Preparing to move the site again…and in other news…

Posted: June 26, 2008 in admin, Headlines

I started this site about 4 years ago (4 years in July) using blogger. Right at that time blogger was having too many outages for my taste, so I made the move to paying for my own hosting space for the remaining 3 1/2 years. Blogging is something I do because I enjoy it, which is why I never have asked my readers to help with the ’cause’ (this still does not rule out the possibility of paid advertising in the future).

Having some extra time on my hands the other day, I discovered by talking with the WordPress support team that that I could move this site to WordPress’ free hosting service and still keep my domain name of blackinformant. com. Makes sense to me.

There are going to be two things you will notice when this move is made (hopefully by this weekend): A. The template will have to change. WordPress.com currently does not have the ability to import templates they do not offer with their free service (as far as I know). So the layout of the site will look a little different. B. While you still will be able to use access the site by using blackinformant.com, the actual address will be blackinformant.wordpress.com. Either one will work.

Because of this pending move, I am going to try to keep posting pretty light. For today at least, any new ‘posts’ will appear right under the line below.

Thanks to all of you who make blackinformant.com one of your regular stops on the information highway.

D~

=======================================

Because she can

Russell Simmons To Pay $40,000 A Month In Child Support
Words by Allen Starbury
ballerstatus.com

Russell Simmons’ divorce from Kimora Lee Simmons is gonna cost him a pretty penny in child support — $480,000 per year to be exact.

In court documents, obtained by TMZ and filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday (June 24), it looks like the hip-hop mogul is to pay $20,000 per month for each of his two daughters, Ming Lee and Aoki Lee, beginning in July.

While Kimora maintains sole custody of the two children, Russell will get visitation rights. He will get his kids every eighth week from Saturday until the following Saturday when they are to be returned at 6:00 p.m., according to the documents, which will take place in Los Angeles, where Kimora resides. However, holidays, summers, and vacations, are also options. (more…)
+++++++

>>Should there be a movement to put an end to women who use their children to make a living? I think so.

+++++++

Stop killing our children

Black Pastors to Call on Parties to Reject Planned Parenthood Money
foxnews.com

A coalition of black pastors plans to call on the Republican and Democratic parties to reject campaign spending from Planned Parenthood, claiming the abortion provider promotes a racist agenda.

The pleas, to be made in a demonstration outside the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, are the latest effort by the group to clamp down on Planned Parenthood, after an undercover inquiry by a college group revealed an alleged effort to target minority women for abortions.

The pastors are amplifying their argument that abortion, which its members call genocide, is a civil rights matter.

“We are very concerned that Planned Parenthood is targeting African American communities and African American babies,” said Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr. (more…)
++++++

>>Other than to save the life of the mother, I am against ending the life of unborn children just because they were not “planned”. Mankind in general can really be full of himself. While the earth is BILLIONS of years old, we have been on this planet for only thousands of years. Yet we believe we can control the weather (nevermind the fact we cannot accurately predict it for the next week). A child that could possibly grow up to find the cure for cancer or better yet, be a good example for others does not fit our “plan” in life, so we get rid of it.

Now will either party listen to this group? Not if it hinders them from getting votes.
+++++++

Looking for “inspiration” in all the wrong places

Obama should inspire black youths
Rev. Jim Holley
freep.com

{excerpted}

[…]

We as a nation will never be the same. Our horizons have been broadened and our belief in what is possible has been expanded. For a young black child in Detroit, the mere image of an Obama should provide ample fuel for optimism and motivation.

[…]

“The remarkable life journey of Sen. Obama represents a ray of hope for all of us, particularly for the young, and most especially for African-American children in cities like Detroit. Through excellent performance, continuous professional growth, and through dedication to the proposition that God Almighty intended for them to be here and do some good, Obama represents proof that we can truly rise as high as the wings of our ambition will take us.” (source)
+++++++

>>This article represents another one of those sentiments I have been ignoring for a while.

I am old enough to remember when the same sentiments were made about Blacks becoming mayors of major cities like Philadelphia. Having a Black mayor was part of the Utopian dream that suggested if leadership ‘looked like us’, somehow everything will fall into place. That came and went with the same (and in some cases worst) results. The same was applied to police officers. Next it was police chiefs. Did I mention teachers, school boards, city council boards?

While Obama’s candidacy has clearly left an positive mark on American history, it will no more inspire the proverbial kid in the ghetto than any other Black person in a leadership role in government. What the Rev. misses here is that government is a public institution that survives on bureaucracy–it is not an extension of the family. If Obama does become president, I, along with many Black Americans will savor the moment as a great milestone in Black history. The personal “optimism” and “motivation” he is hoping for, …well that comes from the home–not government.

Ask the kids!!

++++++++++

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Give it a rest! says:

    Duane,

    Ah the good ole issue of child support! This will alway be one of those is the glass half empty or full arguments. Should a married father as wealthy as Russell Simmons be allowed to snatch the lifestyle he has provided to his children away from them because he is not with the mother anymore?

    Now I do see that situation as being different than from a man who did not marry the women and can make a good argument that an children born out of sexual relations with said women was just plain ole sex but an accident happened!

    The flip sidce is that men do not have to get married and do not need to have children if they do consider their money to be of the same level of importance as a child. I know men who are living exactly like that now. They will not touch a chick without a condom, ever! MOre to the point they make it a point to deal with women that do not have room in their lives for babies either.

    Want children? Just wait until you are older and you will not need the money so much anymore!
    ————————————————————

    Ah, that good ole abortion issue! Like it or not but the undeniable truth is that a unwanted child is well… an unwanted child! The worst thing in the world we can do would be to force motherhood on someone who has made the consious decision to NOT have a child! The mother has already stated that she does not have the love, desire, or support within her to be a proper or good mother to that child. Nor is it a good situation for any child to be carried and developed within the body of person that do NOT want them.

    The abortion argument really stirs up the debate as to what is it to be a good Christian. We have a lot of so-called good christian out here in the world that are totally unwilling to make MAJOR sacrafices to help out all of those UNWANTED. I am really tired of this Christain hypocrisy! If so called Christians can condem abortion why are they not adopting all of those UNWANTED children?

    Come on Duane, your children can eat a little less and maybe double bunk with the new foster children. It ok to cash in some of those IRA and retirement funds so yu can buy a nice full-szed SUV to transport all of those “Gods” children that you are willing to care for and love EXACTLY like your own children.

    Somehow I have a great deal more respect for the women that will terminate a child that she knows she can not handle than all of those other trashy (I refuse to have an abortion) chicks that are filling up our hoods with ghetto bastaard after ghetto bastard.

    Not for nothing but all those stories you post about how bad these children are out here today, I bet more than a few of these killers, gangbangers, and drug dealing children were UNWANTED and should have been destroyed before they could do damage to the many other innocent Christians.
    ————————————————————
    One of the interesting things about Barack Obama is the fact that he does come from a “so-called” broken home. HIs paretns did not stay together yet he managed to “make it”.
    Obama is excellent inspiration for many poor black children, but not all. Lets never forget that in every poor black school in this country at the very least ONE child will make it! For many Obama will not be able to inspire because they will NEVER dream that far!

  2. Duane says:

    The abortion argument really stirs up the debate as to what is it to be a good Christian. We have a lot of so-called good christian out here in the world that are totally unwilling to make MAJOR sacrafices to help out all of those UNWANTED. I am really tired of this Christain hypocrisy! If so called Christians can condem abortion why are they not adopting all of those UNWANTED children?

    Allow me to address this part in two pieces.

    We have a lot of so-called good christian out here in the world that are totally unwilling to make MAJOR sacrafices to help out all of those UNWANTED.

    There are MANY Christian-based organizations that are out there that were not only founded by churches, but are supported with either finances and/or volunteers who are Christians. These organizations have been doing the work both here in the states and abroad. Now you may not want to do the due diligence and find that easily-obtainable information yourself, but it is out there.

    If so called Christians can condem abortion why are they not adopting all of those UNWANTED children?

    The same reason why not every Christian is a parent. It is a job that some people can do while others are better at putting their money where their mouth is. I’ve even mentioned a study on this site that supports that fact. Search for it.

    Come on Duane, your children can eat a little less and maybe double bunk with the new foster children. It ok to cash in some of those IRA and retirement funds so yu can buy a nice full-szed SUV to transport all of those “Gods” children that you are willing to care for and love EXACTLY like your own children.

    I have no problem with loving other children as if they were my own and I have the long track record to prove it. Mind you, a track record that goes way back before I was married and had children on my own. I’ve even talked about this on this site. Now where were you trying to go with this, I don’t know.

    Somehow I have a great deal more respect for the women that will terminate a child that she knows she can not handle than all of those other trashy (I refuse to have an abortion) chicks that are filling up our hoods with ghetto bastaard after ghetto bastard.

    There are a lot of “ghetto bastards” out there who did manage to make it and are doing well today. It’s people like you who verbally dig their graves before their time. The unfortunate thing here is that you referring to this kids as “ghetto bastards” is no different to how racist Whites view our Black children. So who is the biggest racist?

    Obama is excellent inspiration for many poor black children, but not all.

    And “many poor black children” told you this, or are you just projecting your hopes, wishes and dreams on the future president BASED ON HIS SKIN COLOR?

  3. Wizz says:

    Damn “Give it a rest”.. That’s a little harsh (the bastard part), but I mostly agree.

  4. Duane – Found your site when I was looking for Voddie podcasts. I am a homeschooling parent as well. I have heard this argument of Christians being hypocrites because they are not adopting all of the unwanted children.

    I think this arguments stems from the legitimate issue that convenience and leisure is desired in our society over children. This is of course not limited to Christians. Many times Christians are just being swept along with the culture of affluence that we live in.

    Of course the argument itself doesn’t address the real issue of abortion. This is an obvious case of attacking the person rather the argument. When we discuss issues, we must refute the argument instead.

    So what is the argument really in the abortion issue?

    What is the unborn?

    Thoughts? Thanks char

  5. Solacious says:

    My MOUTH HANGS WIDE OPEN IN AMAZEMENT AT THESE COMMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ummm since when did Kimora Lee Simmons, former super model and director of BabyPhat, PhatFarm and KLS become a gold digging woman. Ummmm, how ’bout NOT. You guys are crazy. And I guess those kids that shot up Columbine were ghetto hood rats too. WoW!!! You guys really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If your mothers only knew what you would become, she’d probably have killed herself and you while still in the womb. Lawd have Mercy!!! I’m not even going to respond to these comments point by point because my mother taught me not to engage in conversation with ignorant people. It will only give you a headache!

  6. Solacious says:

    Lou Says:
    Thursday – June 26, 2008 at 11:14am

    That is a lot of dough, but it sounds about right for these types of settlements. Time for some math: He’s worth $340 million and assume 10% is in cash (which is reasonable) that comes out to $34 million. Child support is $480,000 per year or about 1.41% of that $34 million. He can earn that amount in bank interest alone. No big deal. The house is worth $25 million (probably closer to 20-22 in this market). Property tax in NJ is 1.60% of the value so thats about $400k per year or 33k a month (but I wouldnt be surprised if this is paid up already). The real issue is all the utilities and insurance. $18k will barely cover it. The $60k for a car every two years is really just F*** YOU money. No prenup…see what happens???

    OK. this is a post from the actual article. Now for all of you child support haters out there. Do the math. Who’s really zooming Who here?

    I want you to ask yourselves, is 1% of your income going to assist with taking care of your children? Let’s say for example, a person makes 60k/year. 1% of that is 6k. Divide that by 12 and its 500/month. Depending on the age of your child, the average daycare costs 175/week per child. Doctor visits average anywhere from 10 to 25 copays each visit. Medicine averages anywhere from 10 to 65 per prescription. Oh wait the darn child needs to eat. And we can’t send them to school with no clothes and shoes. So, I think we’ve exceeded the 1% of child support that was ordered. You guys really need to think. Shoot, today, that $500 won’t even fill my gas tank for a month. Seems to me that Kimora got the short end of the stick and is going to maintain her children’s lifestyles irregardless of what Russell does. She’s doing what most parents do that receive child support…. Continue to take care of your children irregardless of the support (or lack thereof) of the other parent.

  7. Solacious says:

    oops my bad. I should’ve done the math… But you get my point right!

  8. Duane says:

    Hey, my opinion—it does not take $480K to raise two children. And puhleeze, she is hardly getting the short end of the stick.

    I’m not married to her, but Russell was. He has no problem paying the money.

    Russell Simmons Responds to VIBE.com Child Support Story

    And P.S., who came up with 10%?????????????

  9. Solacious says:

    You’re right, it doesn’t take 480k to raise children, and you’re right, you’re not Russell. He and Kimora run a billion dollar company. 480k is pennies to them. My point was the percentage of the income. In middle class terms. It adds to pennies too. You have children, so you know how expensive they are and I’m sure you spend way more than 10% of your inceom to raise them. Atleast, I hope you do, because if you didn’t…. well then you are cheap as all get out!

  10. Duane says:

    Solacious,

    The costs of raising a kid as you laid out does not go up with personal income. A kid is a kid.

    There are luxuries and there are needs. The examples you gave were based on real need of everyday folks in similar situations. Even Russell made the distinction.

    Regarding the money, my kids live a tremendous life. They do have lots of security, nannies, educators, special programs, travel, chefs, on and on. Their mother manages all of those luxuries and I’m happy to provide for that.

    If this is what they agreed upon as “partners”, then that is their choice. My question is then based on her income, how much is she contributing since this is (I believe) joint custody.

  11. Solacious says:

    Duane,

    I gave the example to equate it to a regular person’s salary and how the percentage of income is not very much when you look at it on a smaller scale. Obviously, they don’t make regular salaries, so why would child support be a regular amount. That would be absurd to order a man like Russell Simmons to pay 600/month in child support, when his income is way more.

    I was also addressing your comment, “Should there be a movement to put an end to women who use their children to make a living? I think so.”

    I think it is wrong to assume that Kimora is trying to make a living off of Russell’s money when she obviously has her own money. I also think it absurd to assume that “women” are the only ones receiving child support. Sometimes women are the ones paying child support. I also think it ill-advised of you to say that women are using their children to make a living. As I illustrated above, the “average” person’s salary of 60k, does not cover ALL of the expenses that are needed to provide for even one child. Again, child care, clothing, medical expenses and the occasional extra-curricular activities ARE NOT completely covered by child support, therefore, I would hope that NO person on the receiving end of child support would be stupid enough to think that they are going to make a living off of it, because a child will always cost more. Also, I think that its ridiculous to assume that the average person is trying to live off of child support because it’s just not possible. I think that you may have been in contact with too many dead beat parents who complain about having to pay child support, but it would be helpful to speak with those that actually receive support to know exactly how much help, if any that support is.

    “The costs of raising a kid as you laid out does not go up with personal income. A kid is a kid.”

    I disagree. If you have more income then hopefully, you are smart enough to spend more of that income on your LEGACY, which is your children. If you have more income, then you can spend more on quality education and activities that will introduce your children to even more diverse experiences.

    I’m sure that when you made less money in the past, your children received less, and as your income increased, there were more opportunities for your children to receive and experience more…. Am I not correct?

    I also feel that being married and having children is the creation of a partnership, so if that partnership should end for whatever reason, then the partners need to divide up assets and responsibilities equally. It happens in corporations all the time and hopefully each party has a good lawyer to make sure that the equal distribution is made.

    Actually, it is joint custody in the sense that they both own the rights to their children, but she is the primary caregiver…. So she gets to claim them on her taxes! LOL!

  12. Solacious says:

    I also wanted to comment on “Stop Killing our Children” The fact is that Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger who believed in eugenics. Basically she wanted to delete Blacks and poor Whites from society. So, Black Pastors want candidates to reject their money, ok fine, (which I agree), but what about all of the other companies that may have ugly beginnings?

  13. Duane says:

    I also think it ill-advised of you to say that women are using their children to make a living.

    Parent Trap? Litigation Explodes Over Paternity Fraud (please read)

    I also think it absurd to assume that “women” are the only ones receiving child support.

    Not my assumption. Men also pay child support, but what is the majority scenario?

    If you have more income then hopefully, you are smart enough to spend more of that income on your LEGACY, which is your children. If you have more income, then you can spend more on quality education and activities that will introduce your children to even more diverse experiences.

    Not necessarily true. There are plenty of folks out there in this bracket who do not feel the need of treating their children like in this situation. Again $480k to “raise” a child– I don’t care how much a person makes — is flat out ridiculous. But I do agree that based on her businesses, she isn’t benefiting much from the $480k.

    I’m sure that when you made less money in the past, your children received less, and as your income increased, there were more opportunities for your children to receive and experience more…. Am I not correct?

    Nope! We teach our children to be content with what they have. Like any parent we do spoil them from time to time, but for the most part we still get most of their toys from Big Lots and maybe Target/Wal-Mart. Doctor visits, clothes, food and activities cost basically the same then as they do today. I wish my kids would ask me for a butler (slap!).

    So, Black Pastors want candidates to reject their money, ok fine, (which I agree), but what about all of the other companies that may have ugly beginnings?

    Only if it is politically expedient will critics make a big deal about any other companies with ugly beginnings.

  14. Solacious says:

    “Instead, she argues that actual fraud occurs very rarely, and that most men who challenge paternity do so only after a relationship sours.

    Roberts also cautions states against passing overly broad laws that allow men to disestablish paternity.

    “What worries me about these laws is they behave as if all the fact patterns are the same, and that it’s always some poor defrauded guy as opposed to what you see when you read the case law,” Roberts said. “If you read the case law, what you discover is that there is a small number of cases in which the guy has actually been defrauded.””

    My statement remains unchanged because of this very statement from your article. There are just too many dynamics to this issue. In the age of blended families and men/women taking parenting roles of children that are not biologically theirs, how do you respond in a support case? For example, I know of a woman who was obviously pregnant when she met a man whom she dated for several years after giving birth to her child. When they ended the relationship, the man agreed ON HIS OWN to pay her child support, being that the child knew him alone as its father. This man then remarried and continued paying support for this child. Unfortunately, this man, who was very wealthy, fell on hard times but still wanted to maintain his former standard of living. Well, guess what was the first budget cut!!! After over a decade, this man now remembers that he isn’t the child’s biological father and has stopped paying child support. But, he still wants the child to call him Daddy. I think it is wrong. He knew what he was getting into and now he wants to play the victim role. I’ve seen several situations like this, where a man wants to “take responsibility” until it starts hurting his pockets.

    Now, hears another issue, if a person may not biologically be a child’s parent, if they play the role of parent while married to the child’s actual parent, if the relationship should sour, should that person sever their relationship with the child that saw him/her as a mother or father?

    “But I can only imagine how traumatic it is for the child who learns that someone is not their father, and suddenly that father goes to court and says not only do I not want to pay for this child’s [upbringing], I want to legally be declared the nonfather,” Jacobs added.”

    I just really think that both men and women in these situations should think about the children involved and leave their selfish and greedy ways behind. Why is it okay to be a parent just as long as it doesn’t cost you anything?

    “But I do agree that based on her businesses, she isn’t benefiting much from the $480k.”

    If you agree, why would you make this comment? “Should there be a movement to put an end to women who use their children to make a living? I think so.”

    Duane, puh——lease!!! You mean to tell me that if someone makes 20k that they would spend the same amount of money on their children, as someone who makes 100k. Please come back to reality. Raising humble children is great. You should be commended, but to say that you wouldn’t spend more on them if you had the ABILITY is a lie. There’s a difference between taking your children to a museum to learn about other places and civilizations as opposed to actually visiting that civilizaion/country. I’m not talking about how many toys you buy although that still factors, in. What I am talking about is what type of environment can you raise your children in, and what experiences can you give your child based on your income. These two factors will change dramatically if your income changes dramatically. Also, these people in the same bracket as the Simmons, may not live the same lifestyle as the Simmons, so you really can’t compare the two.

  15. Duane says:

    Now let’s first tackle a couple of portions of the article you skipped

    First, let’s finish Robert’s comment–

    “Roberts said that in recent years, she has helped draft model laws, adopted in several states, that allow men and women to get genetic testing within the first two years of a child’s life. If the test shows the father is not the biological parent, then he has the right to disestablish paternity.

    I agree with Roberts.

    Here’s the crux of the entire article.

    “According to a recent study in New Hampshire, as many as 30 percent of those paying child support are not the biological fathers of the children being supported. California is also expected to release results from a similar study later this year.

    “Paternity fraud is a growing concern for men and children everywhere,” the New Hampshire report concluded. “It can spawn considerable grief for the men who may or may not be emotionally attached to a child they later discover was fathered by another; and possibly unsettling for children who may discover the false nature of their paternity.”

    30 percent is a big number of men who are being held liable for children they did not father in the first place. And I think we all know that if women were getting hit like this, the public response would be totally different.

    There are just too many dynamics to this issue. In the age of blended families and men/women taking parenting roles of children that are not biologically theirs, how do you respond in a support case?

    Easy. You tie the responsibility to the birth parents and not to significant others. Otherwise you are just adding more drama to an already crazy situation.

    Now, hears another issue, if a person may not biologically be a child’s parent, if they play the role of parent while married to the child’s actual parent, if the relationship should sour, should that person sever their relationship with the child that saw him/her as a mother or father?

    Now you are taking this discussion far away from the original topic. But I’ll address it for now.

    You will find that in many cases (at least the cases I am aware of) that the non-biological parent will continue to have a relationship with the child if a relationship had already been established. Based on the relationship with the mother, support for the child will come in many forms. Beyond that, you would have to study current law to see whether or not the non-biological parent has now superseded the biological parent’s responsibility due to marriage. As for the personal example you gave, that is not standard practice for many men out there who do stick with children that are not biologically theirs.

    If you agree, why would you make this comment? “Should there be a movement to put an end to women who use their children to make a living? I think so.”

    Because as you pointed out, she does not need the money based on her own income. But look what has been happening through this entire discussion—-you have been making the case that while she does not need the money and could raise the kids without him, she somehow still needs the money to help with the cost of raising their expensive kids. If she doesn’t need it, then why does she…uh…need the money?

    You mean to tell me that if someone makes 20k that they would spend the same amount of money on their children, as someone who makes 100k.

    The problem here is that you are trying to take the Simmons’ situation and apply it to everyone else. There are many people in this country who do exercise common sense when it comes to raising their children. When I worked as a security guard a few years ago, we bought most of our kids clothes from either Wal-Mart, Target, or just got good hand me downs from parents who passed down nice and well-kept clothes. When our income drastically increased, we still got their clothes from the same sources. Food–We shop at the same grocery stores. Medical–Same doctors. Activities–From time to time we enroll them in classes offered by the city. Toys–Big Lots and maybe Target/Wal-Mart. Now are there other parents out there who make less than what we make who spend a lot more on their kids? Yes. Do they have to? No.

    You should be commended, but to say that you wouldn’t spend more on them if you had the ABILITY is a lie.

    Again, we have the ability, but we do not NEED to do it. If that is something foreign to you, that’s unfortunate. Many folks ‘wear’ their wealth. We simply choose to teach our kids not to think that way.

  16. Solacious says:

    “30 percent is a big number of men who are being held liable for children they did not father in the first place. And I think we all know that if women were getting hit like this, the public response would be totally different.” …Duane

    “If the test shows the father is not the biological parent, then he has the right to disestablish paternity.”

    I agree with Roberts also, but can they include a lie detector test as well, to determine whether these men knew beforehand that these children were not theirs? I also believe that the women should be sued for defrauding the government as well as the men involved.

    The public response has changed. There are many laws that have changed the way child support is ordered and how the amount of money is decided. Feel free to educate yourself on some of these changes.

    “If she doesn’t need it, then why does she…uh…need the money?”…Duane

    So, we’ll just let Russell Simmons off the hook here and relieve him of any responsibility to raise and provide for his children in the way that he has for the last 10 or so years. Again, it was Russell and Kimora’s decision to raise their children as they do. They both chose this lifestyle for their children, so they both should contribute to it. I don’t think that we should have a one-sided look at Kimora and say that she’s just trying to “live off” of his income, as you stated earlier. Or were you making this incendiary comment only to get folks talking?

    “Many folks ‘wear’ their wealth. We simply choose to teach our kids not to think that way.”…Duane

    I’m sorry that you can only think of providing for your children in the sense of “toys at Wal-Mart”! The way to raise a child is beyond buying them “toys”. I raise my children with “experiences” that will shape their lives. Toys don’t shape one’s life. And, as my income increases, some of those experiences change as well as the frequency to enjoy those experiences. Look around you, is your quality of life the same as it was when you made less. If it is in fact the same, well, why make more….Just stay broke all your life because, from what you say, nothing changes. Tell the truth and shame the devil. You are lying to yourself!

    I found this report to be very biased. For example, “Marriage, formerly held to be the best way to provide for the needs of children, seems less attractive for women having at their disposal government “family” support and enforcement services; and less attractive for men who wish to avoid the 50% odds of ending up as defendants in a divorce court that dispenses the gold mine, the mineshaft and the children in unfair proportions.” page 18. of New Hampshire Status of Men.

    By this report, I should assume that all women would rather be on government welfare than to have the ability to achieve their own income or even share their families with a spouse. Ridiculous! I should also assume that “independent-minded women”, (page 18) are a bad thing for America and that I should quit my job and head straight to divorce court because that’s where the money is! Amazing! I also was under the impression that a government issued research document should be devoid of personal emotion…. clearly this is not the case with this report that was quoted in your article, “The Parent-Trap…” I guess the old adage about a woman scorned has now changed to a man scorned. This faulty research document sounds to me like a bunch of good ole boys with nothing else to do but whine about the injustices of being a man in America!!! And they’re getting paid NH tax dollars to do all this whining. This bunch of “men” also went so far as to waste time writing letters to a bunch of feminist college students reciting poetry, (hateful and idiotic? yes, but that’s free speech).

    “According to a recent study in New Hampshire, as many as 30 percent of those paying child support are not the biological fathers of the children being supported.”

    30%. Where did this number come from? The sources of this number is listed in the NH Status of Men report, but when researching these sources, I couldn’t find the report that did the actual research to gain this number. Seems to me like inaccurate reporting. One “source” was paternityfraud.com, well, I went to this website and again, didn’t find this “30%” number nor its actual report that did the research to come up with this number. Help me, maybe I’m looking in the wrong places. I also researched the other listed “source”, Lee Newman and can’t find where he researched and found this number of 30%.

    What it seems to me is that this article was based on biased and shorthanded research by a governor appointed committee that amazingly didn’t include ANY women. The article you mentioned as proof of the overwhelming evidence of paternity fraud, in and of itself, did NOT do the research that concluded to this amount. Unfortunately, it sounds to me like New Hampshire tax dollars going to waste. They didn’t do the research but yet they still reported these findings! How irresponsible!

    “30 percent is a big number of men who are being held liable for children they did not father in the first place. And I think we all know that if women were getting hit like this, the public response would be totally different.”… Duane

    It is a high number, but why can’t I find the ACTUAL report that did the research to come up with this number?

    Why do I bring all this up, well, first because, you used it as your “proof” and second because I feel that there is an OVERWHELMING degree of women bashing going on in this country. There are too many hardworking honest women who receive child support for there to be responses to these inaccurate articles such as yours, “Should there be a movement to put an end to women who use their children to make a living? I think so.”

    There are more women who are quietly doing the right thing, than women who aren’t.

  17. Duane says:

    I agree with Roberts also, but can they include a lie detector test as well, to determine whether these men knew beforehand that these children were not theirs?

    If the kid is not theirs, the kid is not theirs—period. There is no need to keep these men on the hook if they choose to sever emotional ties with the child.

    So, we’ll just let Russell Simmons off the hook here and relieve him of any responsibility to raise and provide for his children in the way that he has for the last 10 or so years.

    “He” or “THEY”?
    This was a partnership, remember?

    Again, I go back to your whole argument that was centered around your case that Kimora NEEDED the money from Russell while at the same time you later acknowledged that she did not necessarily need the money to raise her kids. Now if it is your belief that this is strictly an entitlement issue, then leave it at that. But you cannot have it both ways (need & entitlement). While she may legally be entitled to child support payments, you cannot convincingly make the argument that she “needs it” ($480k) to raise small children with the same basic needs as any other child.

    I don’t think that we should have a one-sided look at Kimora and say that she’s just trying to “live off” of his income, as you stated earlier. Or were you making this incendiary comment only to get folks talking?

    I already addressed this earlier–and it got you talking.

    I’m sorry that you can only think of providing for your children in the sense of “toys at Wal-Mart”

    Toys are part of childhood and what parents usually buy for their children. As far as using toys as a substitute for life experiences, that notion is completely coming from you. What I said and the full context on how it was said has already been clearly stated.

    America is diverse enough where our kids can get exposed to a number of different cultures a short drive away from home. There are many ways kids can become well-rounded culturally without breaking the bank. This is why the whole notion that kids become more expensive as household income increases is ridiculous.

    .Just stay broke all your life because, from what you say, nothing changes. Tell the truth and shame the devil. You are lying to yourself!

    Life is bigger than the two extremes you are presenting here (Rich or broke). Our family is content. We have had many wonderful and unique experiences oftentimes under a very tight budget. Our son is about a year ahead of himself in school and my daughter is right on target. I don’t care where you fall on the economic scale, a family here in the US can raise well-rounded, well exposed children regardless of what they have in the bank. Much of this depends on the will and creativity of parents.

    As to the rest of your comment, there is no need to continue here. You got bent out of shape over something I said regarding women who use their children to make a living. Instead you took it as women in general and proceeded from there. This is why I believe there is something more here on your part that is not being said.

    Second, just earlier the same article you are now questioning you used to buttress your own argument. When I pointed out the fact that you were using partial quotes, now all of a sudden the whole article and study in being called into question.

    Third, I just did a quick search and found that paternity fraud is not only prevalent here in the states (similar studies done for states like California, Michigan) but in other countries as well.

    Fourth, while you say you agree with Robert’s conclusion, that STILL does not satisfy you as now you want to incorporate a lie detector test on top of a DNA test.

    There are more women who are quietly doing the right thing, than women who aren’t.

    True and so!

    But based on this conversation, the “right” thing to you is to equate luxuries with the basic needs of raising a child. Anybody that does that is in fact using their children to make a living. The difference here is that Russell is a willing participant.

  18. Solacious says:

    Here’s the crux of the entire article.

    “According to a recent study in New Hampshire, as many as 30 percent of those paying child support are not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

    You said that the above sentence was the “crux” of the article, but its not, this “fact” is made up and I can’t find anywhere how this “30%” was specifically researched…. You believe this to be the main point of the article. You found this article in an effort to prove to me that paternity fraud is a bigger issue than I choose to believe, yet, when I researched this issue, there is no proof. And you’re right other countries have this same issue. But they report numbers that seem to be a little more realistic, like 4%, not 30%.

    ….And I can absolutely have it both ways concerning Kimora and Russell. They both chose to raise their children a certain way, and Russell agrees with its continuance, therefore he knows he NEEDS to continue to add to their childrens’ incomes….ie care. My point to you is that Kimora could certainly do this on her own, but why should she, duh, Dumb question.

    Next issue. The only place I am coming from is amazement. I simply read the article you gave me to prove your point, then I read the articles that your article used to prove its point and found it faulty. You can choose not to address it if you should, but there it is. You used an article that wasn’t backed by actual “research”. And the article in question, New Hampshire Status of Men report is biased. That’s where I’m coming from since you need it broken down. Its very simple. There is A LOT of bias towards women that is blatant as well as covert. In an effort to meet the needs of men in New Hampshire, its governor chose a committe devoid of any woman, who it seems to me had their own personal agendas. So did I travel off into some other agendas, sure did, But next time you want to quote an article, make sure that article is correct and unbiased, so that your statements won’t appear to be incorrect and biased.

  19. Solacious says:

    ….So I am to assume that your quality of life has remained the same over the last 10 to 15 years….. Of course you didn’t answer that question, because then you’d prove me right. And if your quality of life has changed, well of course, your entire family’s quality of life changes as well.

  20. Duane says:

    but its not, this “fact” is made up and I can’t find anywhere how this “30%” was specifically researched.

    Absolutely correct. Facts YOU cannot find, but somehow I was able to find similar statistics for other states in addition to NH.

    But they report numbers that seem to be a little more realistic, like 4%

    And I guess I am to assume that the parameters you are looking for to support 30%, you were able to find for your “realistic” 4%.

    And the article in question, New Hampshire Status of Men report is biased.

    Again it only became biased to you after I pointed out that you used only PARTS of it to support your argument–not the whole thing.

    Perhaps this is the bias you are looking for–

    In an effort to meet the needs of men in New Hampshire, its governor chose a committe devoid of any woman, who it seems to me had their own personal agendas.

    Ahh! Okay. Now we are getting to the heart of it!!! Damn those evil men and their built-in grudges towards women.

    Unless you are prepared to apply this same standard when women are fully represented, its best to not to go there.

    Actually, looking at the actual report, there were a couple of women who worked with the governor and the committee to put this report together. But I guess because they were in the minority and helped produced a report that ruffles you feathers a little bit, they were nothing more weak-minded victims of men-‘ol crusty men. Seems to me that men would naturally be in the majority of this commission since they are talking about….uhhh… MEN issues. Using your logic, men should also be well represented on committees who focus on women issues since you can’t have too many of the same sex on one panel.

    There is A LOT of bias towards women that is blatant as well as covert.

    Yep! And a report that points out that fact that there are S-O-M-E women out there who take advantage of men by using their kids is completely biased. Again, you have turned this whole thing into an attack against ALL women. Again, something tells me that there is something more that the welfare of Kimora’s kids that’s fueling you here.

    But next time you want to quote an article, make sure that article is correct and unbiased

    Or better yet, make sure its findings don’t criticize women in any way.

    Of course you didn’t answer that question, because then you’d prove me right.

    I answered you question many times already. The problem here is that it’s not what you want to hear. Can’t help that one.

  21. Solacious says:

    Really ready to let this go, but I am truly being honest about not being able to find that actual research that was done to come up with the 30% amount that was quoted in the article. I read NH Report on Men and what they referenced… still no actual study. Not being funny, but really, where is the study, and the 4% rate, I got from this same report as well. Also, I say that the article is biased, not because there were only men on the committee, (check the listing of names on the 1st page, none of them sound feminine.) but because of what some of their proposals they are making inorder to protect men. One of them, would be to cancel a law that allows for a woman to request an emergency restraining order. This sounds not only biased, because a man may need this emergency as well, but it actually sounds DANGEROUS! Sure a piece of paper doesn’t protect, but I’m sure that most who request this from courts may actually need it. So, no this is not a feminist rant, but I actually read not only the article you quoted, but I read the report your article quoted and found some inconsisitencies… ie requests for governmental changes without the actual studies being made. What I did find in my search though were a lot of bloggers quoting the same article, but not actually using any real research…. so, back to my question, if you did find the article that actually did the research to conclude that 30% of child support cases have paternity fraud, I really would appreciate it if you could direct me. Thanks.

    P.S. When someone mentions “bias” regarding research, that does not denote race or sex. Research “should” be done without bias in the sense that personal desires should not be included in a study so that researchers can actually find the REAL reason for the problems so that REAL solutions can be had…. most researchers use placebos in their studies to ensure honesty by participants. In the NH Study, there was no “placebo”. The participants in the study, appear to also be the researchers… so that’s where the “bias” comes from. Understand?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s