Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Great show!! If you missed it, you can catch the replay @ www.flipside-ink.com Don't miss part 2 next week!!
Call in 760.283.4647 - Why do good single fathers get dogged by the friend of the court? Tell us what you think - 6:30pm - WE LIVE! call now
Call in 760.283.4647 - Why do good single fathers get dogged by the friend of the court? Tell us what you think - 6:30pm - less than 1 hr!
Call in 760.283.4647 - Why do good single fathers get dogged by the friend of the court? Tell us what you think - 6:30pm TODAY!!

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Don't touch my junk

A little over a week ago a traveler in California denied the TSA's use of a full body scanner at a security check point in a San Diego airport. Keep in mind that a traveler does have the right to refuse the scanner machine, but in return will have to be subject to a physical pat down which this specific traveler insisted was border line sexual harassment. Is an x-ray scanner that big of a deal?

The traveler, whose name was John Tyner suggested that if the TSA was not a government agency then their pat down would be considered sexual harassment and that type of harassment should not be an option for him to travel. I understand the rage against the machine idea and how nobody wants the government controlling our every move, but in this case I'm more concerned about the plane that I'm flying in turning into a weapon for a terrorist attack than an x-ray machine keeping my picture on file for a million years. Get over yourself.

In retrospect, all this guy had accomplish was a few hundred thousand hits on YouTube and a spectacle for other travellers to muse at while they slid through the scanner machine, got on their airplane and went on their merry way. Tyner, I suppose, was trying to make a statement about government control, but has he lost the memory of 911? Has he forgotten that America has quite a few enemies these days and the airways have been used in a terrorist act before? It's ridiculous to me, I just can't understand how someone can value safety and security so little.

Perhaps I have been brainwashed by the government. Perhaps I have been somehow lulled into a trance to believe that a mere x-ray scan device could stop a suspected terrorist from boarding my plane and subsequently save my life. What a novel idea. Catch ya' on the FLIPSIDE.

Decision Points

The first question I had after watching the Matt Lauer interview with Bush was, "Are you serious?" Lauer is a wonderful interviewer and his questioning had the former president admitting failures that I'm sure he had not planned to admit before doing the interview. A lot of his answers did not surprise me though, considering that I would expect nothing less of him than to try and defend some of the huge political missteps that he had taken as the commander in chief.

The most important and devastating was the infamous New Orleans "fly over." He admitted that he should have stopped in to reassure the people that help was on the way. Then he began to shift gears to the fact that the state's government has to give the federal government authority to involve federal aid into the equation. What? So, with these millions of people barely seeking refuge atop their underwater homes and an entire city turned to Atlantis, there is no way to override the state government in the wake of a disaster such as this? This man has people losing their lives underwater, being raped and murdered inside the make-shift shelter of the Super Dome and he's upset about Kanye calling him a racist. And people tend to think that President Obama is out of touch with Americans.

Now, if you saw the Oprah interview, then you may have been sucked into the parrallell universe. Unfortunately, in case you were not aware, I am not an Oprah fan. With that said, I believe her interview of the former president may have done a good job promoting his book, but it also seemed as though she was trying hard to make us like him. I didn't vote him in when he stole the election from Al Gore and I definitely didn't vote him in for that second round of Tom Foolery. So, I guess it goes without saying that I don't necessarily like him or the choices he made while in office.

If you have looked at the second video on this blog, I'm sure you will notice that the two men on the video were lulled into submission by the Oprah interview and somehow came away with the idea that Bush was a good president and took responsibility for his bad decisions. I admire the two of them for their open mindedness and their tribute to our armed forces, but I don't agree with there determination that Bush was a good leader. Unfortunately, I believe that view was summoned upon by the Oprah media machine. Then again maybe I'm wrong.

Some parts of New Orleans look like Katrina just hit land yesterday. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. The wall street bailout hasn't done anything but turn people against President Obama like he was the one who passed the bill. Sounds like a great leader to me, please forgive the sarcasm. Catch ya' on the FLIPSIDE.

Friend or foe

Friends of the court. Whose friends are they? The department, without apology, is a sexist device that was developed to help single mothers who were forced to bear the burden of raising a child on her own. Yes I said sexist. The foundation of the department is honorable, yet where does it defend the participating father?

Sure, a young lady has a baby with a young man who decides to toss his obligations to the wind, then the FOC is a handy tool to get some assistance with the raising of that child financially. The key word here is "assistance". Somewhere through the years, the single mother has decided that her income would be for her and the absent father's income would be for the welfare of the child. In defense of the young ladies who truly are in need of assistance because of a "dead beat dad" the system is definitely built for them. However, the legitimate fathers who spend time with their child, pay for their educational needs and after school activities, but are still being financially raped by the FOC with no remorse from the single mother - are victims of the system. In the end, the system almost suggests to the single father that there is no advantage - financially - for the single father to be a good father as opposed to reducing his presence to a monthly check. Where's the justice in that?

In 1919, Michigan law created the “friend of the court”, which later was defined in the Friend of the Court Act (1982 PA 294) as an employee/position within each judicial circuit court across the state. The friend of the court is defined by Michigan law as being “an employee of the circuit court…” [MCL 552.503(4)]. Every person who holds the position of friend of the court across the state is given an office and a complete support staff (including an ‘assistant’ friend of the court) to assist them in carrying out their legal duties as required by Michigan law.

Each local friend of the court, while overseeing their office of support staff, performs their duties under the direction and supervision of the chief judge in each judicial circuit. The legal duties and responsibilities of every friend of the court and their office are essentially derived from Public Act 294 of 1982 (commonly referred to as the Friend of the Court Act), and from Public Act 295 of 1982 (commonly referred to as the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act). Along with these laws, additional responsibilities of the friend of the court and their office are also derived from many other sources (such as court rules and administrative orders) which influence their activities as well.

The FOC is often referred to as the “investigative and enforcement arm of the circuit court.” One of the fundamental responsibilities of their office is to investigate matters concerning custody, paternity, and child support. Using the information gathered during these investigations, the FOC then makes recommendations to the court to use in creating orders for custody and for how much time children should spend with each parent after a divorce, paternity, or custody decision is made - and correspondingly, how much child support should be ordered as well.

In Michigan, as in other states, the amount of time a child spends with their parents is a key factor in determining how much child support is collected by the FOC and processed through the state’s welfare system.

Unfortunately, once a child is concieved out of wedlock, the man loses claim of any sort regardless. Take this for example. When a parent finds out that a young man has gotten their daughter pregnant and the young man says he's not ready for a child, then he's "immature" and "should've thought about that before you laid down and had sex". He gets the most negative response for not wanting to keep the child. Now on the other hand, the young lady says that she doesn't believe she's ready and is contemplating abortion or adoption and all of the sudden she's getting praised for making the same decision. How is that possible?

Its an unfortunate situation for the male. Another instance is when a young mother is unemployed, why is the father not allowed custody of the child instead of being charged child support? If the issue is really about the welfare of the child and the mother has no source of income while the father is working and willing to take on the responsibility of raising the child, doesn't it seem obvious that the father should have custody of the child? Of course not, The FOC would rather make the father pay child support and take care of the child whose mother is unemployed and not even willing to ease some the financial strain on the father. I wonder how many women would have these babies if they knew that there was never a chance to get child support from the father of the child. Just a thought. Catch ya' on the FLIPSIDE.

Is gay the new black

Perhaps I'm extremely ignorant and if that is the disposition that I exude, then please excuse me. However, is it me or is there an abundance of people declaring that they are gay all of the sudden? Entertainers, athletes, pastors, politicians, everywhere you look someone is gay. Now, someone's sexual preference is not my business nor my concern but now being gay is being compared to being black in the civil rights movement.

Last time I checked there were no gay people being hanged. There are no straight only restrooms. How can u compare the two? Some even suggest that as a black person, I am somehow hypocritical to be an advocate for civil rights and equality for blacks and not gays. What rights are the gay community not getting? Marriage? Spousal benefits?

When did who you are sleeping with become such a social issue? And before any assumptions are made, no I am not an advocate for same sex marriage. Does that make me a hypocrite? While hoping for equality and an end to racism, I can't fathom worrying about if two college buddies are going to be able to get married in their hometown.

Not to sound cynical or anything but being gay is not a race or ethnicity, nor is it some kind of affliction that won't allow a person to pursue the American Dream -- being black once blocked that pursuit. Catch ya' on the FLIPSIDE.