slut. Ho, ho. Yes means yes, and no means no!" The Web site "Feministing" described the slut walks as a "movement," with one blogger saying, "Sign me up for Team Sluts." The Slut Walk DC Web site boasts a banner, "Reclaiming the word slut."
This is supposed to pass as progress for women?
Slut-walk defenders say that they're being ironic, that it's supposed to be funny that women are turning a word used to dehumanize them into a badge of pride.
If you don't like the slut walks, then you just don't get the hilarity of women debasing themselves in the name of empowerment.
OK, the early feminists -- from whom the imposters ruining the movement claim to descend -- did manage to turn the pejorative "suffragette," coined to mock the seekers of equality, into a positive word. But a name that meant to mock is different than a word meant to dehumanize.
Here's a prediction: Feminists will no sooner turn "slut" into a positive word outside their ever-shrinking bubble than African-Americans who call each other the "N-word" have taken away the sting of that dehumanizing epithet. Some words should be retired for good.
And many gays may now march proudly as "queer" -- but plenty still bristle when an outsider uses the word. That's unlikely to change, considering the original intent of it.
Sex-positive feminist icon Erica Jong presciently told writer Ariel Levy in 2003: "I was standing in the shower the other day, picking up my shampoo. It's called 'Dumb Blonde.' I thought, '30 years ago you could not have sold this.' I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women. Let's not kid ourselves that this is liberation."
Yes, please, and let's not pretend that women holding "slut walks" is a step forward for womankind or will in any way change the treatment of rape victims.
While the so-called feminists are tarting up themselves to reclaim a vile, misogynist word, perhaps the rest of us should fight to reclaim the word "feminism" and return it to its roots of working for true equality.
If we leave it to this gang, we're screwed.
kirstenpowers@aol.com
Read more:
'Slut Walk'? Is that someone's idea of a really bad joke? It sounds like some VERY confused young girls (women would know better) have latched onto a REALLY stupid idea.
Having read the article MANY, MANY times it seems these women are standing up in defense of women who were sexually assaulted and were accused of being "sluts" to justify the attack.
First of all, not all sexual assaults have anything to do with assault. Hell, I've seen very many rape charges that pretty much boiled down to a misunderstanding, bruised feelings, pride, or just plain vindictiveness, especially in the absence of ANY physical evidence. Further, I've seen others made from women who were quite frankly an ABSOLUTE MESS. Drunk, half-asleep, passed out, breasts falling out of their FAR TOO SMALL top, missing a shoe, and struggling to even identify or describe who they had sex with, where they were or what happened when, and no, there was no evidence of them being drugged.
Pretty tough for the police to arrest a man when you can't even tell us what happened, when you were with him, never mind what he looked like or what he did that was illegal. I'll leave out the fact that throwing yourself at the alpha male in the bar while wearing a cut-to-your-navel top and a pin saying "I like to F--k" is going to lead to a guy thinking you'll sleep with him in the near future. And if you think that doesn't happen, you didn't read the Ben Rothlesburger case very closely.
These ladies seem to be parading around the fact that women should be able to dress however they want, whenever they want and that however they are dressed, 1) that does not make them a 'slut,' and 2) being a slut does not justify sexual assault.
#1 - Yes, you can dress however you want - this is the United States of America and you can dress in whatever you like. Welcome to Freedom. But guess what? Women dress to show off their figure (or perhaps hide it) and this attracts men (or repulses them) depending on the shape of the female's body and the clothing covering it. This is just mother nature. We are mammals and that's what we do. Look it up. Its science. That said, if you dress VERY provocatively, men, right or wrong, are going to think you're cruising for some physical affection; further men are going to be VERY turned on, in a VERY PRIMAL way if you are a very well-built woman. EXPECT IT. Women are VERY intuitive. They can see men stare. They know goddamn well what reaction they're causing... that's what they're after in most cases.
If you are dressed provocatively enough, many men will consider what you're wearing to be simply TOO revealing. And men HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT. TELLING YOU that judgement may be rude or undeserved, but it is their opinion and may I remind you, that a woman who sleeps around WILL RUIN A MAN FOR LIFE if he's one of the men that sleeps with her - he will be forced to support "his" baby (that she keeps and raises). And guess what? Men don't like to be bankrupted by a child they didn't want and further, they don't like to be cheated on. So any hints that this woman sleeps around or could be unfaithful, is rather important to men; a woman with children that may or may not be yours, a woman who has incentive to lie, cheat or steal is NOT someone you want to sleep with. This has always concerned men. Dress too provocatively and men will think you may be sexy and worth having sex with, BUT ARE NOT A WOMAN WORTH COMMITTING TO. Men have the right to make that judgement and further, they should and they must.
#2 - No, looking like a 'slut' DOES NOT justify any assault of any kind. But I am forced to reiterate an older point. When you dress like a 'slut' you are inviting attention. Some of that attention is good - alpha males want you. And some of it is bad - sleazy, desperate, crazy men also want you. Now, women want to breed with the best mate they can find - again, this is entirely natural of them. And to do that you need attention and that means casting a wide net. I would further argue that the discriminatory practices of the feminazis have REMOVED good, earning, potential mates for women and that has made them MORE competitive with one another for the remaining men and that means dressing more provocatively. That said, drawing attention, especially sexual attention in heavy doses IS NOT in women's best interests. Period. In the old days (as few as 10 or 15 years ago), MODESTY in a woman was considered by many men to be attractive. And given there were plenty of men to choose from, women didn't have to try hard to 'attract' one. If anything, a form-fitting, or slightly form-fitting outfit is plenty to let men see your figure. Trust me. Every man I've ever known could make out a woman's shape in anything better than a burlap sack. Women used to know that. Today they dress like a dime store prostitute and scream at anyone that suggests they could be sending the 'wrong' message. That message is; I'm advertising for sex: interested? And when men try to have sex with them and succeed and then ditch them, these women are emotionally scarred and bitter - frankly, wake up ladies. Wearing what amounts to slightly larger than normal underwear is like giving a robber the address to an unguarded bank: expect him to show up, gun drawn. In other words, respect men's instincts. And don't expect to 'control' a man or his behavior. He's not a woman. You can't just verbally 'massage' the right response from him. He probably doesn't know and doesn't care what the Hell you're talking about. He motivated by hormones. Respect that. Its not asking too much.
Another reason for the extremism in many women's dress is their own insecurity and anxiety. To feel attractive, to feel desired and wanted, is very important to most women. To gather the attention of many men makes many women feel better about themselves and of course, allays any self-doubt they may have about their appearance. Men used to be allowed to be forward and aggressive with women and while I'm sure this was annoying, it did not leave a lot of women who were unsure about their sexual attractiveness.
Today men can do nothing. Hell, staring is practically a crime. I'm not kidding.
With even looking at women being frowned upon, with men castrated in the classroom, with divorce laws RUINING men for life, with college campuses calling a sly grin a form of sexual misconduct, with sexual harassment laws that make it illegal to even imagine women in a sexual way in the office, men have simply been put off from women most, if not all, of the time. They have largely regressed, shrunken from, and abandoned their aggressive nature with women altogether (note 'aggressive' in courting and romancing; aggressive does not entail assault).
Women are have simply become a woven basket of complexities. Men want them, but courting rituals are like the tax code in Rome. You can gawk at her... now.. oh... now. Now, but not..... wrong time. NOW! Missed it. Now she thinks you're a wuss who doesn't know how to conquer a woman like an alpha man should. Try again.....Oh, that was wrong again. Now you've offended her. Whups. Start over. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 dollars. You may touch her... now. Whups, not yet. Too soon. Start over. Actually, you have to ask permission as your are on a college campus and you will be prosecuted if you don't. And if she's drunk (pretty common these days) and goes 'too far,' you could be accused of rape and prosecuted. That is a felony. You will go to jail; you will have to check the 'felony' box on every job application you ever fill out. Oh, you say she may have been a little drunk and giggled when you grabbed her butt? That doesn't matter. You should've stopped and taken her straight home so she wouldn't have any regrets the next day. You're a man which means you're supposed to be her lover and father all at the same time and know which one she needs and when.
Men's response? What video games are available for sale, sir?
Do you blame them? I don't.
Yes, men have largely checked out. Women dominate work, they dominate home, and getting close to them requires that you think as they do, that you practically be one of them.
Respectfully, no thanks. How about I be a man and you be a woman and we do this the "old fashioned" way? If not, then you need to find some other guy.
'Slut Walk': feminist folly
This is idiocy, not liberation
May 11, 2011
Have you heard about the "slut walks" sweeping the globe?
No, they aren't being organized by frat boys. Quite the opposite: Thank the gals in the so-called feminist movement for this one.
Toronto, Ottawa, Boston, Dallas and London have all seen "slut walks" in recent weeks, with 24 more planned around the world. It was all spawned by a Toronto police officer's boneheaded comment at a January campus-safety forum that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."
Women bear responsibility for their rapes? OK, anger at that notion is plenty righteous. So, the Toronto slut walk was born to demand respect for sexual-assault victims. But the idea that being a "slut" is a bad thing also raised ire -- it's why the Toronto organizers announced on their Web site that they were "tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality. [We are] taking the [the word slut] back."
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad 'feminists' romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More 'slut walks' are planned around the world. -
AP
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad "feminists" romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More "slut walks" are planned around the world.
Just what the women of the world have been clamoring for: to call themselves sluts.
No wonder a 2008 Daily Beast poll found that just 20 percent of women call themselves "feminists," and only 17 percent would want their daughters to use the label.
Want to cringe some more? A Slut Walk Boston organizer told a reporter, "We are using these efforts to reclaim the word 'slut.' " So at one event after another, women held up signs saying, "Proud Slut," "Sluts Say Yes" and "Slut Pride." They marched in bras and fishnet stockings, some with the word "slut" scrawled on their bodies with lipstick.
And slut-supporting men beamed in their "I love sluts" T-shirts. You bet they do.
In Boston, feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman bellowed, "Today we all march under the banner of sluthood!" In Ottawa, revelers chanted, "Slut, slut. Ho, ho. Yes means yes, and no means no!" The Web site "Feministing" described the slut walks as a "movement," with one blogger saying, "Sign me up for Team Sluts." The Slut Walk DC Web site boasts a banner, "Reclaiming the word slut."
This is supposed to pass as progress for women?
Slut-walk defenders say that they're being ironic, that it's supposed to be funny that women are turning a word used to dehumanize them into a badge of pride.
If you don't like the slut walks, then you just don't get the hilarity of women debasing themselves in the name of empowerment.
OK, the early feminists -- from whom the imposters ruining the movement claim to descend -- did manage to turn the pejorative "suffragette," coined to mock the seekers of equality, into a positive word. But a name that meant to mock is different than a word meant to dehumanize.
Here's a prediction: Feminists will no sooner turn "slut" into a positive word outside their ever-shrinking bubble than African-Americans who call each other the "N-word" have taken away the sting of that dehumanizing epithet. Some words should be retired for good.
And many gays may now march proudly as "queer" -- but plenty still bristle when an outsider uses the word. That's unlikely to change, considering the original intent of it.
Sex-positive feminist icon Erica Jong presciently told writer Ariel Levy in 2003: "I was standing in the shower the other day, picking up my shampoo. It's called 'Dumb Blonde.' I thought, '30 years ago you could not have sold this.' I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women. Let's not kid ourselves that this is liberation."
Yes, please, and let's not pretend that women holding "slut walks" is a step forward for womankind or will in any way change the treatment of rape victims.
While the so-called feminists are tarting up themselves to reclaim a vile, misogynist word, perhaps the rest of us should fight to reclaim the word "feminism" and return it to its roots of working for true equality.
If we leave it to this gang, we're screwed.
kirstenpowers@aol.com
Read more:
Friday, May 06, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
If I Hear One More Time....
Today on the radio a woman called in to complain about how unfair life is for her. It was a "conservative" radio channel. The host was VERY sympathetic with her.
This was her strife:
She received no public assistance with childcare costs: daycare, food, clothing, etc., while she knew "at least 10" people who, due to low income or other factors, did. They also received housing assistance in the form of section 8 vouchers and/or child support from their children's father(s). This woman received none of this because she made a good income and her child's father had either successfully fled the state or else had some kind of problem that prevented him from paying any child support of any significance (she was rambling, I didn't catch all of that part) - at this point the host jumped in a demanded that it was a father's job AS A MAN to pay for his children - she vehemently agreed.
I must reply to this woman and so I shall:
1) Yes, its terrible that your tax money is going to help those who may be intentionally not helping themselves. My ex received public assistance at one point and firmly believes she deserves more; essentially she believes she deserves much of other people's money. This is absurd. The point of America is that you work hard but get to keep all that you earn. Minor redistribution of wealth by the state is to be tolerated, at best. Massive redistribution of wealth is called COMMUNISM and is not what the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence guarantees, either in word or spirit. Communism and even some forms of socialism (the twisted kinds) are nothing but ways and means to pervert the freedom of some or many to the benefit of the few, and in some cases, the "few" are lazy, stupid, irresponsible, dysfunctional or all of the above. To see my ex from the outside you would think she was genuinely in need. To listen to her you would think she had been exploited and harmed. To know her, you'd throw up. She has a college education (an expensive one), but quit her white-collar job to work THREE DAYS PER WEEK as a masseuse. Then she has the gall to think I owe her even more than I pay her in "child" support.
Disgusting.
No one owes this woman anything. No one. She's a perfectly healthy, educated and very intelligent 33 year old. The sick, children, elderly, and mentally handicapped cannot genuinely care for themselves and may not have family who can. They can request help. 33 year old college grads who quit middle class jobs deserve squat.
Further many people who need assistance because the politicians have worked with business leaders (Corporate whores) to TOTALLY pervert the domestic economy; foreign countries, especially Asian ones, have lifted even the most basic labor and environmental laws and offer labor and overhead costs that leave America just too damn expensive by comparison. Further, dollar depreciation (Inflation, that is, just printing more money) by the private bank the "Federal" Reserve Board has further made living and raising children in America harder and harder.
Should some people receive assistance in light of these factors? Unrealistically, no. That way, as these factors made living impossible, food riots and revolution would've corrected the problem, starting by implementing tariffs on Chinese imports. Realistically, yes, the very poor - those NOT COLLEGE EDUCATED, unskilled and GENUINELY unable to keep from starving - must have some assistance. The states, borrowing truckloads of cash thanks to interest rates (set by the Federal Reserve Board) at 100-year lows, threw a lot of that money into programs they can't realistically fund long-term. Further, such programs, once started, in many cases encourage those "on the bubble" of being able to help themselves from poor to lower-middle-class STOP their efforts in order to remain "on the dole." This is absurd as well.
As to this woman's claim that she deserves to receive anything from her children's father, the best she deserves is to split costs with the man for the kids. Why? BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUALS. Oh, and by the way, under current law, if her deadbeat ex had by some miracle nabbed custody of the kids, she would loose up to 50% of her after tax income, BUT WOULD HAVE MANY OF THE SAME BILLS FOR HOUSING THE KIDS as they would sleepover on visits. Its a situation that's damn close to visiting your own kids a few times a month, but having ALL THE SAME BILLS AS IF THEY LIVED WITH YOU, yet with ONLY HALF the income. Thousands of divorced men go through this every day and sit late at night staring at calculators asking them questions with no answers through tight lips and watery eyes. Unfortunately this woman doesn't have that nightmare. That's too bad.
Further, she asserts that BY VIRTUE OF BEING A MAN, her ex should support the kids (for all practical purposes they are now solely her kids). #1: No man should pay one nickel for kids he doesn't get to see - for men that voluntarily run away, that's another matter. #2: Since she talks about his role as a man, WHAT IS HER ROLE AS A MOTHER? What about as a WIFE? Did she fulfill her role? Or did she drive him away? Did one of them cheat? Did she? At best she is entitled to HALF custody and split expenses for the kids. She wasn't married it sounds like and if that's the case SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING FOR HERSELF FROM HIM. As she said, she makes a good wage; her bills are hers and his bills are his and they have nothing to do with each other. If he doesn't make any money that's his problem. And if she doesn't, that's her problem. ONE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER, PERIOD. These people are adults. The kids are the issue here and the only issue: since men and women are equal, with equal access to jobs, money and resources (eat your phony statistics), child costs must be split. There. Done.
Further I have too many times heard women whine about not receiving enough "child" support because they make a decent wage. I want to ask them "So you expect to make a great wage and keep much of your ex's money as well? When did you imagine yourself to be a little, spoiled, child princess? Because you're not a little girl anymore! You are a grown woman. You can take care of yourself! Marriage is no picnic. Unless your ex was a dysfunctional monster you deserve NOTHING of his. You keep your money and he keeps his. Child expenses split. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE expecting his money? Does he expect yours?"
Enough of the female "insurance policy." No more woman "guarantee" whereby if you fuck up your relationship with your child's father, he or someone else foots the bill for your children. That's insane and its gone on for years. Children depend on their father, many times financially. So I suggest, women of the world, you either keep your husband happy or help support them or both. Frankly it seems easier to me for many women to simply be moms and wives and forget about working. THAT'S FINE! It makes for clean homes, hot meals, happy husbands and happy children who are kept out of trouble! Somewhere along the line women were convinced they needed a big shot career and 30 years later have discovered THEY ARE NO BETTER OFF for it. That in fact, TO THEM, their relationship was more important. Men have no choice. They must work, they must make money for their family to live. Women had a choice, and still do. If most (not all) women decided to put men first when it came to work they would find a curious side-effect: their own happiness.
In the meantime, please, for the sake of baby Jesus and all the seraphims, cherubs and in the name of St. Peter himself, SPARE ME the I'm-not-that-well-off-because-my-ex-doesn't-give-me-every-cent-he-has story.
Want pity? Then tell me you give your ex $1,200/month after taxes on a $50,000/year income and are expected to support another family - buy a $10k+ wedding ring, house, cars, the works - when you live on just over $2k a month and pay $1k/month in rent.
You wouldn't tell me that. Because after the judge did that to you you would've walked out of court and onto a plane and tried to forget the silly clown-rape that was just perpetrated on you by the joke called a court of justice; a court that did it "on behalf of the kids" and you'd sell pineapples to tourists in Antigua before being someone else's slave in the "free" U.S. of A. You'd probably even join a ultra conservative religion and be happy you were living in a place where people didn't throw you in jail for refusing to be someone else's slave.
This was her strife:
She received no public assistance with childcare costs: daycare, food, clothing, etc., while she knew "at least 10" people who, due to low income or other factors, did. They also received housing assistance in the form of section 8 vouchers and/or child support from their children's father(s). This woman received none of this because she made a good income and her child's father had either successfully fled the state or else had some kind of problem that prevented him from paying any child support of any significance (she was rambling, I didn't catch all of that part) - at this point the host jumped in a demanded that it was a father's job AS A MAN to pay for his children - she vehemently agreed.
I must reply to this woman and so I shall:
1) Yes, its terrible that your tax money is going to help those who may be intentionally not helping themselves. My ex received public assistance at one point and firmly believes she deserves more; essentially she believes she deserves much of other people's money. This is absurd. The point of America is that you work hard but get to keep all that you earn. Minor redistribution of wealth by the state is to be tolerated, at best. Massive redistribution of wealth is called COMMUNISM and is not what the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence guarantees, either in word or spirit. Communism and even some forms of socialism (the twisted kinds) are nothing but ways and means to pervert the freedom of some or many to the benefit of the few, and in some cases, the "few" are lazy, stupid, irresponsible, dysfunctional or all of the above. To see my ex from the outside you would think she was genuinely in need. To listen to her you would think she had been exploited and harmed. To know her, you'd throw up. She has a college education (an expensive one), but quit her white-collar job to work THREE DAYS PER WEEK as a masseuse. Then she has the gall to think I owe her even more than I pay her in "child" support.
Disgusting.
No one owes this woman anything. No one. She's a perfectly healthy, educated and very intelligent 33 year old. The sick, children, elderly, and mentally handicapped cannot genuinely care for themselves and may not have family who can. They can request help. 33 year old college grads who quit middle class jobs deserve squat.
Further many people who need assistance because the politicians have worked with business leaders (Corporate whores) to TOTALLY pervert the domestic economy; foreign countries, especially Asian ones, have lifted even the most basic labor and environmental laws and offer labor and overhead costs that leave America just too damn expensive by comparison. Further, dollar depreciation (Inflation, that is, just printing more money) by the private bank the "Federal" Reserve Board has further made living and raising children in America harder and harder.
Should some people receive assistance in light of these factors? Unrealistically, no. That way, as these factors made living impossible, food riots and revolution would've corrected the problem, starting by implementing tariffs on Chinese imports. Realistically, yes, the very poor - those NOT COLLEGE EDUCATED, unskilled and GENUINELY unable to keep from starving - must have some assistance. The states, borrowing truckloads of cash thanks to interest rates (set by the Federal Reserve Board) at 100-year lows, threw a lot of that money into programs they can't realistically fund long-term. Further, such programs, once started, in many cases encourage those "on the bubble" of being able to help themselves from poor to lower-middle-class STOP their efforts in order to remain "on the dole." This is absurd as well.
As to this woman's claim that she deserves to receive anything from her children's father, the best she deserves is to split costs with the man for the kids. Why? BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUALS. Oh, and by the way, under current law, if her deadbeat ex had by some miracle nabbed custody of the kids, she would loose up to 50% of her after tax income, BUT WOULD HAVE MANY OF THE SAME BILLS FOR HOUSING THE KIDS as they would sleepover on visits. Its a situation that's damn close to visiting your own kids a few times a month, but having ALL THE SAME BILLS AS IF THEY LIVED WITH YOU, yet with ONLY HALF the income. Thousands of divorced men go through this every day and sit late at night staring at calculators asking them questions with no answers through tight lips and watery eyes. Unfortunately this woman doesn't have that nightmare. That's too bad.
Further, she asserts that BY VIRTUE OF BEING A MAN, her ex should support the kids (for all practical purposes they are now solely her kids). #1: No man should pay one nickel for kids he doesn't get to see - for men that voluntarily run away, that's another matter. #2: Since she talks about his role as a man, WHAT IS HER ROLE AS A MOTHER? What about as a WIFE? Did she fulfill her role? Or did she drive him away? Did one of them cheat? Did she? At best she is entitled to HALF custody and split expenses for the kids. She wasn't married it sounds like and if that's the case SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING FOR HERSELF FROM HIM. As she said, she makes a good wage; her bills are hers and his bills are his and they have nothing to do with each other. If he doesn't make any money that's his problem. And if she doesn't, that's her problem. ONE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER, PERIOD. These people are adults. The kids are the issue here and the only issue: since men and women are equal, with equal access to jobs, money and resources (eat your phony statistics), child costs must be split. There. Done.
Further I have too many times heard women whine about not receiving enough "child" support because they make a decent wage. I want to ask them "So you expect to make a great wage and keep much of your ex's money as well? When did you imagine yourself to be a little, spoiled, child princess? Because you're not a little girl anymore! You are a grown woman. You can take care of yourself! Marriage is no picnic. Unless your ex was a dysfunctional monster you deserve NOTHING of his. You keep your money and he keeps his. Child expenses split. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE expecting his money? Does he expect yours?"
Enough of the female "insurance policy." No more woman "guarantee" whereby if you fuck up your relationship with your child's father, he or someone else foots the bill for your children. That's insane and its gone on for years. Children depend on their father, many times financially. So I suggest, women of the world, you either keep your husband happy or help support them or both. Frankly it seems easier to me for many women to simply be moms and wives and forget about working. THAT'S FINE! It makes for clean homes, hot meals, happy husbands and happy children who are kept out of trouble! Somewhere along the line women were convinced they needed a big shot career and 30 years later have discovered THEY ARE NO BETTER OFF for it. That in fact, TO THEM, their relationship was more important. Men have no choice. They must work, they must make money for their family to live. Women had a choice, and still do. If most (not all) women decided to put men first when it came to work they would find a curious side-effect: their own happiness.
In the meantime, please, for the sake of baby Jesus and all the seraphims, cherubs and in the name of St. Peter himself, SPARE ME the I'm-not-that-well-off-because-my-ex-doesn't-give-me-every-cent-he-has story.
Want pity? Then tell me you give your ex $1,200/month after taxes on a $50,000/year income and are expected to support another family - buy a $10k+ wedding ring, house, cars, the works - when you live on just over $2k a month and pay $1k/month in rent.
You wouldn't tell me that. Because after the judge did that to you you would've walked out of court and onto a plane and tried to forget the silly clown-rape that was just perpetrated on you by the joke called a court of justice; a court that did it "on behalf of the kids" and you'd sell pineapples to tourists in Antigua before being someone else's slave in the "free" U.S. of A. You'd probably even join a ultra conservative religion and be happy you were living in a place where people didn't throw you in jail for refusing to be someone else's slave.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Paternity Fraud: The Worst Kind of Fraud
When I rail about the morality of women and the necessity of having sex only after marriage and people call me some kind of conservative nutcase?
When people are defrauded out of money we all cry foul and demand jail. What do we do when a woman uses AN INNOCENT CHILD to defraud someone out of their money for 18 years or more?
We let her keep the money!
To wit:
Fathers and Families has helped introduce two paternity fraud bills in the the California legislature this year, one of which (SB 377) will address the injustices faced young men like Thomas. In Thomas’ support letter to Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s author, he explains:
I am writing to you in support of SB 377, because when I was 17 years-old I was victimized by the problem which the bill addresses.
The hospital manipulated me into signing a paternity declaration when my former girlfriend gave birth to a son she said was mine. There was no parental consent nor did I have access to legal counsel or advice. I was never informed of the legal implications of what I was being asked to sign and I did not fully understand them. I thought that because I was a minor, there couldn’t be serious legal implications. I have since learned differently.
The mother of the child has not allowed me to have a relationship with the boy, and several of her relatives have told me that another young man who I knew in our community is in fact the biological father.
I tried to rectify the situation, but the judge ruled me to be the biological father and denied my request to establish paternity, even after the child’s mother initially agreed in court to have DNA testing done.
I am now on the hook for 18 years of child support to support a boy I’m not able to see and who perhaps is not even mine. Moreover, someday I would like to marry and have a family, and I am instead faced with the potential prospect of losing a quarter of my after-tax earnings because I was defrauded.
SB 377 would resolve these kinds of injustices by “invalidating a voluntary declaration of paternity that is signed by a minor parent if it is not also signed by the parent or guardian of the minor parent.” SB 377 would also require that the parent or guardian of the minor parent receive oral and written information relating to the voluntary declaration of paternity.
I wish this legislation had been in place when I was 17—it would have saved me a lot of pain and problems.
Sincerely,
Thomas Rodriguez
Riverside, CA
When people are defrauded out of money we all cry foul and demand jail. What do we do when a woman uses AN INNOCENT CHILD to defraud someone out of their money for 18 years or more?
We let her keep the money!
To wit:
Fathers and Families has helped introduce two paternity fraud bills in the the California legislature this year, one of which (SB 377) will address the injustices faced young men like Thomas. In Thomas’ support letter to Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s author, he explains:
I am writing to you in support of SB 377, because when I was 17 years-old I was victimized by the problem which the bill addresses.
The hospital manipulated me into signing a paternity declaration when my former girlfriend gave birth to a son she said was mine. There was no parental consent nor did I have access to legal counsel or advice. I was never informed of the legal implications of what I was being asked to sign and I did not fully understand them. I thought that because I was a minor, there couldn’t be serious legal implications. I have since learned differently.
The mother of the child has not allowed me to have a relationship with the boy, and several of her relatives have told me that another young man who I knew in our community is in fact the biological father.
I tried to rectify the situation, but the judge ruled me to be the biological father and denied my request to establish paternity, even after the child’s mother initially agreed in court to have DNA testing done.
I am now on the hook for 18 years of child support to support a boy I’m not able to see and who perhaps is not even mine. Moreover, someday I would like to marry and have a family, and I am instead faced with the potential prospect of losing a quarter of my after-tax earnings because I was defrauded.
SB 377 would resolve these kinds of injustices by “invalidating a voluntary declaration of paternity that is signed by a minor parent if it is not also signed by the parent or guardian of the minor parent.” SB 377 would also require that the parent or guardian of the minor parent receive oral and written information relating to the voluntary declaration of paternity.
I wish this legislation had been in place when I was 17—it would have saved me a lot of pain and problems.
Sincerely,
Thomas Rodriguez
Riverside, CA
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Creeping Inflation - Eating You Away a Piece at a Time
Money Printing: Making More Money from thin air.
When there is more of something, it is therefore worth significantly less... and less and less.
I love the interviewer. She is in no way qualified to interview this man. She knows nothing about even basic finance. The Federal Reserve Board declares 2% inflation is good - that means every dollar you earn is worth 2% less every year. After 5 years, your money buys 10% less than it once did - that's huge. There is no reason for that to happen. No justification. The dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power over the last 70 years. How? A little inflation every single year. Before we had this mystical entity called the "Federal Reserve Board" (which is a private bank, by the way), the dollar didn't lose ONE OUNCE of value year after year, so any raises or additional money you made REALLY COUNTED and wasn't made just to "keep pace with" inflation. "Prime the pump?" WTF does that even mean? Its a soundbite with no meaning. The more your money buys, the easier it is to live. Devaluing your money is surreptitious theft and there is no reason for it to happen, much less be "desirable." How do people not understand that? Further this Mack woman, in her total stupidity declares the FINANCIAL COMMUNITY thinks its a good idea! Um, you mean those people who trashed the housing market, destroyed the economy, took trillions of taxpayer money and paid themselves bonuses with it? Further, the finance community loves inflation because it FORCES prices of everything up, making their life jaw-droppingly easy. Just buy something and wait 6 months - since you bought that thing in dollars and the dollar is losing value on a constant basis, the thing you bought MUST go up in value and you can sell it and make money - when you sell it you're given dollars in return and even if its more dollars than you bought it for, they are worth less, so how do you really make money off it? Answer: leverage (borrowed money). This is why Wall St. is like a kid with his dad's gun. Wall St. BORROWS BILLIONS and buys things with it. How much of their own money do they use? 1/30th OR LESS of what they spend is actual money of their own. So when I borrow a billion, buy silver with it and silver goes from $1 to $4 per ounce (or from 9 to 42 as it recently did), I make 3 dollars per ounce (or share or unit, whatever you like). I make 3 billion; I pocket 2 billion, pay the 1 billion I borrowed back to the lender and I'm 2 billion clams to the good. Risky? You bet. If the price were to go down, I'm on the hook for billions in losses that I may not be able to cover. Do I worry? Not really. Why? Ben Bernarke is printing money and creating inflation - so the price of silver in dollars MUST go up. Its as close to a sure thing as it gets. This is how normal wall st. working stiffs make 400k+ a year with $2-300,000 dollar bonuses - that's PER year. And the "finance community" thinks 2% inflation is a good idea? WOW, IMAGINE THAT, MS. MACK!!!!!!!! USE YOUR GODDAMN HEAD FOR A SECOND LADY! The other problem is that prices of everything are being supported by money printed out of thin air and if that money is not continually printed, the prices of everything will fall back to their real value - when that happens (not if), everyone who has bought things with borrowed money and waited for the price to go up has their borrowed money CALLED BACK by the lender. The problem? They must ALL SELL what they bought at the same time just as the price of what they bought is crashing. What happens next? Someone calls Henry, "Hank" Paulson and he has to beg Washington for $700 BILLION OF PUBLIC MONEY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT FROM HIS KNEES. Nice system.
Its just like the idea that men must "take care of" a (college educated) woman after divorce. Why does someone with a good middle class job and benefits need to be taken care of? How can it be justified when she makes more than he does or when she gets remarried or co-habitates with another? Its just a soundbite that you've been force-fed to believe and you do; when you step back and examine the issue on its merits it makes no sense for two people who are equally capable to be treated in such a way. Every man went to school with girls who were just as smart or smarter than they were and upon divorce these now women are presumed to be incapable of earning due to some kind of hidden bias, which is demonstrably false, but everyone somehow believes it. Its foolishness squared.
When there is more of something, it is therefore worth significantly less... and less and less.
I love the interviewer. She is in no way qualified to interview this man. She knows nothing about even basic finance. The Federal Reserve Board declares 2% inflation is good - that means every dollar you earn is worth 2% less every year. After 5 years, your money buys 10% less than it once did - that's huge. There is no reason for that to happen. No justification. The dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power over the last 70 years. How? A little inflation every single year. Before we had this mystical entity called the "Federal Reserve Board" (which is a private bank, by the way), the dollar didn't lose ONE OUNCE of value year after year, so any raises or additional money you made REALLY COUNTED and wasn't made just to "keep pace with" inflation. "Prime the pump?" WTF does that even mean? Its a soundbite with no meaning. The more your money buys, the easier it is to live. Devaluing your money is surreptitious theft and there is no reason for it to happen, much less be "desirable." How do people not understand that? Further this Mack woman, in her total stupidity declares the FINANCIAL COMMUNITY thinks its a good idea! Um, you mean those people who trashed the housing market, destroyed the economy, took trillions of taxpayer money and paid themselves bonuses with it? Further, the finance community loves inflation because it FORCES prices of everything up, making their life jaw-droppingly easy. Just buy something and wait 6 months - since you bought that thing in dollars and the dollar is losing value on a constant basis, the thing you bought MUST go up in value and you can sell it and make money - when you sell it you're given dollars in return and even if its more dollars than you bought it for, they are worth less, so how do you really make money off it? Answer: leverage (borrowed money). This is why Wall St. is like a kid with his dad's gun. Wall St. BORROWS BILLIONS and buys things with it. How much of their own money do they use? 1/30th OR LESS of what they spend is actual money of their own. So when I borrow a billion, buy silver with it and silver goes from $1 to $4 per ounce (or from 9 to 42 as it recently did), I make 3 dollars per ounce (or share or unit, whatever you like). I make 3 billion; I pocket 2 billion, pay the 1 billion I borrowed back to the lender and I'm 2 billion clams to the good. Risky? You bet. If the price were to go down, I'm on the hook for billions in losses that I may not be able to cover. Do I worry? Not really. Why? Ben Bernarke is printing money and creating inflation - so the price of silver in dollars MUST go up. Its as close to a sure thing as it gets. This is how normal wall st. working stiffs make 400k+ a year with $2-300,000 dollar bonuses - that's PER year. And the "finance community" thinks 2% inflation is a good idea? WOW, IMAGINE THAT, MS. MACK!!!!!!!! USE YOUR GODDAMN HEAD FOR A SECOND LADY! The other problem is that prices of everything are being supported by money printed out of thin air and if that money is not continually printed, the prices of everything will fall back to their real value - when that happens (not if), everyone who has bought things with borrowed money and waited for the price to go up has their borrowed money CALLED BACK by the lender. The problem? They must ALL SELL what they bought at the same time just as the price of what they bought is crashing. What happens next? Someone calls Henry, "Hank" Paulson and he has to beg Washington for $700 BILLION OF PUBLIC MONEY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT FROM HIS KNEES. Nice system.
Its just like the idea that men must "take care of" a (college educated) woman after divorce. Why does someone with a good middle class job and benefits need to be taken care of? How can it be justified when she makes more than he does or when she gets remarried or co-habitates with another? Its just a soundbite that you've been force-fed to believe and you do; when you step back and examine the issue on its merits it makes no sense for two people who are equally capable to be treated in such a way. Every man went to school with girls who were just as smart or smarter than they were and upon divorce these now women are presumed to be incapable of earning due to some kind of hidden bias, which is demonstrably false, but everyone somehow believes it. Its foolishness squared.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Best Bank Analyst: Banks Still Effed, U.S. Central Bank Supporting Entire World with Credit
Christopher Whalen is widely regarding as one of the best banking analysts in the country. He previously worked at the Federal Reserve Board. He's testified before Congress on the "banking crisis." He owns and operates his own banking research firm called Institutional Risk Analytics. All this man has done for his whole life is study finance and banking in particular and he's recognized as being TOTALLY independent as well as being one of the best.
So Where's The Rope? America has Two Justice Systems
Three Justice Systems if you count family court.
Washington’s Blog strives to provide real-time, well-researched and actionable information. George – the head writer at Washington’s Blog – is a busy professional and a former adjunct professor.
~~~
America Is a “Failed State” with a “Dual Justice System … One for Ordinary People and then One for People with Money and Enormous Wealth and Power”
It is now mainstream news that none of the big financial criminals have been prosecuted.
The New York Times is running an article today entitled “In financial crisis, no prosecutions of top figures”, which has been picked up as the leading front-page story by MSNBC. The story even quotes Bill Black:
But their policies have created an exceptional criminogenic environment. There were no criminal referrals from the regulators. No fraud working groups. No national task force. There has been no effective punishment of the elites here.
And the chair of the Financial Crisis Commission, Phil Angelides, said today:
I think there’s a great concern in this country on two fronts. One is there’s a question here, do we have a dual justice system? One for ordinary people and then one for people with money and enormous wealth and power. Secondly, we need deterrents. To the extent laws were broken, we need deterrents. If someone robs a 7-11, they took $500 and they were able to settle the next day for $50 and no admission of wrongdoing, they’d knock over that 7-11 again. And we’ve seen time after time where people and firms have made tens, one hundreds, billions of dollars. They’ve settled charges for pennies on the dollar. At Citigroup for example they represented that they had $13 billion of subprime mortgage exposure when they really had $55 billion. The penalty to the chief financial officer who made $19 million that year, 2007, was $100,000. Goldman was fined $500 million but the date they settled their stock moved up $2 billion. There’s been no real consequence.
Well I think there’s two things here. Number one is it’s up to the prosecutors to do thorough investigations. That’s what we should expect. We don’t want hangmen justice. We don’t want vengeance, but we want thorough investigations. And if people crossed a line they ought to be prosecuted. But there were a lot of people who bellied up to the line and conducted themselves in a way without the highest standards of ethics or moral conduct that hurt the economy badly.
And I think one of the things that’s most troubling to people is there seems to be very little relationship between who drove this crisis, the big financial institutions, the CEOs, regulators who didn’t do their job, and the people who are paying the price, which are millions of people who have lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their life savings.
As I’ve previously noted, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and a host of other well-known financial names have called for prosecution, because the economy cannot recover until fraud is prosecuted.
But Wall Street is so thoroughly in control of both parties, Congress, the White House, and even the judiciary, that prosecutions won’t happen.
No wonder Marc Faber calls the U.S. a failed state, Kenneth Rogoff says our tax systems are “Byzantine labyrinths funneling money to powerful interests”, and experts on third world banana republics from the IMF and the Federal Reserve say the U.S. has become a third world banana republic.
Barry Ritholtz argues that – if the prosecutors won’t do their job – we should prosecute them for nonfeasance.
Max Keiser is a tad more radical, saying that – if the criminals aren’t prosecuted – we should hang the bankers. I’m not sure if it is a sign of public sentiment, but he got a big round of applause for saying that.
Washington’s Blog strives to provide real-time, well-researched and actionable information. George – the head writer at Washington’s Blog – is a busy professional and a former adjunct professor.
~~~
America Is a “Failed State” with a “Dual Justice System … One for Ordinary People and then One for People with Money and Enormous Wealth and Power”
It is now mainstream news that none of the big financial criminals have been prosecuted.
The New York Times is running an article today entitled “In financial crisis, no prosecutions of top figures”, which has been picked up as the leading front-page story by MSNBC. The story even quotes Bill Black:
But their policies have created an exceptional criminogenic environment. There were no criminal referrals from the regulators. No fraud working groups. No national task force. There has been no effective punishment of the elites here.
And the chair of the Financial Crisis Commission, Phil Angelides, said today:
I think there’s a great concern in this country on two fronts. One is there’s a question here, do we have a dual justice system? One for ordinary people and then one for people with money and enormous wealth and power. Secondly, we need deterrents. To the extent laws were broken, we need deterrents. If someone robs a 7-11, they took $500 and they were able to settle the next day for $50 and no admission of wrongdoing, they’d knock over that 7-11 again. And we’ve seen time after time where people and firms have made tens, one hundreds, billions of dollars. They’ve settled charges for pennies on the dollar. At Citigroup for example they represented that they had $13 billion of subprime mortgage exposure when they really had $55 billion. The penalty to the chief financial officer who made $19 million that year, 2007, was $100,000. Goldman was fined $500 million but the date they settled their stock moved up $2 billion. There’s been no real consequence.
Well I think there’s two things here. Number one is it’s up to the prosecutors to do thorough investigations. That’s what we should expect. We don’t want hangmen justice. We don’t want vengeance, but we want thorough investigations. And if people crossed a line they ought to be prosecuted. But there were a lot of people who bellied up to the line and conducted themselves in a way without the highest standards of ethics or moral conduct that hurt the economy badly.
And I think one of the things that’s most troubling to people is there seems to be very little relationship between who drove this crisis, the big financial institutions, the CEOs, regulators who didn’t do their job, and the people who are paying the price, which are millions of people who have lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their life savings.
As I’ve previously noted, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and a host of other well-known financial names have called for prosecution, because the economy cannot recover until fraud is prosecuted.
But Wall Street is so thoroughly in control of both parties, Congress, the White House, and even the judiciary, that prosecutions won’t happen.
No wonder Marc Faber calls the U.S. a failed state, Kenneth Rogoff says our tax systems are “Byzantine labyrinths funneling money to powerful interests”, and experts on third world banana republics from the IMF and the Federal Reserve say the U.S. has become a third world banana republic.
Barry Ritholtz argues that – if the prosecutors won’t do their job – we should prosecute them for nonfeasance.
Max Keiser is a tad more radical, saying that – if the criminals aren’t prosecuted – we should hang the bankers. I’m not sure if it is a sign of public sentiment, but he got a big round of applause for saying that.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Market Ticker: The Government helping anyone BUT you.
The Federal Reserve a private bank, in up to their neck in the foreclosure mess, and government 'officials' do nothing while they do all they can to help the banks screw you over.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184364
Federal Reserve: They Broke The Law
but nobody cares.... (including us)
There it is. If it was illegal, why isn't each instance of that illegality punished?
Then there are the "really cute" things, such as this:
It did? Why just a few paragraphs earlier the same report said:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184364
Federal Reserve: They Broke The Law
but nobody cares.... (including us)
The reviews found critical weaknesses in servicers’ foreclosure governance processes, foreclosure document preparation processes, and oversight and monitoring of third-party vendors, including foreclosure attorneys.While it is important to note that findings varied across institutions, the weaknesses at each servicer, individually or collectively, resulted in unsafe and unsound practices and violations of applicable federal and state law and requirements.
There it is. If it was illegal, why isn't each instance of that illegality punished?
Then there are the "really cute" things, such as this:
The loan-file reviews showed that borrowers subject to foreclosure in the reviewed files were seriously delinquent on their loans.
It did? Why just a few paragraphs earlier the same report said:
The file reviews did not include a complete analysis of the payment history of each loan prior to foreclosure or potential mortgage-servicing issues outside of the foreclosure process. Accordingly, examiners may not have uncovered cases of misapplied payments or unreasonable fees, particularly when these actions occurred prior to the default that led to the foreclosure action. The foreclosure-file reviews also may not have uncovered certain facts related to the processing of a foreclosure that would lead an examiner to conclude that a foreclosure otherwise should not have proceeded, such as undocumented communications between a servicer employee and the borrower in which the employee told the borrower he or she had to be delinquent on the loan to qualify for a modification.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Father's Lessons: An example
Fathers teach their children many lessons in life and that is one of the reasons why their children need them so badly. For me, one of the lessons taught was not to play in the street. I was fortunate - I lived in the suburbs, and had a large yard. However I often visited family in the city and while it was on a very quiet and LARGE side street, it had traffic from time to time. The street was so large and wide, it was easy to see children and easy for children to see the cars. But what was taught to me was clear: streets are made for cars to drive on, not for children to play in. Go to the park or to the backyard to play (my family in the city did have a fenced-in yard as well). Playing in the street would eventually get you hurt and that would be your fault, not the car driver as its not the drivers responsibility to dodge children in a street where they have no right to be. Pedestrians walking down the sidewalk would be enraged to see a motorcycle driving at them so why would drivers not be similarly pissed to find people standing in the street?
Apparently not all people believe this or are otherwise opined. In the inner city, many children have no readily accessible park and for others the street is a legitimate option as, like my cousin's, it has low traffic or perhaps is at the end of a dead end street. In my neighborhood, there is a large, safe park, at the end of a nearby street and that is where most children play. I also see them in yards. I do not see them in the streets. I live very close to Boston proper and in between two major highways connected by a high-speed thoroughfare. The population density is VERY high with only a driveway separating most houses. Most homes are two or three family homes and some are populated by families or else 3 to 6 college students. For these reasons the number of cars is quite high and weekday mornings, evenings and weekends are all very high-traffic times.
Yesterday I was driving to do some errands. I got a late start and was driving a bit fast, admittedly, as I turned onto a large one-way street. I slammed on the brakes as I saw a father playing with his son in the middle of the street - with his son at the "top" of the one way street! I couldn't believe it. He shouted at me. I apologized for turning the corner so fast but asked him what he was doing in the street. He acted astounded. He said it was a perfectly fine place to play. I mentioned the park. He said he didn't want to go there. I said the street is not for playing children. He swore at me to slow down. I said many people, rightly or wrongly, drive from 30 to 40 mph going down that street (I was barely doing 25). He shouted at me again. I drove off. His attitude was one of a man who had found me speeding down the sidewalk and not the street.
I suppose it depends on the nature of the street how local people treat it. I've seen those in urban neighborhoods (in Maine, for instance) that seemed safe and large enough for both the occasional car and kids. For those who consider the street to be quiet enough, it may seem to be a relatively harmless place to be. But when combining city streets and those who don't have the sense God gave a frog, the street is not a low-risk area to be. Especially one lined with cars on either side and connected to other major roads in a way that encourages high-speed driving (one way only, long, and at the bottom of a large hill). Whether someone is recklessly driving too fast or simply doesn't understand that the nature of a road that encourages faster speeds, its simply too risky a place for children to be, especially when a safe alternative is but yards away.
Even in the suburbs, people abuse the concept of streets. A road in a ever-increasingly more populated suburban area of southern Maine near where I grew up is one of those streets with a 35 mph speed limit and the kind of naked, windy curves and hills that beg cars to drive faster. Further, this street is in rural Maine, where the suburbs would be considered countryside to people from the city. I have not seen a house without a yard and most homes have very large yards. So the only people on the street are high-speed bikers and perhaps an occasional jogger. That said, the street has a VERY narrow bike line and NO breakdown lane or shoulder of any kind. Drivers must be rather strict in navigating the road - its too narrow. Its far too easy to wander into the bike line and that's what people tend to do rather than drift too close to the center line and oncoming traffic (though I have seen that as well).
One day while driving down that road at around 40 mph (5 mph excessive, but certainly not uncommon), I was a bit more toward the bike line - the shoulder portion of the road, when I gasped to see two women pushing carriages down the line with babies in them. They waved their arms and shrieked at me to slow down. At first I was shocked and then scared that I could've killed a baby and then I was curiously stymied.... I wasn't in the bike line but I was but a tire's width away - not at all uncommon for that narrow road. And I wasn't going unusually fast. The truly scary situation was caused by these two ladies thinking they were walking down an elevated, wide sidewalk, and not the naked shoulder of a narrow two lane road that was far from being a breezy, empty, cow path. They genuinely though they were going to push large baby carriages safely down the side of a street when the 'side' was about an 18 inch wide strip of cracked pavement. A street with but two STOP signs at either end. I can only assume they were city transplants or like the lunatic I saw yesterday, entertained the idea that cars should anticipate, identify and navigate well around them at all times. I have not seen or heard of them on the street since then. Like the man around the corner from me with his son, I expect the high traffic volume and speed of the cars did all the dissuading they needed.
Some cities, such as some in Florida have ordinances against children playing in the street - this solves the car vs. children battle that arises as a result of kids playing in trafficked areas. For drivers, pedestrians always have the right of way. That said, I think most drivers agree that pedestrians being in the street is generally a bad idea for both cars and pedestrians. Cars must slam on the brakes and pose the potential for injury to passengers and the passengers of cars around them. Ultimately, people need to get in and out of the street as fast as possible. The "sleepy" nature of many streets may entice children onto them, but they also entice drivers to speed through them. Playing in the street is ultimately an invitation to an "accident," and when you think about it, there's nothing accidental about cars hitting people who are occupying the very space designed for cars and cars only.
If a dad doesn't understand that, then I pray to God he doesn't find out the hard way that small children stand NO CHANCE against 2,500 lbs. of moving automobile.
-JB
Apparently not all people believe this or are otherwise opined. In the inner city, many children have no readily accessible park and for others the street is a legitimate option as, like my cousin's, it has low traffic or perhaps is at the end of a dead end street. In my neighborhood, there is a large, safe park, at the end of a nearby street and that is where most children play. I also see them in yards. I do not see them in the streets. I live very close to Boston proper and in between two major highways connected by a high-speed thoroughfare. The population density is VERY high with only a driveway separating most houses. Most homes are two or three family homes and some are populated by families or else 3 to 6 college students. For these reasons the number of cars is quite high and weekday mornings, evenings and weekends are all very high-traffic times.
Yesterday I was driving to do some errands. I got a late start and was driving a bit fast, admittedly, as I turned onto a large one-way street. I slammed on the brakes as I saw a father playing with his son in the middle of the street - with his son at the "top" of the one way street! I couldn't believe it. He shouted at me. I apologized for turning the corner so fast but asked him what he was doing in the street. He acted astounded. He said it was a perfectly fine place to play. I mentioned the park. He said he didn't want to go there. I said the street is not for playing children. He swore at me to slow down. I said many people, rightly or wrongly, drive from 30 to 40 mph going down that street (I was barely doing 25). He shouted at me again. I drove off. His attitude was one of a man who had found me speeding down the sidewalk and not the street.
I suppose it depends on the nature of the street how local people treat it. I've seen those in urban neighborhoods (in Maine, for instance) that seemed safe and large enough for both the occasional car and kids. For those who consider the street to be quiet enough, it may seem to be a relatively harmless place to be. But when combining city streets and those who don't have the sense God gave a frog, the street is not a low-risk area to be. Especially one lined with cars on either side and connected to other major roads in a way that encourages high-speed driving (one way only, long, and at the bottom of a large hill). Whether someone is recklessly driving too fast or simply doesn't understand that the nature of a road that encourages faster speeds, its simply too risky a place for children to be, especially when a safe alternative is but yards away.
Even in the suburbs, people abuse the concept of streets. A road in a ever-increasingly more populated suburban area of southern Maine near where I grew up is one of those streets with a 35 mph speed limit and the kind of naked, windy curves and hills that beg cars to drive faster. Further, this street is in rural Maine, where the suburbs would be considered countryside to people from the city. I have not seen a house without a yard and most homes have very large yards. So the only people on the street are high-speed bikers and perhaps an occasional jogger. That said, the street has a VERY narrow bike line and NO breakdown lane or shoulder of any kind. Drivers must be rather strict in navigating the road - its too narrow. Its far too easy to wander into the bike line and that's what people tend to do rather than drift too close to the center line and oncoming traffic (though I have seen that as well).
One day while driving down that road at around 40 mph (5 mph excessive, but certainly not uncommon), I was a bit more toward the bike line - the shoulder portion of the road, when I gasped to see two women pushing carriages down the line with babies in them. They waved their arms and shrieked at me to slow down. At first I was shocked and then scared that I could've killed a baby and then I was curiously stymied.... I wasn't in the bike line but I was but a tire's width away - not at all uncommon for that narrow road. And I wasn't going unusually fast. The truly scary situation was caused by these two ladies thinking they were walking down an elevated, wide sidewalk, and not the naked shoulder of a narrow two lane road that was far from being a breezy, empty, cow path. They genuinely though they were going to push large baby carriages safely down the side of a street when the 'side' was about an 18 inch wide strip of cracked pavement. A street with but two STOP signs at either end. I can only assume they were city transplants or like the lunatic I saw yesterday, entertained the idea that cars should anticipate, identify and navigate well around them at all times. I have not seen or heard of them on the street since then. Like the man around the corner from me with his son, I expect the high traffic volume and speed of the cars did all the dissuading they needed.
Some cities, such as some in Florida have ordinances against children playing in the street - this solves the car vs. children battle that arises as a result of kids playing in trafficked areas. For drivers, pedestrians always have the right of way. That said, I think most drivers agree that pedestrians being in the street is generally a bad idea for both cars and pedestrians. Cars must slam on the brakes and pose the potential for injury to passengers and the passengers of cars around them. Ultimately, people need to get in and out of the street as fast as possible. The "sleepy" nature of many streets may entice children onto them, but they also entice drivers to speed through them. Playing in the street is ultimately an invitation to an "accident," and when you think about it, there's nothing accidental about cars hitting people who are occupying the very space designed for cars and cars only.
If a dad doesn't understand that, then I pray to God he doesn't find out the hard way that small children stand NO CHANCE against 2,500 lbs. of moving automobile.
-JB
The Kidds - A Fair Look
For no reason the other day I was reminded of Jason Kidd, the basketball player. He's always been a fine player and lived a relatively conservative life, married with 3 kids and was a church going man, as was his wife. Unfortunately, this pretty exterior, as happens in many lives, covered a rotting marriage underneath it all.
Once Jason was accused, arrested and admitted to domestic abuse, his goose was cooked. He was the big, bad monster; the super-strong super athlete who battered and crushed his helpless little wife.
What you need to do dear reader, is this: assume there was violence on both of their parts until proven otherwise. Unless there is evidence his wife never raised a hand in anger at her husband, its a far cry that he was all alone in this. Women don't need fists or weapons. They have divorce lawyers - and those are much more dangerous. Jason is a rich man. She can bankrupt him at the stroke of a pen, and they both know it. So she stayed in the relationship, and further, given that he is seen as some super-strong Hercules, she has carte-blanche to wail on him as she pleases. No one will notice, care or believe that he was the victim of HER hostility. Her hostility, I'm sure she well knows, is totally immune from prosecution, more or less.
Women are not always diminutive and meek. They're not always submissive and helpless. This woman bagged herself a professional athlete who could give she and her children a very comfortable life; he provides a lot of resources. There was COMPETITION for him. STIFF competition. I was in college with athletes like this. There were literally women LINED UP to sleep with these guys and "catch" them. Jason's wife was aggressive and motivated - she could not have been otherwise. So as much as he aggressively pursued her, that was the case for BOTH of them, not just one.
Jason pleaded GUILTY, and attended anger management classes:
Jason continued to attend classes ON HIS OWN. Doesn't sound like something a monster would do. Hmmmm. He also gave up alcohol! No small thing! I know I couldn't do that. So it seems this man made a legitimate effort to turn his life in a different direction.In January 2001, Jason Kidd was arrested and pleaded guilty to a domestic abuse charge for assaulting his wife Joumana in anger. As part of his plea, Kidd was ordered to attend anger management classes for six months. Kidd completed the mandatory counseling and continued to attend on his own and it was reported that Kidd has since given up alcohol.
What about his wife? Did she get help for her problems? Ahhhhh. You didn't have that question, did you, dear reader? Because you thought after reading the headline, there was only one "problem party" here and that was Mr. Kidd, the beast athlete who couldn't control his temper. With him "fixed" everything should be fine because his wife didn't do anything wrong, right?
He and his wife were both active in their church and were thought to have completely reconciled. On January 9, 2007, Jason Kidd filed for divorce against his wife, citing "extreme cruelty" during their relationship. Kidd contended intense jealousy, paranoia, and the threat of "false domestic abuse claims" to the police as reasons for the divorce.Whups. There it is. He received treatment, for his problems. And made SOME measure of progress, I assume. His wife did not receive treatment on the assumption she had no problem. But I'm guessing Jason returned home to find his wife was just as dysfunctional as ever, it seems largely the result of a poor self-esteem and extreme anxiety. And what do you know, she threatened her husband with more claims of domestic violence. Why not? She was probably as guilty as he was the first time, but they only arrested and convicted him - so now DV is leverage for her to use against him. This is a classic psychology case, by the way. When two people are dysfunctional, their relationship is based on those dysfunctions. Here, one person suddenly eliminated their dysfunction, even if only temporarily, but the other didn't - she tried to start up their dysfunctional relationship again and his response? I WANT OUT. I'm not playing this crazy game with you anymore, crazy lady. Her response? Make good on her threats:
On February 15, 2007 Joumana Kidd filed a counterclaim for divorce,[21] claiming that the NBA star—among countless instances of abuse—"broke her rib and damaged her hearing by smashing her head into the console of a car". The couple have three children (Trey Jason (T.J.), and twins Miah and Jazelle).[22]
Did Jason do any of those things? I don't know. But she called the police during one of their fights. If the severe fight was so bad, why didn't she call the police then as well? Or any of the "other" times she alleges? I'm guessing because she was part of the violence and not strictly the victim of it. She was married to him. She knew how to get a reaction out of him, even a negative one and she did. Fights of these sorts happen because one person isn't getting what they want from the other, so they push and push and push - the other doesn't know what they want and so they eventually snap and violence ensues. They both did it, they both wanted it, they both needed help to stop it.
Jason has since moved on with his life. Is he a wonderful man who should receive medals for being moral and upright? I don't know. I know he got help with the court's order and he was not arrested for violence after that. The new woman in his life has not claimed he has savagely attacked her, and that at least is evidence that he HAS CHOSEN a woman with whom he will not have that vicious, violent dynamic with. This is in essence a much healthier relationship for him.
Jason Kidd announced on his website that he will marry fiancee Porschla Coleman, with whom he has a son, on September 10, 2010. Porschla is a former model and has taken over the reins of the Jason Kidd Foundation.[23]
I have not seen any news of his ex-wife. She did a little t.v. broadcasting and on her website declares herself to be an actress and journalist. She's done some minor t.v. and movie roles, all spin-offs from her modeling career or from being viewed as the innocent battered woman:
One which is titled “Getting Even” in which she plays the principle role of Phillippian Owens, California’s former top advertising executive whose proposal to the love of her life has gone sour.
I can find no information of her receiving treatment for her problems or of establishing a healthy emotional commitment to another man. She also has custody of their 3 children, which itself is a full-time job. I can only wish her the best, but it seems to be she has no intention of changing and is trying to fill her life with a career that is largely based on the fact that she's pleasing to look at. You will find that if she does take up with another man, he too will be accused of beating her or some other domestic altercation. Same person, same result. Its sad the kids have to be in that kind of high-risk environment. But no one cares. No one will accuse her of anything and no one will suggest the kids are better off with Jason (even though he is the only one to receive treatment for his psychological problems).
Friday, April 08, 2011
Marc Faber: Economic Policies Keeping Poor Afloat and Keeping Rich Rich
Talented, wealthy and brilliant financial analyst Marc Faber on air with CNBC goes so far as to say we have two classes developing - one poor and unable to provide for themselves and the other, wealthy, landed, established and desperate to see the price of their assets remain high or go higher. Marc suggests the current economic policy of printing money to keep asset prices high for the rich and making MASSIVE transfer payments in the form of various programs that amount to grants to the poor to keep them from starving is distorting the economy, markets and society.
Marc is of course, spot on. We have a president trying to save the poor (instead of instituting policies to help them help themselves), and a Federal Reserve Board chairman printing money OUT OF THIN AIR which is EXTREMELY INFLATIONARY, causing the price of everything from toothpaste to food to gasoline to skyrocket in price (filled your tank up lately, dear reader?).
The host is aghast. That's because she's either stupid, blind, or trying to play nice for the cameras. Marc further explains the seed causing the poor to not only remain poor but expand in number: 50% of all kids are born out of wedlock and many of them to poor women. On top of that the divorce rate is over 50%. Having lots of children and then breaking families apart is financially devastating and its become so pervasive and socially acceptable, even financial gurus such as Marc Faber are taking notice.
The point Marc makes is that this trend is not simply notable. Its a goddamn nightmare - economically, socially, psychologically, realistically.
Marc is of course, spot on. We have a president trying to save the poor (instead of instituting policies to help them help themselves), and a Federal Reserve Board chairman printing money OUT OF THIN AIR which is EXTREMELY INFLATIONARY, causing the price of everything from toothpaste to food to gasoline to skyrocket in price (filled your tank up lately, dear reader?).
The host is aghast. That's because she's either stupid, blind, or trying to play nice for the cameras. Marc further explains the seed causing the poor to not only remain poor but expand in number: 50% of all kids are born out of wedlock and many of them to poor women. On top of that the divorce rate is over 50%. Having lots of children and then breaking families apart is financially devastating and its become so pervasive and socially acceptable, even financial gurus such as Marc Faber are taking notice.
The point Marc makes is that this trend is not simply notable. Its a goddamn nightmare - economically, socially, psychologically, realistically.
Another One Gets It.... Sort of
It's wealth, not brains, that makes divorce so poisonous
It is not 'intelligent' couples who prolong separations, as a judge has claimed, but the adverserial family courts
Zoe Williams
Sir Nicholas Wall, England's most senior family court judge, said on Monday that intelligent couples made divorce more painful, and also that "often the mother, who finds herself caring for the children, is able to use her power over them to deny the father contact".
It's a little bit rich, this, since it fails to take into account the practical reality that the person who is caring for the children probably doesn't have as much money as the person who is working, so ends up using different leverage. Sure, it's not brilliant parenting to take your children as hostages in a sour squabble, but there's economics underneath that, not a predisposition of gender.
The more contentious idea is this: "As a rule of thumb my experience is that the more intelligent the parent, the more intractable the dispute". I suspect a conflation, here, of "intelligent" and "loaded": a couple determined to chase a court settlement for their divorce might be quoted between £15,000 and £20,000 by a cheap solicitor, £30,000 to £50,000 by an expensive one. But that is a straightforward divorce: a strikingly "intractable" dispute would run to six or eight or even 10 applications to court over a number of years, and then you would be talking about £100,000, or even more.
Even to be able to put your hands on the lowest estimate, "middle-class" wouldn't quite do it; you'd also have to be wealthy. Liz Edwards, vice-chair of Resolution (a collection of family lawyers who also train and accredit mediators), counters that divorcing couples do borrow from their parents, remortgage and even sell their houses to fight these cases: "I have had clients with all sorts of levels of wealth." But to fight one of these protracted, bitter contests, you would have to be brimming with cash.
And that's probably a good thing, even if unintentional (one supposes it wasn't with the aim of deterring litigants that the court process became so eye-poppingly expensive). The family courts are an incredibly bad tool for the job of divorcing, and should only be used as an extreme: making it extremely expensive is not a bad way of enforcing that. The intractable super-rich would demonstrate more intelligence if they realised that their strung-out divorces were really no different to anybody else's, and all that was distinguishing them was a lack of financial restraint.
Nevertheless, as Ruth Cain, lecturer in law at the University of Kent points out: "Sir Wall says, explicitly, that separating is a failure of parenting. So he's making a tacit point that the middle classes shouldn't split up in the first place. It's unrealistic, it stigmatises divorcing couples, single parents, and mothers." And that's fine – judges being, since the dawn of due process, known for the occasional eruption of conservative opinion. But what is not fine is the fact that a lot of this obstinacy, so damaging to families and so scarring to the lives of children, is not so much signified by the fact that the couple has ended up in court as created by the court process. It's adversarial, which we all accept, and I imagine might be quite intellectually thrilling if you're a corporate behemoth arguing property law against your peer.
If this were simple rancour, you could be forgiven for throwing up your hands and simply saying they're all mad – any couple who can't negotiate and ends up in court is mad by definition. But the process is more subtle, as Edwards explains: "When you're together you accept that certain things are happening, and you can counterbalance them, and you make them work in the best way you can. When you're apart, you really go for it. By the time you've said it three times, and a lawyer's reacted, and a Cafcass officer has reacted, and a judge has reacted, you really think there's an enormous danger to your child."
Many family lawyers recognise this, of course: Resolution's stated belief is that any case that ends up in court is a failure, not just of the parents, but also of their respective solicitors.
They run courses to avert acrimony that they hope, in the long term, will become as routinely sought as an antenatal class.
For that message – keep out of court – to really come across, it might be even more helpful for a senior judge to say it. Judges love to fix on one or other class, one or other gender, and blame them for their failure to take responsibility. They should take responsibility themselves, by issuing less of this stern chiding, more in the way of public warning: courts will ruin you, they will take your divisions, expose them, magnify them and ignite them. You will most likely never claw your way back to a civilised relationship afterwards. And it's not even a conspiracy to make money (although they do, also, make money). It's the way they were designed.
It is not 'intelligent' couples who prolong separations, as a judge has claimed, but the adverserial family courts
Zoe Williams
Sir Nicholas Wall, England's most senior family court judge, said on Monday that intelligent couples made divorce more painful, and also that "often the mother, who finds herself caring for the children, is able to use her power over them to deny the father contact".
I think what the judge was getting at was that shrewd, sly and nefarious people and their lawyers jockey for the slightest advantage make the divorce process more like a world war. As part of the process of scheming, mothers manipulate and use the children or else deny the father contact. This is disgusting from top to bottom and I've seen and heard of it more times than I can count.
It's a little bit rich, this, since it fails to take into account the practical reality that the person who is caring for the children probably doesn't have as much money as the person who is working, so ends up using different leverage. Sure, it's not brilliant parenting to take your children as hostages in a sour squabble, but there's economics underneath that, not a predisposition of gender.
What? Since the person caring for the kids doesn't have "as much money" its ok for them to USE INNOCENT CHILDREN FOR THEIR OWN ENDS? How is that defensible? Not "brilliant parenting?!?!?!" Children who fail to make critical bonds with their father at a young age suffer PERMANENT LIFELONG DAMAGE. This is a PSYCHOLOGICAL FACT. Look it up. But according to Ms. Williams, that's ok. Those of you thinking Mom always does right by the kids? TAKE NOTE.
The more contentious idea is this: "As a rule of thumb my experience is that the more intelligent the parent, the more intractable the dispute". I suspect a conflation, here, of "intelligent" and "loaded": a couple determined to chase a court settlement for their divorce might be quoted between £15,000 and £20,000 by a cheap solicitor, £30,000 to £50,000 by an expensive one. But that is a straightforward divorce: a strikingly "intractable" dispute would run to six or eight or even 10 applications to court over a number of years, and then you would be talking about £100,000, or even more.
Intelligent people are more apt to make a wise choice? No. The wily and the shrewd are, and will spend as much as they can to GET as much as they can. Also if they are emotionally distraught, they will spend themselves into bankruptcy. Men get practically nothing as a matter of fact (lose all your money for 2 visits a week? Please.) so they spend like crazy just to try to get something like JOINT custody. Get that? Bankrupt yourself just to see your kids often enough to be reminded they are your kids if you have a penis between your legs. Plus many mothers quite literally get dad all but shut out and take his money too. False accusations of violence, manipulating the children to refuse to see him, moving away: all easy and common to do.
Even to be able to put your hands on the lowest estimate, "middle-class" wouldn't quite do it; you'd also have to be wealthy. Liz Edwards, vice-chair of Resolution (a collection of family lawyers who also train and accredit mediators), counters that divorcing couples do borrow from their parents, remortgage and even sell their houses to fight these cases: "I have had clients with all sorts of levels of wealth." But to fight one of these protracted, bitter contests, you would have to be brimming with cash.
Mom is holding the cards to begin with. Why? Its legally presumed she'll get the kids. So all dad has left for his side is to draw out the battle and make mom poor, not that she'll be poor for long after taking 40-50% of his salary for the next many, many years. My ex and I fought for years - there is a 3-6 month lead time between court dates. Meanwhile? My son had no dad in critical developmental stages of my life - written verbatim on the report submitted to the court by a social worker of THIRTY YEARS EXPERIENCE.
And that's probably a good thing, even if unintentional (one supposes it wasn't with the aim of deterring litigants that the court process became so eye-poppingly expensive). The family courts are an incredibly bad tool for the job of divorcing, and should only be used as an extreme: making it extremely expensive is not a bad way of enforcing that. The intractable super-rich would demonstrate more intelligence if they realised that their strung-out divorces were really no different to anybody else's, and all that was distinguishing them was a lack of financial restraint.
You are fighting for your children, madame. How is making it necessarily a life-crushing financial event a "good thing?" It doesn't act as a deterrent. As you just pointed out above, people mortgage the house and sell off their assets for this fight. You're a man - your ex offers you one or two monthly visits and demands your house and half your income. This will end your ability to ever have another family. So you'll what, agree and end the matter because its too expensive to fight? You've never fought in family court madame. It shows.
Nevertheless, as Ruth Cain, lecturer in law at the University of Kent points out: "Sir Wall says, explicitly, that separating is a failure of parenting. So he's making a tacit point that the middle classes shouldn't split up in the first place. It's unrealistic, it stigmatises divorcing couples, single parents, and mothers." And that's fine – judges being, since the dawn of due process, known for the occasional eruption of conservative opinion. But what is not fine is the fact that a lot of this obstinacy, so damaging to families and so scarring to the lives of children, is not so much signified by the fact that the couple has ended up in court as created by the court process. It's adversarial, which we all accept, and I imagine might be quite intellectually thrilling if you're a corporate behemoth arguing property law against your peer.
"Middle classes shouldn't split up in the first place." That's a conservative opinion? Isn't it simply common sense? Don't get married to eventually split up? Don't ruin the lives of innocent children with divorce? No? Too "conservative" of me? Yes, the court process is INTENTIONALLY adversarial. It should be changed. The problem is going to court is by its VERY NATURE adversarial. These two parties, mom and dad, disagree and probably hate each other. That's not going to end well. The best solution. STAY MARRIED AND STAY THE FUCK OUT OF COURT. But there I go being 'conservative' again.In the context of a divorcing couple, however, it simply involves listing negative things about the other person in the hope of scoring more points with your assassination than they score in their assassination of you. Such a performance could almost have been designed to extinguish the possibility of agreement. It is not uncommon at all for parties to make huge, poisonous claims against each other which turn out to be unfounded. Cain says briskly: "The men always claim that the women are insane, the women always claim that the men are abusers."
I'll be biased, because I am. Most men aren't savage animals that beat their own wives. Beating a man you have a conflict with is rarely done, but we are to believe men savagely attack their WIFE? The most macho men I know of wouldn't dream of raising a hand in anger at their wife, who is their kind and adorable darling. Have some men struck a woman? Sure. The woman, unless very submissive, typically call the police or go to the hospital to get treatment and therefore have physical evidence of abuse - but there is almost never an offer of physical evidence in family court. Why? Because there is none. Its a ruse.
As for women being crazy, not all are, of course, but look. The super-thin image of women plastered on magazines and billboards, the hyper-sexualized image of women, starting at ever younger ages, the concept of permanent youth shoved in women's faces, the competition for men and jobs, the obsession with surgically enhanced celebrities.... all of this creates TREMENDOUS anxiety in women. TREMENDOUS anxiety. Women are VERY sensitive creatures. Its simply how they are made. Next thing you know, one night her husband is too tired to have sex and she thinks he doesn't find her to be attractive anymore. Since she has no self-esteem, irrational and emotion-fueled fits of rage and argument soon ensue - to her husband's confusion and bewilderment - and unless her problems are discovered and checked, its not two weeks before she's talking to a divorce lawyer. Byron said "Women are a reflection of all that is wrong with society." Greedy, lecherous, lusty Western society is pretty fucked up. Due to their sensitivity women are the primary victims of this. Ever look into the statistics on how many girls and women are on ANTI-DEPRESSANTS?
YES, madame. These men's wives ARE crazy.
If this were simple rancour, you could be forgiven for throwing up your hands and simply saying they're all mad – any couple who can't negotiate and ends up in court is mad by definition. But the process is more subtle, as Edwards explains: "When you're together you accept that certain things are happening, and you can counterbalance them, and you make them work in the best way you can. When you're apart, you really go for it. By the time you've said it three times, and a lawyer's reacted, and a Cafcass officer has reacted, and a judge has reacted, you really think there's an enormous danger to your child."
Many family lawyers recognise this, of course: Resolution's stated belief is that any case that ends up in court is a failure, not just of the parents, but also of their respective solicitors.
What a joke. Ever sit across from person who tells you the best they can do is to offer you your own child twice a MONTH unless you offer to pay another $500 a month in "child" support, bringing the total to $1400, or HALF your monthly income!?!?!? And you're telling me that if I refuse and we wind up in court its a failure of the lawyers? Her lawyer maybe. But if mine agrees to that, I'm firing him/her. This is the way family courts do business because the law is so slanted towards the mother, they have no incentive to capitulate or offer anything at all. In fact the biggest complaint the "women's" movement has of the current system is that father's make it expensive by threatening to appeal their custody cases. How terrible. Appeal. Men appeal because they get screwed over to begin with, and the ones that threaten appeal are grasping at whatever they can because THEIR lawyer AND hers are both telling him you're pretty much fucked from every angle so agree to just get a little raped before the judge believes some of her lies and you get nothing. Men have no legal right to their children after divorce - that's a fact. But if a man fails to pay child support OR health insurance for the child FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, they can be JAILED, that is, DEPRIVED of their FREEDOM, something the founding fathers of the nation only wanted to happen when a CRIMINAL ACT has been proven beyond a "shadow of a doubt." So if a man is laid off and misses his $1,400/month OR MORE child support payment, he goes to jail and the child support accrues with interest while he's in there (true)?
No offense but that's the gender war equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Imagine doing that to women? This is beyond just unfair laws. This is war.
They run courses to avert acrimony that they hope, in the long term, will become as routinely sought as an antenatal class.
For that message – keep out of court – to really come across, it might be even more helpful for a senior judge to say it. Judges love to fix on one or other class, one or other gender, and blame them for their failure to take responsibility. They should take responsibility themselves, by issuing less of this stern chiding, more in the way of public warning: courts will ruin you, they will take your divisions, expose them, magnify them and ignite them. You will most likely never claw your way back to a civilised relationship afterwards. And it's not even a conspiracy to make money (although they do, also, make money). It's the way they were designed.
What? A "public warning." Wow, that'll work. Courts ALREADY RUIN YOU and give horrible divisions. AND MANY PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY MEN, NEVER CLAW THEIR WAY BACK TO A CIVILIZED RELATIONSHIP AFTERWARD. I had a friend who had a rather civilized divorce, compared to others; the girl is such a nervous, untrusting wreck her current relationships average about 2 weeks. Mine have gone much longer but also always fail... Making family court horrible has already happened. Advertise it more? Sure, go ahead. But I doubt that'll make people less crazy. There was something making family court really distasteful years ago - social stigma, mainly given by religion, and the fact that you would get NOTHING from family court if you were the one that petitioned for the divorce and if you were injured and got something, it wouldn't be much - and you would both pay lawyers tons of money. This created REAL disincentive to get divorced.
LET'S BRING THAT BACK.
People go to court to GET something from it. And they do! Men pay a fortune to get visitation with their kids (if their ex doesn't hit them with a false claim of domestic violence that is believed), and the women get the house, kids, and half his retirement and income.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS NOW.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Update? How About Abolish and Start Over
Why does it take a whole article to announce what is observable fact? Men ARE FOR FUCKING SALE. Marry one or dupe him into marrying you, it doesn't matter how he gets there. Hell you don't even have to marry one, just procreate with one, after that YOU OWN HIM. Leave him (or he leaves you, it doesn't matter) and you take him to the cleaners. ESPECIALLY in England, which has divorce rates so high and divorce laws so punitive towards men one judge remarked snidely that London has become "the divorce capital of the world." Marriage is nearly a joke in England. In fact in one study that discovered high rates of women cheating, when the women were asked why they were cheating remarked "Women on the t.v. show Sex and The City do it, so I thought, why not?" There's something to be proud of. With the nuclear family in disarray or even disintegrated, the kids fall into disarray and society itself isn't far behind.
This Ms. Deech is a little off in places, but for the most part she hits the nail square on the head using little more than some facts, common sense, and a little reasoning. Of course she's a small beacon of light in a nation that watches hordes of women graduate college and earn substantial salaries then declare them helpless victims in divorce. I call it American Femi-nazi syndrome. How else would you characterize people thinking and behaving in ways opposed to observable fact?
It's time to update our divorce laws
Ruth Deech
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 15 September 2009
Women are still treated as financially dependent on men by laws that haven't been overhauled since 1857. It's unfair all round.
Imagine three sisters. One is very pretty and marries a top footballer; they have no children and it is a short marriage before she leaves him for an international celebrity. The second sister marries a clergyman and has several children; the marriage ends after 30 years as he is moving into retirement. The third sister never marries; she stays at home and nurses first their mother, who has a disability, and then their father, who has Alzheimer's, and dies without making a will. Which of the three sisters will get the windfall, an amount sufficient to keep her in luxury for the rest of her days, when her relationship with a man comes to an end? And which one most needs and deserves financial support, even of the bare minimum?
The divorce courts are still trying to put women in the position they would have been in had the marriage not ended. The message is that getting married to a well-off man is an alternative career to one in the workforce. If you are married to a clergyman with a tied house and little income, you will get next to nothing, and of course not even the continued occupation of the vicarage. If your parents do not make a will in your favour, and you are over the age of majority, you might be able to make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975, but to be eligible the claimant has to have been economically dependant on the deceased, and in the case of the carer daughter, it was more probably the other way round.
The law is of course gender neutral on the face of it. Men too can expect to continue in the style of living to which they have been accustomed if they have the good fortune to divorce a wife who is wealthier than they are.
Guy Ritchie reportedly received about £50m from Madonna, the largest ever settlement made for a man. He was worth about £30m and she £300m at the time. Here are some other examples of how maintenance is allocated on divorce. Of course they are all well-off families, for the poor have nothing to allocate. Beverley Charman was awarded £48m after a 28-year marriage during which she pursued no outside employment, a sum legally notable because it went far beyond what had once been the yardstick, namely the spouse's reasonable requirements.
Mr and Mrs Miller married in 2000 and divorced after 3 years, with no children. He was then 40 and she 35, and he left her for another woman. She earned £85K a year and had no assets; he had £17m or so and a huge salary. The award to her of £5m was upheld all the way on appeal. Mr and Mrs McFarlane had three children after a marriage that lasted 16 years. She gave up her career as a solicitor to be a mother. The court of appeal awarded her half the matrimonial assets and £250,000 a year for five years. Her appeal against the time limitation of five years was successful. In the case of White v White, the legal costs of the couple were £500K to gain assets of £1.5m when both their appeals were dismissed by the House of Lords. So a clear first point to notice is that the costs of disputes may amount to as much as the assets. This is because of the lack of certainty. So the procedure is bad and the theory and effects that underlie the awards even worse.
Maintenance law has not been thoroughly overhauled since 1857. It has been left behind by social developments. Most women, even with children, now work or are expected to work; they claim equal pay and opportunities in employment; there is contraception to enable a family to be planned, and more women are entering higher education and the professions than men.
It is contradictory if family law assumes that a woman can and should stay at home and care for their children and be compensated for that on divorce, while society calls for women to take 50% of top jobs.
Just under half the workforce is female, and 70% of married women work, even mothers, although the work rate of single mothers is lower; 40% of marriages break down; more women will become widows or single and have to keep themselves; 50% of divorces are of marriages that lasted nine years or less. But the concept of female dependency on the male continues to permeate maintenance laws.
More than that, maintenance laws cushion and legitimise the attitudes of employers who discriminate against women, because they are aware of the "meal ticket for life" mentality.
The strongest argument in favour of maintenance is that the divorced wife will have raised children and her career has been undermined by marriage. Given that most women work, this is a matter of choice; childcare does not take up the whole of a long marriage; and the wealthier the spouses the less likely that there was much to do by way of housework.
The notion of "compensation" recently put forward by judges as a basis for awards is unrealistic. It is covering up for the fact that our divorce rate is high because in part the law has made it easy, and we are punishing men and trying to limit the welfare liability of the state by making them pay over assets and pension funds. Perceptions of what might happen to their funds on divorce may affect men's willingness to commit (and women's, if they have means). This adds to the high cost to society of marital breakdown overall. Regardless of the theories, some certainty about the way to split assets may be more important than total fairness, especially when considering how difficult negotiations may impact on the children's wellbeing.
One could actually categorise divorce cases into four. Short marriages with no children; couples on welfare; middle-income couples with a house and not much more; and the wealthy.
For the poor and unemployed there can only be a token order, a reminder to the father that he has children for whom he is responsible, and that the order could be revisited if circumstances change. For the slightly better off, there is reallocation of the house and there may be repayments of legal aid to be made. Then there is one law for the rich and one for the poor, because the wealthy wife gets a lump sum and has no need to pursue, as the poorer may have to, the enforcement of periodical payments.
It is no wonder that England is the divorce capital of Europe and out of step with other European countries. The notion that a wife should get half of the joint assets of a couple after even a short childless marriage has crept up on us without any parliamentary legislation to this effect – the judges have developed the law in a paternalistic and unprincipled fashion that has departed widely from parliamentary intentions.
Europeans have entirely different attitudes and laws from ours. Most European nations could offer an attractive model for reform in this country. What is needed is an end to discretion and the recognition of autonomy in contracts, with the aim of reducing costs and promoting negotiation in a better spirit. Matrimonial and non-matrimonial property would have to be defined. Premarital assets should be excluded, especially when the parties are older or have been previously married, and so should legacies and gifts. Subject to the existence of an agreement made by the couple to the contrary, the postmarital matrimonial assets could be divided equally, but in the case of a short marriage, say three years or less, there should be no division at all, but the parties should go back to the position they were in before they married. If there are children and the home is too small for sensible division, then it should as now be retained for the occupation of the carer, with eventual sale and division when the children reach 18.
What of the future of maintenance? Certainly it should cease to be payable if the wife cohabits with another man. Should it be awarded at all? If we had a divorce system based on misconduct, then it would be easy to find a rationale pinned to guilt and innocence, but that is unlikely to be the case ever again. My extreme view, which will never hold sway, is that no maintenance should be payable unless the claimant spouse is unable to work or has the care of young children. The primary aim of maintenance should be rehabilitative; it should be permanent only for older women and the incapacitated who are not cared for by the state. That is the price of easy divorce granted on a theoretical ground of irretrievable breakdown without fault. The government has shirked responsibility for re-examining the law; no Royal Commission, no parliamentary debate. It is time to call for reform, not by judges struggling to cope, but by our legislators.
This is an edited extract of Ruth Deech's Gresham College lecture.
This Ms. Deech is a little off in places, but for the most part she hits the nail square on the head using little more than some facts, common sense, and a little reasoning. Of course she's a small beacon of light in a nation that watches hordes of women graduate college and earn substantial salaries then declare them helpless victims in divorce. I call it American Femi-nazi syndrome. How else would you characterize people thinking and behaving in ways opposed to observable fact?
It's time to update our divorce laws
Ruth Deech
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 15 September 2009
Women are still treated as financially dependent on men by laws that haven't been overhauled since 1857. It's unfair all round.
Imagine three sisters. One is very pretty and marries a top footballer; they have no children and it is a short marriage before she leaves him for an international celebrity. The second sister marries a clergyman and has several children; the marriage ends after 30 years as he is moving into retirement. The third sister never marries; she stays at home and nurses first their mother, who has a disability, and then their father, who has Alzheimer's, and dies without making a will. Which of the three sisters will get the windfall, an amount sufficient to keep her in luxury for the rest of her days, when her relationship with a man comes to an end? And which one most needs and deserves financial support, even of the bare minimum?
The divorce courts are still trying to put women in the position they would have been in had the marriage not ended. The message is that getting married to a well-off man is an alternative career to one in the workforce. If you are married to a clergyman with a tied house and little income, you will get next to nothing, and of course not even the continued occupation of the vicarage. If your parents do not make a will in your favour, and you are over the age of majority, you might be able to make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975, but to be eligible the claimant has to have been economically dependant on the deceased, and in the case of the carer daughter, it was more probably the other way round.
The law is of course gender neutral on the face of it. Men too can expect to continue in the style of living to which they have been accustomed if they have the good fortune to divorce a wife who is wealthier than they are.
You hear that guys? Become gold diggers. Its divorce your wife and blow her out before she does the same to you. Ahhh, amoré.
Guy Ritchie reportedly received about £50m from Madonna, the largest ever settlement made for a man. He was worth about £30m and she £300m at the time. Here are some other examples of how maintenance is allocated on divorce. Of course they are all well-off families, for the poor have nothing to allocate. Beverley Charman was awarded £48m after a 28-year marriage during which she pursued no outside employment, a sum legally notable because it went far beyond what had once been the yardstick, namely the spouse's reasonable requirements.
I love how celebs are always brought up when it comes to divorce. Who gives a flying fig what those people do? They have enough money to act like selfish children and so they will. Many want to use their money to court a sexy mate they could otherwise not get. Fine. But the rest of the world has to live in reality. We have bills and only so much income. The poor honestly can't afford to get divorced. Period. If the husband makes most of the couple's money (and being poor, that's very little), then he can't live on his own and pay his ex. So divorce is basically impossible and the poor should be all but banned from divorce. Poor children with poor education and no father are basically the gang members of tomorrow - society simply can't bear it. The middle class is easy - the person who wants out gets nothing and if you're not married, don't bother even showing up to ask for maintenance for a baby out of wedlock. Children out of wedlock and the slack attitude towards LIFELONG marriage is making courtship and mating a farce.
Mr and Mrs Miller married in 2000 and divorced after 3 years, with no children. He was then 40 and she 35, and he left her for another woman. She earned £85K a year and had no assets; he had £17m or so and a huge salary. The award to her of £5m was upheld all the way on appeal. Mr and Mrs McFarlane had three children after a marriage that lasted 16 years. She gave up her career as a solicitor to be a mother. The court of appeal awarded her half the matrimonial assets and £250,000 a year for five years. Her appeal against the time limitation of five years was successful. In the case of White v White, the legal costs of the couple were £500K to gain assets of £1.5m when both their appeals were dismissed by the House of Lords. So a clear first point to notice is that the costs of disputes may amount to as much as the assets. This is because of the lack of certainty. So the procedure is bad and the theory and effects that underlie the awards even worse.
Maintenance law has not been thoroughly overhauled since 1857. It has been left behind by social developments. Most women, even with children, now work or are expected to work; they claim equal pay and opportunities in employment; there is contraception to enable a family to be planned, and more women are entering higher education and the professions than men.
You mean, men and women are equal with equal opportunities? Imagine that. About 20 years after the fact its suddenly relevant. Go figure.
It is contradictory if family law assumes that a woman can and should stay at home and care for their children and be compensated for that on divorce, while society calls for women to take 50% of top jobs.
Society doesn't call for anything. Women work because they want to. My mom worked and did very well and that was in the mid-1980s. Now? How are we even talking about this? My boss's boss is a woman and her boss is a woman and I work for a software company for Chrissake. WOMEN = MEN so far as work goes. Open your bloody eyes. I've got story after story from Massachusetts family court of high-earning women quitting their jobs before going to court and attempting to look like poor, humble, sweet Ms. "He-Screwed-Me-over." Their husbands are then financially destroyed. This is a disgusting ploy. Man, or woman, if you have at least a college education, then it should be assumed you can support yourself and half of your kids needs. PERIOD. If she wanted to quit her job and be a lifelong mom even though she could've worked and made the same money as dad? She has 3, maybe 4 years from the child's birth out of the workforce that can be assumed to be non or low-earning years, if that. After that, YOU CAN WORK AND EARN THE SAME AS ANY MAN. NO EXCUSES. Hell, most MARRIED moms these days take but half a year off to have kids and then cannot afford NOT to return to work! So in divorce she should not work or work less? Why? Why would you expect to make the same money by working less simply because you are divorced, especially when the divorce may very well have been caused by your own infidelity! Why would divorce IMPROVE one's financial position, man or woman?!?!?!
Just under half the workforce is female, and 70% of married women work, even mothers, although the work rate of single mothers is lower; 40% of marriages break down; more women will become widows or single and have to keep themselves; 50% of divorces are of marriages that lasted nine years or less. But the concept of female dependency on the male continues to permeate maintenance laws.
More than that, maintenance laws cushion and legitimise the attitudes of employers who discriminate against women, because they are aware of the "meal ticket for life" mentality.
Employers don't discriminate against those who work hard. Period. But if a man is divorced and was ruined financially and its generally known that women get rich after divorce, then yeah, I can see a male manager think his divorced female employee is doing quite well so he may think about her differently than he should for promotion. So eliminate that by making men and women equal in divorce. Problem fixed.
The strongest argument in favour of maintenance is that the divorced wife will have raised children and her career has been undermined by marriage. Given that most women work, this is a matter of choice; childcare does not take up the whole of a long marriage; and the wealthier the spouses the less likely that there was much to do by way of housework.
Careful madame. Publish sensible paragraphs like that in the U.S. and N.O.W. will most certainly have you hunted down and shot for fear of inciting reasonable discussion on divorce reform in the ole' US of A. You even used the word 'choice'. Horrible. Women can't choose. They don't even have a brain, which is why all of their great employment and earnings is so easy for the feminazis to ignore or lie about.
The notion of "compensation" recently put forward by judges as a basis for awards is unrealistic. It is covering up for the fact that our divorce rate is high because in part the law has made it easy, and we are punishing men and trying to limit the welfare liability of the state by making them pay over assets and pension funds. Perceptions of what might happen to their funds on divorce may affect men's willingness to commit (and women's, if they have means). This adds to the high cost to society of marital breakdown overall. Regardless of the theories, some certainty about the way to split assets may be more important than total fairness, especially when considering how difficult negotiations may impact on the children's wellbeing.
Let me help you narrow that down: MEN, DON'T MARRY. Your wife can ruin you if she chooses, without cause, through no-fault divorce. You will be financially SLAUGHTERED on the basis of "saving the state the welfare money needed to care for your handicapped, unskilled, illiterate" wife. What's that you say? Your wife outdid you in school? Made more than you before leaving work to have kids and now makes your salary or more since returning to work? Shutup you idiot. That's obviously irrelevant. She's a brainless knave. Now cough up that 2 grand in child support you DEADBEAT!
One could actually categorise divorce cases into four. Short marriages with no children; couples on welfare; middle-income couples with a house and not much more; and the wealthy.
For the poor and unemployed there can only be a token order, a reminder to the father that he has children for whom he is responsible, and that the order could be revisited if circumstances change. For the slightly better off, there is reallocation of the house and there may be repayments of legal aid to be made. Then there is one law for the rich and one for the poor, because the wealthy wife gets a lump sum and has no need to pursue, as the poorer may have to, the enforcement of periodical payments.
Nonesense. This is bureaucratic waste. Let's save EVERYONE money. If she leaves she gets none of his money and vice versa unless one of them can prove they were beaten or repeatedly cheated on or some irreparable harm has been done to the children. Divorce must be discouraged. But if someone was cheated on they are to receive a small portion of the other's income for the purpose of raising the children and half of the assets acquired DURING the marriage ONLY. That means the person who was cheated on GETS THE KIDS. Period. We need disincentives for divorce and disincentives for cheating. This does both. Fuck the ludicrous, bankrupting lawyers and fuck the power-hungry judges trying to make the correct judgement on something as complicated as a RELATIONSHIP with a few 15 minute "hearings" that are mainly full of lies.
It is no wonder that England is the divorce capital of Europe and out of step with other European countries. The notion that a wife should get half of the joint assets of a couple after even a short childless marriage has crept up on us without any parliamentary legislation to this effect – the judges have developed the law in a paternalistic and unprincipled fashion that has departed widely from parliamentary intentions.
She shouldn't get half the assets with a short marriage and lots of kids, nevermind none. Not unless she was cheated on. If she cheated on him, she gets zero and pays him, if necessary, enough to feed and clothe the kids. If she was cheated on, assets are split and she gets a small stipend to help pay for child expenses. You'll find her years later, remarried and middle class but probably not filthy rich. Done. Fair. If she wasn't cheated on, beaten, etc. and wants to leave, she gets nothing and he gets the kids. She can visit often. Done. KIDS STAY WITH THE STABLE PARENT. Those are typically the people WHO DON'T CHEAT, man or woman.
Marriage isn't a joke, its not a rental agreement. ITS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR LIFE. Let's make rules that give marriage a little respect. Marrying for 3 years as if you were Liz Taylor and demanding a fortune upon divorce plus any children and lifetime support? Stop acting like a ridiculous child and grow up. You're not getting what you didn't earn and you're only getting ANYTHING if you were unfairly harmed. So do yourself a favor and stay married. Others do it. What one person can do another can do. So eat those excuses and find a way.
Europeans have entirely different attitudes and laws from ours. Most European nations could offer an attractive model for reform in this country. What is needed is an end to discretion and the recognition of autonomy in contracts, with the aim of reducing costs and promoting negotiation in a better spirit. Matrimonial and non-matrimonial property would have to be defined. Premarital assets should be excluded, especially when the parties are older or have been previously married, and so should legacies and gifts. Subject to the existence of an agreement made by the couple to the contrary, the postmarital matrimonial assets could be divided equally, but in the case of a short marriage, say three years or less, there should be no division at all, but the parties should go back to the position they were in before they married. If there are children and the home is too small for sensible division, then it should as now be retained for the occupation of the carer, with eventual sale and division when the children reach 18.
All correct except for the house. If it really is a no-fault divorce or fault can't be found, sell the house and divide the debt or profit equally. Both walk away and start over. Assets earned BEFORE the marriage ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DIVISION AFTER MARRIAGE. Hell-o. Why do I have a right to what someone else did or earned without me? I DON'T. PERIOD. And vice versa. Gender does not count and should not.
The line "but the parties should go back to the position they were in before they married," is critical here. UNLESS THERE IS CAUSE, that's what should happen at all times when divorce occurs. Child expenses can be split. Otherwise, you're on your own. IN MARRIAGE YOU GET MORE - MORE SEX, MORE MONEY, MORE RESOURCES, MORE LOVE, MORE RESPONSIBILITY, MORE PAIN, MORE CHORES, MORE OBLIGATIONS, ETC. Some of those are good, some just make life harder. WELCOME TO LIFE. Its the same for everyone. Outside of marriage you go back to what every single person has. You see less of your kids, keep more of your own money but have less overall and while you'll have more time and less responsibility, you'll probably feel quite empty.
Our so called divorce "laws" are seldom anything but a means of some class of people trying to have their cake and eat it too, typically by bending some quack statistic to a bunch of lawmakers who are on the take. What is a "law" anyway? Its a rule made up to prevent unfair harm, in essence. But all I've seen of laws are ways to inflict unfair harm and enrich special interests.
What of the future of maintenance? Certainly it should cease to be payable if the wife cohabits with another man. Should it be awarded at all? If we had a divorce system based on misconduct, then it would be easy to find a rationale pinned to guilt and innocence, but that is unlikely to be the case ever again. My extreme view, which will never hold sway, is that no maintenance should be payable unless the claimant spouse is unable to work or has the care of young children. The primary aim of maintenance should be rehabilitative; it should be permanent only for older women and the incapacitated who are not cared for by the state. That is the price of easy divorce granted on a theoretical ground of irretrievable breakdown without fault. The government has shirked responsibility for re-examining the law; no Royal Commission, no parliamentary debate. It is time to call for reform, not by judges struggling to cope, but by our legislators.
Just imagine. Unless the kids are VERY young - that is BABIES OR TODDLERS - get off your ass and work and forget getting rich off your ex. Oh no. Women would have to go to college and then get jobs and skills. ....Wait. THEY ALREADY DO THAT. And today they do it even more than men. And yet they collect from men in divorce? TOTALLY NONSENSICAL.
So my wife and I split up I would give her the bulk of my money (tax-free)...... WHY? If I loafed about on my ass during the relationship and she made all the money, she would have to give me large sums of her income because..... WHY?
I work hard to provide a home for me and my son - its not my choice or fault he doesn't live with me. His mother also provides him a home - she uses some of my income to do so, but could afford it had she not quit her job (her choice). So if I one day become rich (hahaha), is it my duty to give her extra money to "support" my son when she refuses to support him herself to her full ability? Conversely if she makes plenty of money and he lives with me and I've decided to be a freelance writer and make quite little, is it her responsibility to ensure I have enough money to provide him with accommodations consistent with someone's definition of his previous "lifestyle?!?!"
If young women have nice handbags its because they probably worked for the money to buy them. If men have nice clothes or cars, its for the same reason. Does one OWE the other the money for these things that create the term "lifestyle" AFTER they divorce? No. Why would they? You get out of marriage what you do WHILE you are married, not before or after. If you received someone's money despite not being married to them that would mean marriage had a beginning but that divorce did not represent its end. That would separate money from marriage and make someone's money accessible to you because you were ONCE married to them. That demeans marriage. How did we even get to a point where you could take someone's money for YEARS AFTER divorcing them? That doesn't make any sense! It came about when women complained (in 1950 I guess) that men could divorce them and leave them with the kids and no money. But women are as educated as men and make as much as men - so that argument doesn't hold true anymore, so....WTF? Our divorce laws allow the non-working partner to use and destroy the working partner for personal gain through divorce. Most people love to see men suffer, so imagine lesbians or gay men - why would the one who makes less money keep 40% of the income of the other every week, every month, for years after divorce? And the house? And the kids? And their retirement? Marriage-come-divorce has become the gateway to Marxism. Why not just divide every asset earned during the marriage 50/50 and split time with the kids evenly and send each person on their merry way to earn whatever money they can? We earn what we earn and keep it when unmarried. Why does a failed marriage turn one person into another's slave? One person into another's "rich" benefactor, whilst not being rich?
The outrageous sums paid by the family "breadwinner" today amount to a king's ransom, in effect a reward for getting divorced, nay, an INCENTIVE to get divorced. My ex literally has the attitude "Well of course I get a lot of money from him (me). We broke up and I have our son!" As if splitting from a man whose child you had somehow automatically entitles you to large sums of his money for life. This is tantamount to declaring I am the one at fault for the dissolution of our relationship when in fact it was she who demonstrably lied, cheated and stole (yes, all three, in spades. If I had split us up, I'd feel much less wronged). I've heard of the same attitudes from the ex-wives and ex-girlfriends of other men - once enriched with his money by the courts - for leaving him or cheating on him - they seek to rationalize their behavior with the outcome.
The fact that mindset exists is MADNESS. Imagine a man who cheated on his wife saying this: "Well of course my ex-wife makes me rich with her money, I have our son!" As if the child justifies support FOR HIM as well as the child for TENS OF YEARS after divorce. For a grown, college-educated man who works?!?! That's silly and irresponsible. In that case there would be 10 million newspaper columnists demanding blood and justice.
Further, like many men, I wasn't even married to my ex. I wanted to get married, but she cheated before I could ask. Then in divorce court, I was treated the same as if I were married! So what is the point of getting married!?!!?!? The law is supposed to PUNISH bad behavior. Not reward it. And yet it is doing EXACTLY that!
This is an edited extract of Ruth Deech's Gresham College lecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
