Topics

Louisiana Dads
Saturday July 3, 2004
P. O. Box 216 Milton La. 70558
//www.ladads.org
Member ACFC
Children need BOTH Parents
Happy Independence Day!!
 
Topic:  Louisiana Dads, LCF and others to hold a press Conference.
 
Dear Group;
 
         In a House and Senate Conference Committee on the LAST DAY of the session, 3 senators and 3 representatives REMOVED any safe guards that SB 633 had amended to it.  The bill was restored to its original form and rushed through both the house and senate.  This bill is being called for not by DSS, but by Ouachita Parish District Attorney Jerry Jones.
 
         Louisiana Dads, LCF, and other organizations are holding a press conference on Tuesday July 5, 2004 at 10:00 am in front of the Governor's Mansion in Baton Rouge.  This will be to announce to the media our displeasure with SB 633 and request Gov. Blanco to VETO it!!  We are requesting that ALL members show up Tuesday morning in front of the Governors Mansion and just stand behind us in support.  Signs to veto SB 633 would be great!!
 
        I know it is the first day of work back for a lot of you, but you MUST get there to help STOP this bill!!!  Gov. Blanco MUST VETO SB 633 or our unemployed, disabled, and returning National Guardsmen will be arrested by greedy District Attorneys.  Ouachita Parish YOU have to most to fear!  Jerry Jones is pushing this bill so you WILL be targeted.  If he can't run his office with the funds he has that is not our children's fault.  If some rich person is out there shirking their responsibility to their children then fine, lock them up, but it should not be a crime to be unemployed or in the National Guard!! This is simply a money grab by them to get YOUR money and matching federal funds.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT!!  How do we know this?  An effort to make the fines in the bill go towards payment of support was KILLED in the legislature.  This is about getting the DA offices money at the EXPENSE of your children.  There are better ways to do this.
 
       IF by chance you can not make it.  We want to FLOOD the capitol switchboard with as many phones calls and emails as we can.  Mothers, Grandmothers, Aunts and Uncles must also call.  The more women who call the better.  Here are the numbers.
 
Office of the Governor.
 
The fax number to the gov's office is 225-342-7099.
 
To send and email.  http://www.gov.state.la.us/govemail.asp
 

      If Gov Blanco allows this to become law, the DA's will lock up hundreds of people who, through no fault of their own, can't pay their full amount of support.  Fines will be HUGE, and in the end, collections will not go up that much.  What is needed is a realistic assessment of support obligations, the money to be accounted for and spent ONLY on the children, and for BOTH parents to be a part of their children's lives on as equal a basis as possible.  ONLY THEN will we stop this epidemic of divorce and rescue our children.
 
Thanks and God Bless;
 
Derek

[Associate Justice Judith A. Cowin wrote that the informal agreement between the two women to have a child together did not constitute an enforceable contract, and B.L. can't be forced to pay child support.]

Only MEN pay child support, and this proves it. How can ANYONE look at this and not scream "UNFAIR!!"?

What about all the men who've had "informal agreements" to have a child with a woman? How come they have to pay support? Oh, that's right- it's because they're MEN.

BOSTON -- A woman who agreed to have a child with her lesbian partner, but split up with the mother before the baby's birth, cannot be forced to pay child support, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.

The split ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court -- which legalized gay marriage in a landmark ruling last year -- comes in the case of a Hampshire County lesbian couple, identified in court documents as "T.F." and "B.L.," who lived together from 1996 to 2000.

B.L. at first resisted T.F.'s wishes to have a child, but later changed her mind.

The couple broke up after T.F. got pregnant by artificial insemination. After the baby was born, T.F. sued her former partner for child support. A Probate and Family Court judge turned to the state Appeals Court, which in turned passed the case the case up to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Associate Justice Judith A. Cowin wrote that the informal agreement between the two women to have a child together did not constitute an enforceable contract, and B.L. can't be forced to pay child support.

Three justices -- including Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts -- disagreed with the majority conclusion, saying that the implied contract between the woman is enforceable.

"The child may have been abandoned by the defendant, but he should not be abandoned by the court," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the dissent.

Copyright © 2004, The Associated

[Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said Kathleen Crumpton, who worked for the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration from 1998 until last year, used her authority to redirect and steal child support checks. Crumpton, 38, is charged with two felonies.]

Ten accused in theft of $91,000 in child support money

04/17/2004

Associated Press


The Marion County prosecutor filed dozens of felony charges against a former state employee and nine others accused of taking part in the theft of more than $91,000 in child support money.

Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said Kathleen Crumpton, who worked for the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration from 1998 until last year, used her authority to redirect and steal child support checks. Crumpton, 38, is charged with two felonies.

"She diverted money that was intended to help support children in single-parent homes," Brizzi said. "Who knows what these children had to go without?"

From September 2002 to March 2003, Crumpton had about 25 child support payments mailed to her mother's home and other addresses, and she then falsely endorsed and cashed them, according to the charges filed Friday in Marion Superior Court.

Crumpton could not be reached for comment. A phone number assigned to an Indianapolis resident with her name is unlisted.

Prosecutors also charged Crumpton's 19-year-old son and a bank teller who allegedly processed the checks. Seven others also were charged.

The 10 suspects were expected to surrender to authorities, prosecutors said. The charges include conspiracy, forgery and theft.

The Family and Social Services Administration, according to court records, was tipped to the scheme in February 2003 by a liquor store owner who became suspicious when he was asked to cash one of the stolen checks. The FSSA began its own investigation and closely monitored Crumpton's activities for about a month, spokeswoman Cindy Collier said.

Crumpton resigned during the FSSA investigation. Prosecutors were presented with the evidence in September, Collier said.

"We have been very anxious to see this come to fruition," she said. "That money belongs to children, and that's who should get it."

The FSSA processes about $430 million a year in child support.

The agency has tightened policies and procedures since Crumpton's resignation last year, Collier said. The theft "was an important learning experience," the spokeswoman said.

Information from: The Indianapolis Star

http://www.whas11.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D820O9282.html

The Follies of Child Support: Dead-Beat or Dead-Broke?

March 11, 2004
by Carey Roberts

Persons who are looking for an example of how good intentions can turn into a nightmare should consider the case of Alexander Shire. When Alexander was 14, he was plied with liquor and raped by Laura Evelyn, then 21 years of age. Evelyn became pregnant and bore a child. That was back in 1984.

When the child support commissars in Michigan recently found out about the case, they demanded that Shire pay child support.

You may wonder how this can be, since the offspring is now full-grown and no longer in need of "child" support. But draconian child support laws make no provision for that. Shire would be required to pay for all back payments, plus interest.

How could this banana-republic justice happen here in America?

Back in 1974, the Congress established the [a href=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/index.html" target="xx]Office of Child Support Enforcement[/a]. For years, few knew of this petty bureaucracy.

All that changed on May 4, 1992, when Newsweek magazine depicted on its cover an affluent white man. He was framed with a Wanted poster bearing the caption, "Deadbeat Dads: Wanted for Failure to Pay Child Support." Almost overnight, Deadbeat Dads became Public Enemy No. 1.

But the Newsweek picture was wrong. Instead of a well-heeled businessman, it should have shown a guy wearing a faded T-shirt. Color him disheveled. Call him "dead-broke."

In his acclaimed book, Divorced Dads, researcher Sanford Braver concludes that "unemployment is the single most important factor relating to nonpayment." And according to a study of non-paying dads released by the Urban Institute last year, "only 1% have recent net incomes in excess of $50,000."

So much for the two-timing executive driving off in his red convertible with trophy girlfriend in hand.

Teresa Kaiser, former director of the Maryland child support office, freely admitted to her audiences that support formulas are set way too high for low-income dads. So the child support "crisis" is actually an artifact of unrealistic payment guidelines.

But seduced by the stereotype of the dad willfully neglecting his kids and tantalized by the prospect of reducing ballooning welfare budgets, the child support zealots moved ahead.

First came wage garnishment in 1977. In 1980, child support agencies were granted access to IRS wage information. [a href=http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/2003appendix7.pdf" target="ll]Paternity identification programs[/a] geared up in 1988.

But the early returns were not encouraging. In 1989, moms were getting $2,252 – only $37 more than they had received in 1983.

So the Clinton administration shifted the campaign into high gear. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act established two vast databases that made almost every American a potential suspect for non-payment of child support: the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case Registry.

Clinton-era bureaucrats dreamed up other programs that, in retrospect, were simply irrational. Driving licenses were revoked – just try earning a living wage if you can't operate a car or truck.

And debtor's prison was re-instituted. As you read this article, 15,000 destitute dads are spending time behind bars. Is that where they're supposed to get training for the jobs of the future?

Last October the Census Bureau issued its [a href=http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf" target="mm]report[/a], Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2001. The report reveals that from 1994 to 2002, the percentage of mothers who received child support actually dropped, from 76.1% to 74.7%.

Thirty years and many billions of taxpayer dollars later, we must face the truth: We have unfairly marginalized millions of poor dads from their families, while betraying the hope and trust of struggling moms. In the process we have infringed on the rights and privacy of average law-abiding Americans.

In short, the American child support system has been a depressing failure.

The case of [a href=http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11004783&BRD=988&PAG=461&dept_id=141265&rfi=6" target="nn]Alexander Shire[/a] was finalized last month in the Michigan Court of Appeals. State prosecutor Carl Marlinga successfully argued, "At stake here is not the mother profiting from criminal wrongdoing; what's at stake here is the child, who is entitled to an appropriately supported upbringing regardless of how he was conceived."

That statement, notably short on compassion and reason, is the totalitarian mindset at work. And that's what the $4 billion-a-year child support dragnet is doing to us.

Carey Roberts


http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts031104.htm (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts031104.htm)

Senate: Divorced parents can't be made to pay for college


By ANNE SAUNDERS
The Associated Press
Published: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2004

CONCORD - The state Senate voted Wednesday to bar judges from ordering divorced parents to pay their children's college expenses.

The 20-2 vote sent the bill to Gov. Craig Benson for signature. The House had approved it last year.

Judges cannot ordered married couples to pay for college tuition, and it would be unfair to apply a different standard to those who are divorced, said Sen. Frank Sapareto, R-Derry.

"If a college education is to become public policy, it should be for all parents, not just divorced parents," added Sen. Robert Clegg, R-Hudson.

Lawmakers wanted to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling extending a divorced father's child support for his daughter while she attended college.

Clegg said parents can make divorce agreements that cover college expenses even though judges can't. Judges can approve the agreements and enforce them.

Other states allow judges to order a divorced parent to pay college expenses for their children. Studies show the children are less likely to go to college.

The Senate also approved a bill that would seal financial records in divorce proceedings. The Senate said the information can be released if someone can convince a judge the public interest is served.

Supporters of restricting access argue affidavits provide information that could be exploited by stalkers or identity thieves.

But those who want divorce records to remain open say the public can't evaluate the fairness of property divisions and child support orders if they can't see the facts underlying those decisions.

Clegg said the added exception protects the public interest but establishes "a high standard to protect the privacy of divorcing parties."

The bill goes back to the House.

The Senate also approved and sent back to the House a bill that would make it easier to change a child custody arrangement if the court is convinced the existing arrangement is detrimental to the child. The current rule allows for a change only if there is a "strong possibility the child will be harmed" without it.


http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040108/NEWS02/201080428

Florida Judge Withholds Child Support Payments
He couldn't take it

January 4, 2004
by Tom Kovach

I've tried to avoid whining in this column, but today it's my turn.
In a recent news item, it was revealed that a judge in Florida had stopped making his court-ordered child-support payments for a year.  He didn't go back to the original court and ask to stop paying.  He simply stopped.  Of course, he claimed to have a good reason for withholding the payments.  You see, his ex-wife had been arrested a second time for DUI.  He sees nothing wrong with his actions.  And, in a way, neither do I.

But, what if that was me, or any other (read closely) "Beat-Dead" father?

Ironically, Circuit Judge Bob Wattles justified his withholding the payments because, "By my calculations, I'm ahead. I paid more than I should have when I stopped."  He based that statement on the fact — undisputed, by the way — that he had been voluntarily paying about $300 more per month than the court had required.  But, I will pose the questions that any judge in a Family Court would ask a regular father under the same circumstances.  Don't you think your child will need to eat sometime before he turns 18?!  What did he expect his son to do, store up blubber like a whale?

The irony continues, though.  The judge's required child support was only $358 per month.  On a judge's salary?!  My support payment, for only one child, is $123.50 per week!  And, my "real" job only pays $8.50 per hour, and I usually don't get 40 hours in a week.  (Thus, I have more time for my real love, writing, even though it doesn't pay.)  From years of experience in the Fathers' Rights movement, I know that there are plenty more fathers voluntarily over-paying their fair share than there are fathers (especially judges) getting away with under-paying.  Although I admire Judge Wattles for paying more than the minimum, I simultaneously deplore the fact that another judge let him get by with paying so little in the first place.

Perhaps the judge really meant well.  (And, deep down, my gut tells me that he did.)  Perhaps he recognized that he was enabling his ex-wife's drinking habit by giving her all that money.  Perhaps it was his way of protesting and punishing her behavior, and also protecting their son.  Fine.  Bravo.  Good for you, judge.  You have the right idea.  But, what about all the other fathers across this country (and others) that have been forced to enable whatever bad habits their ex-wives might acquire?  And, what about all the other fathers that have technically violated a court order for trying to do the right thing?

For example, when our divorce became final, my ex-wife had gone through three attorneys.  She finally went pro se.  Then, she started messing around with my access to our daughter.  I applied for custody, and I sued her for alienation of affections.  Then, she got one of her attorneys back.  Then, he started billing her.  Up until that point, we had a great system of child support.  I paid her regularly with Postal Money Orders.  I kept records as best I could.  But, when the lawyer started billing my ex-wife, she suddenly went to the Family Court and demanded that I be put on "The System".  And, by her attorney's skillful calculations, I became a "deadbeat" from day one.  (And, of course, my custody and civil suits were dismissed.)  

Of course, common sense tells anyone — except Family Court judges — that she is spending my child support money on her attorney.  And, some of his legal fees were tacked onto my "support" obligation.  And, when my ex-wife refused to let our daughter see me one Fathers' Day, I stopped paying.  Then, the attorney petitioned the court to have me jailed for contempt.  But, does anyone care?

During that same time, my ex-wife has systematically denied me access to our daughter, alienated her against me, married a guy who lived with his parents until he was 38 years old, and moved our daughter into a run-down rural house.  (My ex's own word for it was "dumpy".)  She has also — by her own admission, in court papers — racked up more than $24,000 in multiple credit-card debts.  We only had one credit card when we were married, and I cut it up when it got out of hand at only $2,000.  Can the court see which one is the responsible parent?  (Well, in the eyes of a Family Court judge, the responsible parent is the one that's paying a lawyer!)

It galls me that I'm paying "lawyer support", and helping prepare for an attorney's children to go to college at the expense of my own.  It galls me that the State of New York refuses to recognize Parental Alienation Syndrome as a valid cause of action.  It galls me that the NY Family Court refuses to enforce Section 241 of the Domestic Relations Law.  (That section says that, if the custodial parent denies access to the child, then the non-custodial parent may stop paying support — after a successful court petition, of course.)  

It galls me that "any reasonable person" can see that the real reason that a total of six Family Court judges have kept my daughter away from me is because I helped to write legislation that reduces their terms from ten years to four.  It galls me that my situation — which seems painful to those with "normal" lives — is nothing compared to millions of other fathers that have it far worse, and that "The System" will not lift a finger to help them.  But, it galls me much more to think that Judge Wattles will probably get away with stopping his support payments (although he was apparently doing the right thing), while other judges would lock up any regular father for using that same method to try to protect their children.

I have to wonder how many fathers Judge Wattles may have locked up previously for not paying support.  Apparently, Judge Wattles thinks that the court system is unfair.  Perhaps the judge thinks it's all just too confusing.  Or, perhaps the judge can't afford a lawyer — after that whopping support deduction.  Or, perhaps the judge doesn't think that one should have to ask a court's permission to do the right thing and protect one's child.  Or, perhaps the judge doesn't think he can afford to take that much time off from work.  (Do any of these concerns sound familiar, gentlemen?)  No matter what the reason, a sitting judge bypassed the judicial system. Apparently, he just couldn't take it.

Justice isn't blind; it's willfully stupid.

Tom Kovach
http://www.geocities.com/tf_kovach/mailform.html


(From: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/k/kovach/2004/kovach010404.htm)

[The Internal Revenue Service has (once again) changed its interpretation of the law regarding the "special support test for divorced and separated parents."]

January, 2004
PLEASE NOTE:  

The Internal Revenue Service has (once again) changed its interpretation of the law regarding the "special support test for divorced and separated parents."

The "Tax Tip for Never Married Dads (http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/irs.htm)" that previously appeared at this website, explaining the circumstances in which a never-married non-custodial parent of a child born out-of-wedlock could claim the child dependency exemption, should be disregarded.

For the past several years, it was the official Internal Revenue Service (IRS) position that the entitlement to claim the tax exemption for a child of never-married parents was not controlled by the "special support test" (commonly known as the "custody rule") but rather by the "regular support test" (taxpayer must have provided more than 50% of the dependent's total support).  

That has now (once again) changed.  Effective with the 2003 tax year, IRS now says the "custody rule" DOES apply to never-married parents. The change of IRS position is apparently the result of the decision of the US Tax Court in the case of King and Lopez v. Commissioner, 121 TC #12 (9/26/2003) (http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ki7ng2..TC.WPD.pdf), which gave a revised interpretation to Internal Revenue Code § 152(e)(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/152.html), the law creating the "special support test" for divorced and separated parents.

So, for tax years 2003 and thereafter ............  

The "Tax Tip for Never Married Dads" that previously appeared at this website, explaining the circumstances in which a never-married non-custodial parent of a child born out-of-wedlock could claim the child dependency exemption, should be disregarded.

In view of the US Tax Court decision in the King/Lopez case and in view of the recent change of the IRS position, a non-custodial never-married parent should NOT claim the child as a dependent (regardless of how much support was paid) UNLESS the non-custodial parent's tax return is accompanied by a completed IRS Form 8332 signed by the custodial parent.

LAWRENCE D. GORIN
Law Offices of L.D. Gorin
521 S.W. Clay St., Suite 205
Portland, Oregon 97201
Phone: 503-224-8884 (afternoons, Pacific time)
Fax: 503-226-1321
E-mail: [email protected]
 

Child Support Propaganda Haunts Michigan Papers

January 2, 2004
by Roger F. Gay


Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has been in office for one year. He promised to make child support collection his top priority. Just as knowledgeable observers would expect, the promise was followed by a year of lying and corruption. Three recent articles in Michigan newspapers illustrate why he, and others like him, get away with it.

On December 18, 2003 the Detroit Free Press carried an article by staff writer Dawson Bell entitled ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE COX: ONE YEAR IN OFFICE: Honing political skill, hunting deadbeats. "Deadbeats" is a familiar reference to people who have not paid all the child support that has been ordered.

Anyone looking for an unbiased analysis would be in the wrong place. You only need look at the last paragraph, which reads: "But one thing we do know. He's easily the best Republican attorney general Michigan's had since Frank Millard."

Mr. Bell gives readers false hope with a section entitled; "Varied reviews," which then begins by saying "Virtually all observers agree there's not much downside for Cox on child support." That may be true, unless of course you happen to pay attention to the swollen throngs who see nothing but a downside to Cox on child support.

Mike Cox runs a private organization called PayKids that takes corporate donations from companies interested in child support collections. He has simultaneously been using his influence as Attorney General to lobby the state legislature to set up a system that would provide private child support collection agencies with lucrative state contracts.

On December 29th, The Macomb Daily published an article by Gitte Laasby, Capital News Service entitled; Cox zeros in on $7 billion in unpaid child support. The title copies misleading promotional information from the Cox website.

"Deadbeat dad" propaganda has been the subject of scientific investigation and the source of plenty of work by fathers' rights advocates. Although never supported by an ounce of honest evidence, proved and reproved false again and again, such bizarre claims are still common political fodder for dishonest politicians and their supporters.

One paragraph typifies the old-fashioned approach applied to Macomb County. "Deadbeat parents in Macomb County," the article claims, leaning heavily on the name-calling ethic, "owe about $17.3 million in estimated arrears at any given time, and Michigan is third-worst of all states for uncollected child support. Statewide, parents owe about $7 billion in back child support to 650,000 Michigan children and to the state."

By population, Michigan is the 8th largest state in the country; but adjusting for that, and reasonably for its claimed status as especially bad, one might expect at least $200 billion in past due child support owed nationwide. That's more than five times the total annual child support owed in the United States, including the amount "owed" (so to speak) by the 80-90 percent of fathers who pay regularly. The GAO has reported Office of Child Support Enforcement estimates that the total accumulated unpaid child support since the federal government first became involved in 1975 is less than $100 billion, and several analysts who have focused on child support (including me) believe that number is too high.

Claiming 650,000 children are owed child support in Michigan would imply around 25 million in the United States. With currently around 7 million (male and famale) custodial parents due child support nationwide (including those who receive regular payments), that would be around 3.5 per custodial parent; but if considering only those not receiving child support, the number might be somewhere closer to 25-30 children per custodial parent.

Obviously something is wrong with the statistics and something wrong with writers who repeat such dribble and newspapers that print it.

The article goes on to build up Mike Cox's image with an attack on noncustodial parents. Cox's press officer Mike Doyle complains that the public's misperception of the problem is partially to blame. "People kind of see deadbeat parents not as criminals, but people who are doing something unethical in not paying for their kids' support," he said.

'Another problem is that collecting support "wasn't a terribly high priority" to county prosecutors and the former attorney general,' parrots the article before a quote from the press officer drops entirely off the reality truck.

"For too long, these deadbeats have been able to avoid paying child support without too much fear of any kind of pursuit by law enforcement. The attorney general is trying to establish a credible threat that they will be prosecuted for a felony if they don't pay," according to Mr. Doyle.

It's one thing to claim such programs are "for the children" but entirely another to shape the promotional campaign for an audience under 5 years old. You can't expect people much older than that to be unaware of the huge and extremely expensive government program aimed at the so-called "deadbeat dads" that started more than a quarter century ago; the continuous threats, and overzealous enforcement efforts.

It might seem possible that too few people understand, because so few "news" outlets let on, that the program has not had any effect on compliance. That's because fathers (85 percent of the statistically understood noncustodial parent population are fathers) were paying well before the program began. The primary cause of non-payment is that a significant portion of parents who owe child support cannot pay as much as they have been ordered to pay for various reasons. One of them is that some of the so-called "deadbeats" are actually dead.

People get behind in every sort of payment, house payments, car payments; whatever payments there are, people get behind even when they don't want to. It's only when it's child support that corrupt public officials get away with treating it as a crime. What's worse is that the enforcement program shut down the legal mechanisms for obtaining proper adjustments to the amount owed when appropriate. The amounts owed as child support are extremely random, typically unrelated to children's needs and the parents' ability to provide. But that's just the circumstance that results in the appearance of need for enforcement, as the past-due amounts continue to rise.

Some payers encounter problems and later make up for it, or at least start paying again. Cox attributes every payment of a past-due amount to his personal efforts, a claim that could never stand up to scrutiny. Writer Gitte Laasby regurgitates without question: "With $1.4 million in overdue support payments collected so far, the attorney general has surpassed the $1 million mark he was shooting for by the end of this year."

It's not particularly interesting to know that some people are behind, but paying. That's happened every year for as long as there have been child support agreements and orders. All people like Cox need to know in order to meet or beat their own projections is what the statistical average is. It's likely that more than $1 million in past-due support would have been paid without Mike Cox or any special child support enforcement program at all for that matter. That's just part of the way things work out in real life.

On the same day that the Capital News Service article ran, The Macomb Daily also published an article entitled Macomb officials skeptical of child support crackdown by Chad Selweski, one of its own staff writers. At first the article seems to finally present a challenge to Cox's propaganda machine; but it stops short of the serious truth.

The article isn't so much about criticisms of Mr. Cox's involvement in child support as it is about his defense, repeating the same bizarre statistical misinformation as the Capital News Service article.

'Sheriff Mark Hackel sees the situation differently,' Mr. Selweski tells readers. 'He calls Cox's program a "duplication of effort" with no clear strategy. The state would reap more benefits, he said, if it helped fund enforcement programs in Macomb and other major counties.'

That's right. It turns out that local officials want the state's Attorney General to turn over more of the funding to them. Not a word from any real skeptics, who according to Michigan's newspapers don't exist.

Roger F. Gay

["I really don't care about the money,"]

Father To Pay 15 Years In Back Child Support

Dec 23, 2003 6:58 pm US/Eastern
http://kyw.com/Local%20News/local_story_357194747.html

HARRISBURG (AP) A narrowly divided state Supreme Court has ruled that a man who began paying child support after a paternity test in 2000 revealed he was the father of a teenage girl must pay support going back to 1988, an amount that his lawyer estimates could exceed $85,000.

"It's going to change my whole life, because the expense (was) not factored into my retirement," said 56-year-old Snyder County welder Robert W. Ely, who lost a 4-3 decision last week that left him owing 12 years of back support for Tenaya Beth Christianson.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, blamed the delay on foot-dragging by Ely and a lack of follow-through on the part of Tenaya's mother, Donna K. Christianson.

"It appears that (she) did not pursue what she filed very vigorously, and when she did move forward, Ely resisted and dragged it out," Newman wrote.

Child support begins to accrue at the time legal action is initiated, which in this case was 1988. Retroactive support is common, in part because it can take a month or more to get the matter before a judge.

But Ely's lawyer, Brian L. Kerstetter, said the succession of three support complaints - in 1988, 1997 and 1999 - and the fact that Tenaya is now 18 years old, makes the case "extremely uncommon."

Newman's opinion called it "a good example of the time-consuming nature of the litigation process, and the reason why (court rules) and the courts prefer retroactivity in support matters."

In dissent, Justice J. Michael Eakin said the back support should begin in 1999, when the most recent complaint was filed.

"The majority's result is concurrently unfair to (Ely) and unavailing to the child. Had (he) been the cause of this delay, I would afford him no sympathy or relief," Eakin wrote. "However, he is not."

He described Donna Christianson as a "litigationally lethargic appellee" whose "dilatory conduct and indifference left this child without support through the formative years, but she is rewarded with support sums that will continue after the child has left her home."

Christianson, 57, who lives outside Beavertown and, along with Tenaya, works as a clerk in a natural-food and garden store near Lewisburg, said she struggled to raise three children alone and did not always have the resources to follow up on the support case.

Christianson's first job as a single mother was cleaning houses for $3 an hour. At the time of her brief affair with Ely, she was married to another man, with whom she had two other children.

"For me to be constantly going in to heckle somebody who has a lot of money and just wants to be relieved of the responsibility financially -- no, the children came first, their care, their needs," she said Tuesday.

She pursued the case for so long out of her belief that single parents are entitled to support, she said.

"After a point, it's not your case any more. It's other women and children, or other parents," Christianson said.

Michael McCormick, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group American Coalition for Fathers and Children, said the decision was "grossly unfair" and could be a major financial hardship for Ely, who has been laid off.

"It flies in the face of any kind of equity for this biological father," McCormick said.

Christianson's lawyer, Brian W. Ulmer, said the county domestic relations office will probably be responsible for calculating the precise amount Ely owes. He was paying $563 a month beginning in October 2000 until September, when Tenaya moved out on her own.

Ely said he is considering asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

Tenaya, who has had no relationship with Ely, said her mother did the right thing.

"I really don't care about the money," she said. "It's more or less that it went through and he didn't quite get his way, I'll say. That makes me a little bit happy, that we at least won."

(She "doesn't care about the money"? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.......)

Teenager's support raised to $8,000

Father appeals $220,000 lump sum, files to stay retroactive support due on Jan. 15
 
Maurice Bridge  
Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
 
 
VANCOUVER - A 14-year-old Vancouver girl and her mother have been awarded monthly child support of $8,000 and a lump-sum payment of more than $220,000 following a drawn-out fight in B.C. Supreme Court.

The payment was ordered by Justice Donna Martinson, who determined that the father's monthly child-support payments, which total $5,212 a month, have been too low for several years, given his current million-dollar annual income and his ex-wife's lower standard of living.

The $8,000 is believed to be one of the highest monthly child-support payments in B.C. The judge, however, spared the father from paying the full amount allowed by the Canadian child-support guidelines, which would be more than $11,700 a month for a person of his income.

In the decision handed down Dec. 15, the judge ordered the increased support payments to cover, among other things, a country-club membership and holidays abroad for the child and her mother.

The girl is already attending "an expensive private school," according to the judgment, and living on a monthly household budget of more than $10,000, which covers herself, a stepsister, her mother and her mother's husband.

But it could be awhile before mother and daughter see any of the lump sum payment. The father has appealed that payment to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Because filing an appeal does not automatically put the lump-sum payment on hold, the father has also filed a stay application on the retroactive support payment due on Jan. 15.

The appeal does not address the amount of the monthly child support. Neither the father nor his Vancouver lawyer, Bob Brajovic, would comment on the case.

Following standard practice, the court does not reveal names or other identifying details of the parties. However, the judgment makes it clear the father lives in the United States, where the parents married, lived and were ultimately divorced.

The case, which took 12 days to hear between March and September, involves complicated interpretations of how a seven-year-old U.S. divorce settlement applies in this province.

The 1996 U.S. child-support order directed the father, who then earned about $200,000 Cdn a year, to pay $3,900 Cdn a month in support, which he has done since then. Additional expenses such as school fees and orthodontics bring the total to more than $5,000 a month.

Since then, the father's income has risen, and in 1999 it reached a high of more than $1.7 million US. At the time, he was a partner with a large international firm, whose nature is not specified in the court document.

He is now a salaried employee of the firm, with no opportunity for profit-sharing, and his annual income is $1,003,505 Cdn.

The court document reflects a bitter dispute, even though in a previous B.C. Supreme Court action concerning access, "the court specifically found that the mother and father are loving, caring and capable parents."

The latest judgment notes that during the access fight, the father successfully applied to have the mother found in contempt of access orders on two occasions.

The two remain substantially at odds in their views of the current situation. The father told the court:

"I believe the amount of child support should reflect what [the child's] needs are to live a comfortable life that is consistent with (a) how we lived before the divorce, (b) how I live now with my wife and my other two children.

"It has been six-and-a-half years since the divorce and [the child] has a well-established lifestyle, which is very similar to the way I live. My current child support payments, even by [the mother's] own budget, exceed [the child's] needs as established over the last more than six years.

"More importantly, this is a matter of the values with which I want [the child] to be raised.  This is the same for how I want my other two children to be raised. I do not want [the child] to grow up with an inappropriate sense of entitlement."

The mother maintains her child does not live as well as her former husband's other two children from his subsequent marriage.

"[The child's] lifestyle should be similar to that of his children. They have a full-time maid available to them, they live in a house that is worth over $1,000,000, and these children want for nothing.

"[The child] resides with me in a house in [British Columbia] that is substantially encumbered and is approximately a one-hour drive to and from her school.  His children go on vacations to such places as [countries named] and on the Disney cruise; they have that advantage of a full-time mother and a housekeeper.

"Their family stays at the best hotels. In contrast, our only form of vacation is camping as a family because it is the cheapest way to spend a vacation; I must work outside the home to help make ends meet and we have no housekeeper.

"The respondent and his family go to professional sports games [baseball and basketball] and to the concert. [The child] does not attend any of these activities here."

The court found the mother's new husband makes about $82,000 a year, while her annual income here has never exceeded $7,000. However, she holds a master's of business administration degree, and the court found she is under-employed, so it imputed an annual income of $30,000 to her for the purposes of calculating support.

The court rejected a request from the father that trust conditions be imposed on any payment, saying there is "no indication whatsoever that the mother has inappropriately spent money on this child."

In 2002, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a decision ordering a West Vancouver doctor who was earning more than $1 million a year to pay monthly child support of $12,360 to his ex-wife for his two teenage children.

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/story.asp?id=A5EC9A7A-141F-4952-9697-D61A4C19D345

ACLU says alleged ''deadbeat dads'' jailed without due process

    EAGLEVILLE, Pa. (AP) - Ninety men serving time in a county prison for failing to pay child support were denied their due process rights, the American Civil Liberties Union contends.

    Thirty of the men were released from the Montgomery County Correctional Facility on Wednesday, officials said. The other 60 inmates were being interviewed by county officials and others, and they could be freed within days, said the county's president judge, S. Gerald Corso.

    Pennsylvania ACLU staff lawyer Malia Brink said that county courts throughout the state often jail such men, often referred to as deadbeat dads, for civil contempt without adequate notice or enough time for them to get lawyers.

    Typically, the men meet with domestic relations officials, are declared in arrears, and are quickly brought before a judge. The judge usually finds them in contempt of a court order to pay and jails them for about six months.

    Corso has ordered a review of court procedures for all those incarcerated for failing to pay support. Among the changes already implemented: Contempt hearings will be scheduled two weeks after enforcement conferences, and defendants will be advised throughout the process of their right to an attorney.

    ''The ACLU thinks everyone facing prison should have counsel,'' Corso said. ''We do not disagree with that.''

    Amid similar criticism from ACLU attorneys last year in western Pennsylvania, Westmoreland County judges agreed to provide court-appointed attorneys in child support cases and Lawrence County judges freed 37 inmates jailed for nonsupport.

    ''The ACLU hopes that the president judges of counties throughout Pennsylvania will respond to the ACLU's request with the same dispatch and sense of justice that Montgomery County showed,'' Brink said in a prepared statement. ''But we're realistic and realize that we may have to file suit against one or more counties who refuse the request.''

    Of the 90 child-support inmates, those on work-release were freed after agreeing to have the money they owe deducted from their wages. A second group was told they could leave the prison if they got jobs and agreed to return next month for hearings.

    The third group, which Corso called ''chronic offenders who have had three bench warrants issued against them in the last few years'' for failure to appear, will go before judges to see how their cases should proceed.

http://www.sungazette.com/wire/pawirestory.asp?articleID=2116&postdate=12/12/2003

Child support burdened by the new system
Rush to meet deadline leads to mass confusion

By Adam Emerson
Lansing State Journal

A $459 million computer system meant to make life easier for families paying and receiving child support is so riddled with problems it could be years before it works effectively, child-support leaders say.

In some cases, parents who pay support are getting notices that they're not.

Money isn't reaching the families who need it.

And an already big bureaucracy inside county court offices has grown statewide, making answers hard to find, families say.

Even state leaders concede Michigan's Child Support Enforcement System was rushed to completion. But they were facing $147 million in federal fines that would have jumped by $60 million if they didn't get all 83 counties on the same system by Sept. 30.

It's that race that created a high-maintenance system with problems that will take months to fix, officials say.

"It's hard to see any discernible progress," said Jeff Albaugh, president of Michigan's Friend of the Court Association.

"Clients will see some improvements at mid- to late next year. But it'll take three to five years before we see huge, material, obvious results."

Marilyn Stephen, director of the state Office of Child Support, acknowledges the problems the state is scrambling to correct - and will spend millions more in the next three years to do so.

The system processes $30 million in child-support payments weekly, but in a number of cases it fails to process them correctly.

Every two weeks, Bruce Chandler of Munith pays toward his $4,000 child-support arrearage. The state processes the money and then, because of a computer glitch, sends it back to him. So the Ingham County Friend of the Court, seeing the money didn't reach its destination, warned him he was behind in his obligation.

Chandler said when he contacted his caseworker to complain, "She knew when I called that I was just the next one in line."

At a time when local officials are stepping up child-support enforcement, the new system is leading Chandler and thousands like him to ask questions. Here are some of the answers.

Why the need for a statewide enforcement system? What is happening in other states?

The 1996 federal welfare-reform law, noting that child support was processed in a splintered way by local governments, required each state to create a central office to process support by 1999. Nearly all of the states, facing multi-million-dollar penalties if they missed the deadline, rushed to finish their plans.

Most experienced problems like Michigan's. Thousands of checks were delayed in Nevada. North Carolina made $5 million in emergency payments to frustrated families. In Ohio, among the latest to make the switch, critics say the system has delayed checks, sent the wrong amounts or sent money to the wrong people.

Stephen, a former Jackson County prosecutor who joined the Office of Child Support last year, said Michigan was faced with an "impossible task."

"The nearest a state that I know has completed a system was in five years," Stephen said. "It was done in Michigan in 2 1/2 years."

Critics of the rushed implementation point out that the deadline had loomed since 1996.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees states' child-support enforcement, certified Michigan's system last month. It was one of the last states to comply. With that certification, Michigan will get back $35 million of the $68 million in fines it's already paid.

Now the state must show the federal government the system works effectively every year, or it could face penalties, such as a reduction in federal funding.

What is this system supposed to do? What are the problems?

The system is meant to streamline child-support payments and enforcement under a state umbrella. County Friends of the Court had been the traditional overseers of the operation.

With $7 billion in child-support owed in Michigan, the state promised the system would automate actions against parents who don't pay. It would be easier to issue bench warrants, seize taxes and yank licenses from deadbeats.

But what resulted when Ingham, Eaton and Clinton counties switched to the system in June was frustration for many.

For instance, the system misread about 3,000 of 21,000 addresses in Ingham County, delaying checks and court notices. Elsewhere, tax returns seized from deadbeats were sent back to them.

Of the 800,000 child-support cases in the state, 250,000 clients call the state hot-line each week, Stephen said. Some just want to inquire about payments. But more than 15,000 clients call the Friends of the Court.

Counties can do little to help them, Friends of the Court say. After the computer conversion in Ing-ham, calls to caseworkers tripled at the same time their ability to resolve problems and release money ended.

"Every time there's a problem, I have to beg someone at the state to make a change," said Donald Reisig, Ingham County's Friend of the Court.

When will people start to see the system's benefits?

Stephen predicts that Friends of the Court and families will see more benefits in a year.

But Albaugh, the state's Friend of the Court Association president and Calhoun County Friend of the Court, isn't convinced.

He said while problems are fixed monthly, new ones continually surface.

Karen Murton, 40, of DeWitt Township only recently received two checks the state cashed on Oct. 14 and Oct. 22. Her ex-husband has been sending $250 checks to the Lansing disbursement unit every week. But they weren't reaching Murton and her two children, ages 9 and 7, who had been receiving support under the previous county system.

Murton finally got the checks - money she relies on monthly - after Clinton County Friend of Court pushed the state to act.

"People receiving support are having their telephones shut off, their electricity shut off," she said. "These are single parents - male and female. This has caused a lot of problems."

One of the worst problems, court workers say, involves those who are paying off an arrearage, as ordered by a judge.

After the state switch over, the computer didn't recognize the payment arrangements parents had made with county judges. It saw only arrearages. Some people were threatened with having their driver's licenses revoked or their debt reported to a credit bureau.

Stephen said it could be months before that problem is corrected.

When will the problems be fixed? And whose job is it to fix these problems?

Fixes have been made monthly for some problems - such as the garbled addresses. But after this week, no more will be made until May.

That's because the state has hired Bermuda-based Accenture to fix and maintain the system installed by another vendor.

Denver-based Policy Studies Inc., which state leaders say performed an "impossible task" in installing and launching the system by Sept. 30, lost the bid to maintain its own software.

Accenture has to learn the system before it can begin repairing and upgrading it. So only "emergency fixes" will be made before May, said James Fricke, the state's director of the system.

The move to Accenture is not a knock against Policy Studies Inc., Stephen said. The state wanted to go with a "better value" and Accenture will better perform long-term enhancements to the software, she said.

Controversy swirled in 2000 when the state canceled its bidding process on the statewide computer system and issued a no-bid, multimillion-dollar contract to Policy Studies. The firm was uniquely qualified to complete the task on a tight deadline, state leaders said.

Policy Studies proposed building a statewide system by adapting one used in Wayne County, and it had developed a precursor to the current system.

Policy Studies' contract with Michigan ends Dec. 31. This time, the state wanted "a level playing field" in bidding out the project, Stephen said.

How much will this cost taxpayers?

Accenture secured a three-year, $44 million contract for basic maintenance to the system. Enhancements to the system will cost the state an additional $7 million to $10 million each year for the next three years.

Local officials question hiring Accenture to maintain a system it didn't put in place.

"What you need on a system like this is stability," said Barbara Hamm, head of the family division of the Ing-ham County Prosecutor's Office, which establishes the initial child-support order. "It's got to be reliable. Right now, it isn't.

"It's affecting people.

"It shouldn't be this difficult."

Contact staff writer John Schneider for matters related to child-suppport enforcement.

He can be reached at 377-1175 or [email protected].

http://www.lsj.com/news/local/031207_childsupport_1a-6adtxt.html

Talking to Your Children About Terrorism
by dr. robin f. goodman

     Kids ask lots of tough questions, but questions about acts of terrorism or war are some of the hardest to answer. When the news media provides immediate and graphic details, parents wonder if they should protect their children from the grim reality, explore the topic or share their personal beliefs.

     Adults also must reconcile the dilemma of advocating nonviolence while explaining terrorism and why nations maintain armies and engage in war.
     Contrary to parents' fears, talking about violent acts will not increase a child's fear. Having children keep scared feelings to themselves is more damaging than discussion.

     As with other topics, consider the age and level of understanding of the child when entering into a discussion. Even children as young as 4 know about violent acts, but all children may not know how to talk about their concerns. It often is necessary for parents to initiate the dialogue themselves. Asking children what they have heard or think is a good way to start.

     Adults should look for opportunities as they arise, for example when watching the news together. You also can look for occasions to bring up the topic of when relevant related topics arise. For example, when people in a television show are arguing. Discussion about larger issues such as tolerance, difference and nonviolent problem solving also can be stimulated by news. Learning about a foreign culture or region also dispels myths and, more accurately, points out similarities and differences.

     Far off violent events can stimulate a discussion of non-violent problem solving for problems closer to home. For instance, helping children negotiate how to share toys or take turns in the baseball lineup demonstrates productive strategies for managing differences. Older children may understand the issues when related to a community arguing over a proposed shopping mall. Effective ways of working out these more personal situations can assist in explaining and examining the remote violent situations.

     Adults also should respect a child's wish not to talk about particular issues until ready. Attending to nonverbal reactions, such as facial expression or posture, play behavior, verbal tone or content of a child's expression offer important clues to a child's reactions and unspoken need to talk.

     Answering questions and addressing fears does not necessarily happen all at once in one sit down session or one history lesson plan. New issues may arise or become apparent over time and thus discussion about war should be done on an ongoing and as-needed basis.

The Depressed Child: Knowing the Signs is Crucial
by jim strawn

     Do you remember growing up in the 50s, 60s or 70s? Looking back it is hard to believe that we have that we had it so good as children.
     As children, we would ride in the back of a pickup truck on a warm summer day. We drank water from a garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors.
     We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us on a cell phone. Unthinkable.
     We got cut and broke bones and broke teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
     They were accidents. Remember them. No one was to blame but us. We ate whatever we wanted but were never overweight, we were always outside playing. We shared one grape Nehi with four friends and no one ever died from this. Life was a bubble.
     Childhood and adolescence used to be a time of carefree adventure and fun-filled times. However, for thousands of children and teens, that is not always the case. Childhood and teenage depression is on the rise, according to the National Mental Health Association.
     As school violence and the threat of terrorism has erupted across the country, we are reminded of the many challenges facing our young people.
     They are dealing with violence, peer pressure, single parent homes, the threat of terror, and other issues that can create fear, disconnectedness, anxiety and despair.
     Suicide is one of the leading causes of death for West Virginians age five to nineteen.
     Not only adults become depressed. Children and teenagers may also have depression, which is a treatable illness. That is the good news. Treatment is available and treatment works. Depression is defined as an illness when the feeling of sadness persists and interferes with a child or adolescent's ability to function.
     About 5 percent of children and adolescents suffer from depression at any given point in time.
     Children under stress, who experience loss, or who have attentional, learning, conduct or anxiety disorders are at a higher risk for depression. Depression also tends to be hereditary.
     The behavior of depressed children and teenagers may differ from the behavior of depressed adults.
     Child and adolescent psychiatrists advise parents to be aware of signs of depression in the youngsters. If one or more of these signs of depression persist, parents should seek professional behavioral health treatment:
     · Frequent sadness.
     · Crying.
     · Hopelessness.
     · Decreased interest in favorite activities.
     · Low energy.
     · Boredom.
     · Poor communication.
     · Low self- esteem.
     · Guilt.
     · Anger.
     · Difficulty with relationships.
     · Poor concentration.
     · Change in eating or sleeping patterns.
     · Talk about running away from home.
     · Suicide ideation.
     A child who used to play often with friends may now spend most of the time alone and without interests. Things that were once fun now bring little joy to the depressed child. Children and teens who are depressed may say they want to be dead or may talk about killing themselves.
     Depressed children and teens are at increased risk for committing suicide. Depressed adolescents may abuse alcohol or other drugs as a way to feel better.
     Children and adolescents who cause trouble at home or at school may actually be depressed but not know it. Because the youngster may not always seem sad, parents and teachers may not realize that troublesome behavior is a sign of depression.
     When asked directly, these children can sometimes state they are unhappy or sad.
     Early diagnosis and medical treatment are essential for depressed children. This is a real illness that requires professional help.
     Comprehensive treatment often includes both individual and family therapy. It may also include the use of antidepressant medication. For help, parents should ask their physician to refer them to a child and adolescent psychiatrist, who can diagnose the treat depression in children and teens.
     Remember, it is not a hopeless battle. And the problem will not go away if ignored. Get the help your child deserves and put that carefree adventure back in their lives.

How will you die? The Death Psychic knows and he'll tell you the exact manner of your untimely demise. Possibly gory, possibly embarrassing, but *always* fun:

http://www.thedeathpsychic.com

Let your death be foretold........

The author of this article contacted us and asked us to remove it:

----------------------------
Please remove.
 
Thank you
Best,
Gina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gina Roberts-Grey
8729 Marinus Drive
Baldwinsville, NY 13027
315-373-9125
-----------------------------

Five Questions you Should Never ask Your Children
by gina roberts-grey

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Maecenas pellentesque convallis nulla. Nulla ligula quam, tincidunt at, condimentum sit amet, consectetuer in, tellus. Suspendisse rhoncus ligula a purus. Duis lacinia nulla in ligula. Aenean egestas posuere metus. Vivamus viverra. Etiam bibendum lacus ut quam. Morbi mi. Nulla ac libero sed lacus mattis eleifend. Praesent sagittis, arcu in molestie dignissim, eros orci ullamcorper nibh, sed lobortis nisi dolor gravida mi. Morbi purus. Curabitur vel metus vitae turpis blandit mollis. Donec ut elit sit amet tellus ullamcorper ultricies. Vestibulum libero. Nullam vel risus. Mauris sodales, felis sed dictum hendrerit, erat pede vehicula nisi, non gravida augue purus in ligula. Duis rhoncus.

Nullam semper luctus pede. Nam lacinia, mi quis lacinia vulputate, velit leo porttitor nisi, eget porta metus sem vitae risus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Vivamus nec tellus in nunc venenatis tristique. Donec vel quam. Donec eget justo in purus tempor nonummy. Fusce dignissim enim. Curabitur sit amet nisl nec justo sodales sodales. Ut lacinia adipiscing mauris. Pellentesque sit amet justo. Maecenas ante. Pellentesque id tortor non magna nonummy pretium. Duis sed velit. Sed sapien. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean convallis. Mauris at ligula et arcu fermentum sodales. Ut facilisis, elit id ornare faucibus, metus ligula semper lectus, sed nonummy nisi mauris ac elit.

Fusce ac mauris non ante fermentum venenatis. Vivamus id ligula in dolor cursus congue. Duis tortor magna, vestibulum vel, ultricies in, elementum eget, nunc. Sed lobortis. Cras vitae tellus ut pede adipiscing ullamcorper. Pellentesque tellus nibh, semper ac, facilisis et, sollicitudin nonummy, mi. Integer a lorem. Nunc eu nisl. Proin odio. Sed tristique blandit felis. Nulla facilisi. Suspendisse ligula nisl, porttitor in, dignissim ut, viverra ut, neque. Vestibulum tincidunt feugiat dolor. Nullam sit amet sem. Sed nec diam. Sed at erat et libero lacinia iaculis. Sed suscipit leo a nisl.

Donec pretium velit ut ligula posuere eleifend. Nam tincidunt rhoncus ligula. Suspendisse potenti. Vivamus imperdiet euismod lacus. Morbi faucibus mauris. Vestibulum a ligula et tortor tempus egestas. Duis nonummy vestibulum est. Praesent dignissim bibendum urna. Nunc feugiat augue ut quam feugiat faucibus. Pellentesque dignissim ipsum non massa. Sed lobortis diam sit amet nibh. Praesent at massa. Nulla in tellus. Donec viverra, lacus in dictum venenatis, urna dolor dictum orci, quis auctor nulla arcu vel leo. Duis sit amet quam et elit laoreet egestas. Suspendisse tempor lobortis nisl.

Aliquam erat volutpat. Curabitur venenatis mauris in ligula. Phasellus lacinia vulputate mi. Fusce sed mauris. Etiam quis purus nec felis dignissim dictum. Cras viverra, magna at pharetra porta, magna tellus convallis tellus, vitae vestibulum pede justo et purus. Praesent suscipit interdum arcu. Sed leo. Mauris volutpat. Donec eget sem et orci placerat rutrum. Fusce eu eros in purus scelerisque molestie. Pellentesque aliquam ipsum ut enim. Maecenas ultrices nunc eget ligula. Donec erat risus, facilisis sed, iaculis eu, blandit sit amet, nisl. Sed ut nunc. Nunc vulputate elit a odio. Integer vulputate augue sed odio varius posuere. Mauris sollicitudin vulputate leo. Integer eu purus at lacus posuere ultrices. Ut imperdiet magna vitae ipsum.

....but worth posting.

GUNS AHOY
>
> From:  Ed Chenel (police officer in Australia)
>
>  Hi Yank, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from
> Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia
> were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
> destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia
> taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.     The first year results
> are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent ; Australia-
> wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ; Australia-wide, armed robberies
> are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone,
> homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the
> law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and
> criminals still possess their guns!)    While figures over the
> previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with
> firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months,
> since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
> There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
> the elderly, while the resident is at home. Australian politicians
> are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such
> monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding
> Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American
> evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly
> disseminating this information.   The Australian experience speaks
> for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and
> property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
>   Take note Americans, before it's too late

[free]

Rumor has it that someone on the senate appropriations committee is going to try and sneak an amendment in to make the broadcast flag (DRM in digital television broadcasts) law this week.

 URGENT: Call your Senator RIGHT NOW or live with the goddamned Broadcast Flag forever!

    We've heard rumors that the Broadcast Flag that Cory, the EFF, and a coalition of pressure groups have fought so hard against (and beat in the courts) will be sneaked back via an amendment to the giant Senate Appropriations Bill in a sub-committee at 2PM EST on Tuesday 21st. This week is Hollywood's last chance to ram the flag past Congress, and they're working hard to get it under the radar.

    There's no time to write letters or start a media campaign: but folk in the states below have just enough time to warn their senators, who are all on the sub-committee. People of Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin - it's up to you!

    There's a sample script after the phone list. Remember: be cool, collected and polite. Most of these senators won't know a thing about the flag, until one of them makes it a throwaway amendment tomorrow. Make sure their ears twitch when they hear "broadcast flag" today.

    ALABAMA Senator Richard Shelby (202) 224-5744
    ALASKA Senator Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
    HAWAII Senator Daniel Inouye (202) 224-3934
    IOWA Senator Tom Harkin (202) 224-3254
    KANSAS Senator Sam Brownback (202) 224-6521
    KENTUCKY Senator Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541
    MARYLAND Senator Barbara Mikulski (202) 224-4654
    MISSOURI Senator Christopher Bond (202) 224-5721
    NEW HAMPSHIRE Senator Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
    NEW MEXICO Senator Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
    NORTH DAKOTA Senator Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
    TEXAS Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (202) 224-5922
    VERMONT Senator Patrick Leahy (202) 224-4242
    WASHINGTON Senator Patty Murray (202) 224-2621
    WISCONSIN Senator Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653

    "Hello, Senator _________'s office"

    "Hi, I'm a constituent. [Remember: Only say 'I'm a constituent' if you really are -- if you're calling the Senator from _your own state_] I'm registering my opposition to the broadcast flag amendment being introduced in the Senate Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, and in full committee on Thursday."

    (*** You can give your own reasons for opposing the flag here. Here's a sample: ***)

    "The Broadcast Flag cripples any device capable of receiving over-the-air digital broadcasts."

    "It give Hollywood movie studios a permanent veto over how members of the American public use our televisions."

    "It forces American innovators to beg the FCC for permission before adding new features to TV."

    "It will prevent fair use of copyrighted works: critical review, and use of material in distance learning"

    "This is an important issue which will affect all Americans, and should not be inserted in a large bill, at the last moment, with no debate."

    "Please oppose the broadcast flag amendment. My name and address are ___________________."

    "Thank you for your time."

    Good luck!


The EFF has an action alert where you can contact your senator on the committee, and tell them to stop the amendment. You can now fax and email appropriation committee members for free at the EFF's action center. Do it tonight, or live with the consequences of a Hollywood veto over your PC forever.

http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=145

Tell Congress to reject the Broadcast Flag

Earlier this month, we completely creamed the motion picture studios over the Broadcast Flag, an effort to criminalize open source and win a veto over the design of electronics and PCs. Now they're floating draft legal language on the Hill that would put the entire technology industry under their thumb, turning their friends at the FCC into device-czars with jurisdiction over any technology that could be used to facilitate "indiscriminate redistribution" of movies over the Internet (monitors, PVRs, analog-to-digital converters, hard drives, etc).

EFF has an action-alert you can use to tell your elected law-maker how you feel about this. Just enter your ZIP code and click submit, or better yet, rewrite our form letter to express your outrage in your own words.

A lawmaker who breaks America's televisions and PCs has no business expecting to be re-elected. In fact, such a Congresscritter would be lucky to get away with a mere tarring and feathering.

Send them a letter with this handy form:
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr003=mwc9gz7k51.app13b&page=UserAction&cmd=display&id=129

The National ID card is a TERRIBLE idea, and I urge you to speak out and act against it while there is still time.

Subject: 48 hrs to D-Day on National ID card


D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

The Senate is expected to vote Monday on the
emergency appropriations bill containing the national
ID card provision.

Once this national ID card is in place it will be
almost impossible to get rid of it again. So now is
the time to act to oppose it.

Messages are flooding into the Senate. Add your voice
of opposition by clicking here:
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=23

SPREADING THE WORD

I have an article about the "Read the Bills Act" on
page 15 of the current issue of LP News, and that
same op-ed is available at FreeMarketNews.com in
their Editorials & Market Analysis section. There's
also a new installment of Harry Browne's e-TV show,
"This Week in Liberty" posted on that site.

SUBMISSION COMMITTEE NEWS

Two more people have joined the Submission Committee
for RTBA: Gregory A. Wolfe and David del Rio. To make
a contribution to join the Submission Committee click
here:
http://www.downsizedc..org/contribute.shtml

I get these every day from Someone.  :)


Quiz: [a href=http://www.quicktrivia.com/quiz.php?data=Q:187&name=Look,%20It    %27s%20Mr%20Death]"Look, It's Mr Death!"[/a]


Fun Pic: [a href=http://www.stupidstuff.org/cm/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=0&pos=-1339]Paranoid Barbie (tm)
[/a]


ROTD:  [a href=http://www.royalrecipes.com/recipe.php?recipeid=2214]Bad Bob's Thai Pork Chops[/a]

Have to say, regardless of her political opinions, she hits a lot of nails on the head in this column.

Ann Coulter
Freeze! I just had my nails done!

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room — who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-à-vis her negative body image.

The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.

Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a casual dinner party.

I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.

Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.

Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.

There are lots of passing references to "studies" of uncertain provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Or maybe it was The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which recently released a study claiming that despite Memogate, "Fahrenheit 911," the Richard Clarke show and the jihad against the Swift Boat Veterans, the press is being soft on Bush.)

The anonymous "studies" about female officers invariably demonstrate that women make excellent cops — even better cops than men! One such study cited an episode of "She's the Sheriff," starring Suzanne Somers.

A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to a "study" — cited by an ACLU attorney — allegedly proving that "female officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with suspects." No, you can't see the study or have the name of the organization that performed it, and why would you ask?

There are roughly 118 million men in this country who would take exception to that notion. I wonder if women officers "de-escalate" by mentioning how much more money their last suspect made.

These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies, collected in volumes called "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics."

The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I'll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., "Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime," Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.

Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)

Donate to JWR


In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers — as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."

In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people — such as that our society encourages girls to play with dolls — there is also the fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.

In a study of public safety officers — not even the general population — female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers — although their outfits were 43 percent more coordinated. (Here's the cite! Frank J. Landy, "Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs," Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)

Another study I've devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of pickles.

There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.

Acknowledging reality wouldn't be all bad for women. For one thing, they won't have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. So that's good. Also, while a sane world would not employ 5-foot-tall grandmothers as law enforcement officers, a sane world would also not give full body-cavity searches to 5-foot-tall grandmothers at airports.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp

Wow, talk about making things up. This lady ought to win a prize.

Colorado Woman Reports Story of Bravery, Death in Iraq, Then Admits It's All a Hoax

The Associated Press
Published: Feb 10, 2005

   
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (AP) - A woman concocted a heartbreaking story of how her soldier husband died a hero in Iraq - and then admitted the story was all a hoax.

"I think I need some serious counseling," 24-year-old Sarah Kenney told The Daily Sentinel newspaper on Wednesday editions. "This is the most serious lie I've ever told, but I've been caught in many lies."

The touching story of how Spc. Jonathan Kenney took a bullet meant for an Iraqi child on Jan. 29 was reported by a score of Colorado media after a news release was sent to them by the nonprofit group Homefront Heroes.

In reality, there is no record of a soldier with that name dying in Iraq. Sarah Kenney is married to a man named Michael Kenney, and he is neither currently in the military nor serving in Iraq.

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger said Tuesday that he had convened a team of investigators to look into the hoax and see if any laws were broken.

Phyllis Derby, founder and president of Homefront Heroes, said Kenney convinced her group the story was true. The account of the fictitious man's death was then released to local media.

"I would have never thought in a billion years that she was lying to me," Derby said. She said the donations on behalf of the fictitious soldier would be returned.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBJHK3W05E.html

["As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.]

What a dick. Sorry, but this guy is my new candidate for "A-Hole Of The Universe".


[a href=http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html]Full Article[/a]

COLORADO PROF CLAIMS 9/11 VICTIMS DESERVED FATE.

Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people

By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
January 27, 2005

A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.

Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.

 They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."

The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

The essay contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.

It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."

The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.

Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay.

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.

"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

A longtime activist with the American Indian Movement, Churchill was one of eight defendants acquitted last week in Denver County Court on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade.

His pending speech at Hamilton has drawn criticism from professors and students, including Matt Coppo, a sophomore whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks.

"His views are completely hurtful to the families of 3,000 people," Coppo said.

A spokesman for Hamilton College released a statement noting that Hamilton is committed to "the free exchange of ideas. We expect that many of those who strongly disagree with Mr. Churchill's comments will attend his talk and make their views known."

Controversial statements

In his essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, CU professor Ward Churchill argues that:

• The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

• Hijackers who crashed jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.

• The people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

[Boys Are Dumb, Wash Their Bum!]

Yes, you read that correctly: "Boys Are Dumb, Wash Their Bum!" is just one of a series of offensive slogans on some merchandise at Fred Meyer, a chain department store in many western states.

The products are lip gels and soaps, targetted at teen- and pre-teen girls. Personally, I think it's offensive in a number of ways- it's offensive to boys and it sends the wrong message to young girls. And wouldn't ya know it- these products are put out by those ignorant a-holes that made the "Boys Are Dumb- Throw Rocks At Them" shirts, the company called  "David & Goliath".

Not surprisingly, there were NO products that make girls the target- no "Girls Are Dumb, Wash Their Bum!" merchandise at all.

So, I spoke with the manager and told him I come to this store almost every week and spend a hell of a lot of money over the course of a year- but that was stopping TODAY. I dropped all my (unbought) stuff right there on the floor and told him I'd never spend another dime in a Fred Meyer store until they removed this offensive, gender-biased garbage. To his credit, he started pulling stuff off the shelves right then and there, but he's just one manager at one store.

We need to get the word out to ALL the Fred Meyer stores that this kind of merchandise is unacceptable.

Below are the product numbers and toll-free telephone number for Fred Meyer. Please give them a call and let them know that you won't shop at a store that discriminates against boys, and that tells young girls that it's COOL to be mean to boys.


Toll-Free Number: 1-888-247-4439

Product numbers:

7-67014-35483
7-67014-34245
7-67014-36845
7-67014-32254
7-67014-34107
7-67014-34105

When you call, be polite, but BE FIRM, and let the customer representative know a few things:

1) You will NOT shop at Fred Meyer while they carry these products, and

2) That you are offended that Fred Meyer would carry this kind of merchandise, and

3) That you find this merchandise to be quite offensive.

 
Thank you. Let's get this junk out of the stores and let them know that targetting boys to be made fun of is a stupid and offensive thing to do.

...Brent

[Katrina Ann Rucker]

Whoops, my mistake- there isn't a man even mentioned in this story. :)  

Teacher Jailed After Brawl With Parent

Fri Oct 22, 4:59 PM ET

MACON, Georgia - A teacher-parent brawl in front of 19 primary school pupils sent a mother to the emergency room and the teacher to jail.

Teacher Katrina Ann Rucker, 30, is charged with battery and cruelty to children for allegedly beating a parent who tried to retrieve her daughter's book bag, The Macon Telegraph newspaper reported Friday.

According to police interviews, parent Lurella Amica went to Bruce-Weir Elementary School Thursday morning to deliver a note to her 9-year-old daughter.

At the classroom door, the girl told her mother that Rucker had thrown her bag in the trash can, the report stated. Amica entered the classroom and tried to get the book bag, but Rucker grabbed for it and the two struggled, the report said.

After Amica wrestled the bag away, police say Rucker picked up a chair and hit her in the back, knocking Amica to the floor. Rucker then began punching Amica in the face and body.

During the fight, the girl was reportedly crying for her teacher to stop hitting her mother and ran up to them. Rucker then allegedly hit the child, pulled her hair and pushed her out of the way before starting to strike the mother again.

Rucker dragged Amica by the hair outside the classroom, according to the report.

"A school administrator and another teacher had to pull the teacher off the mother," Macon police spokeswoman Melanie Hofmann said.

In Rucker's account of the story, she said Amica hit her hand during the initial struggle, Hofmann said.

"The teacher said she was defending herself because she gets a shot in that hand and it hurt," Hofmann said.  (Yeah, now there's an excuse I can buy into for her psychotic rage!... Brent)

Amica was in stable condition in the emergency room of The Medical Center of Central Georgia late Thursday night.

Rucker was placed on administrative leave.

Sylvia McGee, Bibb County's deputy superintendent, said school staff called the parent or guardian of each child in the class. Social workers counseled students, and only Amica's daughter left school early.

Principal Karen Konke sent letters to parents about the incident.

"Let me assure you the school is safe and that our students have been involved in appropriate instructional activities throughout the day," Konke wrote.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=817&e=14&u=/ap/parent_teacher_fight

The admin asked me to post or mention this:

[img src=http://www.royalrecipes.com/images/small_logo.gif]
[font size=+1]www.RoyalRecipes.com[/font]

Someone he knows has just started a recipe site  (I believe he had a hand in building it) and he wanted me to mention here for the people who are into cooking.

One neat thing about the site is that you can plug in the ingredients you have laying around and it'll give you a list of what recipes can be made with those ingredients. I haven't seen that anywhere else. I played with it and it's pretty slick.

Tuesday is INDUCE call-in day.

Note that they're NOT referring to betamax VCR tapes, but the famous "Betamax" legal ruling which made it legal for people to make backups of music and software, and to be able to legally listen to music you own on different devices (like recording an album or CD to tape or MP3 player), allowed for legally making compilations of your favorite tunes, etc etc.


As writer Cory Doctrow detailed last week, Tuesday September 14 is "Save Betamax National Call-in Day."

Why Save Betamax? The short version: We're organizing a call-in day to Congress on September 14 to oppose new legislation that would undermine the Betamax decision (INDUCE Act).

Here's why: The Betamax VCR died more than 15 years ago, but the Supreme Court decision that made the Betamax and all other VCRs legal lived on. In Sony vs. Universal (known as the Betamax decision) the Court ruled that because VCRs have legitimate uses, the technology is legalâ€"even if some people use it to copy movies.

Of course, the movie industry was lucky it lost the case against VCRs, because home video soon became Hollywood's largest source of revenue. And the freedom to use and develop new technology that was protected by the Betamax decision set the stage for the incredible growth in computer technology we've seen in the last few decades.

Hollywood is Trying to Kill the "Betamax Decision"

The Betamax ruling is the only thing that protects your right to own a VCR, tape recorder, CD-burner, DVD-burner, iPod, or TiVo. It's that important. But new legislation that's being pushed through the Senate by lobbyists for the music and movie industries would override the Betamax decision and create a huge liability for any business that makes products which can copy sound or video. This legislation (formerly known as the INDUCE Act) would essentially give Hollywood veto power over a huge range of new technologies. And if they get this power, they'll definitely use it. Even "compromise" drafts from the Copyright Office could make mp3-playing iPods ancient history; the music and movie industries want to force all content to go through their own restricted channels.
Is Congress Insane?

You might think so at first glance. Voters, technology experts, public interest groups, and electronics manufacturers all oppose these efforts to weaken Betamax. So why is it still happening? Because the major record labels and the movie studios-- the same companies that opposed the Betamax ruling-- make huge donations to the re-election campaigns of the Senators who are sponsoring this legislation. And most members of Congress assume this is a non-controversial issue, off the radar of most voters. If they can please their donors without a big fuss, they will. It's bad policy, but until we start making noise, it's smart politics.
Why We Need a National Call-In Day

We need to make sure Congress hears from the public. There's been plenty of opposition on the internet to the INDUCE Act and its more recent drafts. But this general dissatisfaction hasn't quite come together into a real demonstration of how strongly people feel about protecting the Betamax decision. At Downhill Battle, we've organized people to send faxes to Congress before and there's been lots of emails flying around, but telephone calls take it to the next level. A big, one-day mobilization to swamp these members of Congress with phone calls could make a huge impact on the debate. If you care about keeping Betamax intact but haven't felt compelled to act before, now's the time to get involved. You can sign up here: http://www.savebetamax.org/

If true, this is VERY scary.

From Capitol Hill Blue

Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jul 28, 2004, 08:09

President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.

The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.

"It's a double-edged sword," says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally."

 [img src=http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/uploads/070804bushwalkoff_001.jpg]
Angry Bush walked away from reporter's questions.


Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.

"Keep those motherfuckers away from me," he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I'll find someone who can."

Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.

Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac" and "untreated alcoholic" whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad" showcase Bush's instabilities.

"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated."

Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.

"President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds.

The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.

Although the exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known, White House sources say they are "powerful medications" designed to bring his erratic actions under control. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President's annual physical, details of the President's health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.

Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush's health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan's second term when aides managed to conceal the President's increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease.

It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon's final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn't emerge until after Nixon left office.

One long-time GOP political consultant who – for obvious reasons – asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.

"We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes," he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_4921.shtml

RULES OF THE AIR

1. Every takeoff is optional. Every landing is mandatory.
2. If you push the stick forward, the houses get bigger. If you pull the
   stick back, they get smaller. That is, unless you keep pulling the
   stick all the way back, then they get bigger again.
3. Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous.
4. It's always better to be down here wishing you were up there than up
   there wishing you were down here.
5. The ONLY time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
6. The propeller is just a big fan in front of the plane used to keep
   the pilot cool. When it stops, you can actually watch the pilot
   starts sweating.
7. When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided
   with the sky.
8. A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
   landing is one after which they can use the plane again.
9. Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make
   all of them yourself.
10. You know you've landed with the wheels up if it takes full power to
    taxi to the ramp.
11. The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle
    of arrival. Large angle of arrival, small probability of survival
    and vice versa.
12. Never let an aircraft take you somewhere your brain didn't get to
    five minutes earlier.
13. Stay out of clouds. The silver lining everyone keeps talking about
    might be another airplane going in the opposite direction. Reliable
    sources also report that mountains have been known to hide out in
    clouds.
14. Always try to keep the number of landings you make equal to the
    number of take offs you've made.
15. There are three simple rules for making a smooth landing.
    Unfortunately no one knows what they are.
16. You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience.
    The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag
    of luck.
17. Helicopters can't fly; they're just so ugly the earth repels them.
18. If all you can see out of the window is ground that's going round
    and round and all you can hear is commotion coming from the
    passenger compartment, things are not at all as they should be.
19. In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminium going
    hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour,
    the ground has yet to lose.
20. Good judgment comes from experience. Unfortunately, the experience
    usually comes from bad judgment.
21. It's always a good idea to keep the pointy end going forward as much
    as possible.
22. Keep looking around. There's always something you've missed.
23. Remember, gravity is not just a good idea. It's the law. And it's
    not subject to repeal.
24. The three most useless things to a pilot are the altitude above you,
    runway behind you and a tenth of a second ago.
25. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. There are, however,
    no old bold pilots.