Carousel
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Friday, December 17, 2010
Early Christmas Gift for Divorced Dads Every where.
I can't change the Family Court mind-set regarding Divorced Dad's nor the media's apparent bias which paints us all as sleazy cheating dead beats. I can't make things better with you and your kids. I can't take away the hole in your heart and I can't take away your children's pain. Would, that I could.
But Instead, I offer an early Christmas gift to all the Divorced Dads out there (or as in my case, all those Dad's still languishing in Matrimonial Purgatory). I've found that Culturally stimulating events, such as concerts can go a long way towards helping to relieve the persistent empty feeling.So with that in mind, I share with you an inspiring Christmas video from the Trans-Siberian Orchestra performing "Queen of the Winter Night".
This is an exceedingly talented and progressive band that seamlessly and convincingly fuses Classical Music with Head-banging heavy metal. I won't call it a marriage made in heaven, but it certainly is a very desirable common law arrangement.
And Dads, if this singer doesn't put you in the holiday spirit, nothing will. So please, enjoy!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The End of Unlimited Internet?
http://act.ly/2kw
The CRTC, Canada’s media regulator, has decided to allow Bell Canada, Rogers, Shaw and other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to impose usage-based billing on independent internet service providers (indie ISPs) and YOU. These Big Telecom companies are obviously trying to gouge consumers, control the Internet market, and ensure that consumers continue to subscribe to their television services.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Ontario parents who fail to pay support can lose car
http://www.nationalpost.com/Ontario+parents+fail+support+lose/3797251/story.html
So after reading this story a couple of times, I have difficulty pinpointing what the angle is here.
If I understand correctly (and admittedly, I may not, given the illogical nature of this measure), Ontario parents who drive with a suspended license and are behind in Child Support payments can have their car confiscated.
This whole thing sounds so arbitrary as to be almost laughable. How about driving with a suspended license on Tuesday evenings with a full moon? The two seem to be equally logical.
Given: people should not drive with a suspended license. Also given: Separated/Divorced parents should do all in their power to ensure their children are financially taken care of. What one has to do with the other however, remains baffling to me.
According to the article by The National Post, this new law falls under the Ontario Governments "Get tough on Dangerous Driving" bill. So in that regard, confiscating the car of someone driving with a suspended license makes sense. Presumably, the suspension is based on a number of traffic infractions. But what on earth do Child Support Payments have to do with traffic infractions?
It is a problem when ever a parent does not meet their Child Support commitments. As the article suggests though, there are several reasons why this could happen. Lack of funds for example. As it happens, unless the parent living away from the family home is well "placed" financially, Support payments can often result in chronic poverty for those parents. Life can become a juggling match of prioritizing living expenses between rent, food, car insurance, etc. Most parents living away from the family home would rather miss a bill or go with out eating to make a support payment. But there are others who have differing priorities.
So in the vast majority of cases, impounding the car of a parent who is behind on support payments makes no sense what so ever, give that most people need their car for work. So no car, equals no work, equals no support payments. "Geez Louise" even Homer Simpson could noodle this one out.
But that brings me back to the Suspended Licenses once again. They aren't talking about punitive car impounding for all parents behind on support payments, just the ones driving with a suspended license. So in what way is this a deterrent for parents who are in default of their commitments? And unless I miss my guess, driving with a suspended license would likely result in an automatic impounding of the vehicle anyway. So where is the deterrence factor there?
So I'm assuming that somebody somewhere is trying to send a message, and that the majority in Ontario's Parliament thought that idea was a good one. Unless of course they'd all fallen asleep by the time they got to that part in the reading of the bill, which to me, would be the only logical reason why this bit of nonsense would ever have seen the light of day.
But what would that message be I wonder? On whom are they getting "tough" ? I think the laws regarding driving while suspended are already pretty tough. But I guess it still happens, so sure, lets toughen them up a little more. But this law doesn't seem to do that so they must be attacking irresponsible parents then..... but only the ones who drive with a suspended license...... on Tuesday evenings with a full moon......Time to join Homer for a Duff me thinks.
Admittedly, I can be a tad jaded sometimes when it comes to politics. But "my god" what a lousy excuse of an effort to make political hay. The hot button topic seeming to be attacking "Dead Beat Dads". "Every body hates those guys so lets get tough on them, even if we aren't really". It looks good!
If I may take a minute here to talk about the phrase "Dead Beat Dad". I promised myself that I would not use that label in this post. It is a phrase concocted by the media and politicians at all levels to make political gains or to sell newspapers. And as a result, all Divorced Dads who miss payments are painted with the same "evil red brush" regardless of their circumstances. This phrase does nothing but lend credence to our societies prejudicial view towards Divorced Fathers in much the same way that the Family Court System's foot dragging around recognition of Parental Alienation does. Chronic deliberate non-payment of child support as well as PAS are evil. Both hurts children. But it seems to me that the Family Responsibility Office (I've never heard of this office before, but I suspect it is strategically located next to the "Ministry of Love") doesn't seem as concerned about PAS as support payments, both of which coincidentally, put many fathers behind societies eight-ball.
I'm here to tell you ladies and germs, that it is tough to be a Divorced Dad. It can rip your still beating heart from your body. Or worse, it can cause your heart to keep beating while the rest of you dies, and life becomes a matter of going through the motions. For any father who loves their children and the daily flow of life with them: "how did you do on that math test"? "hey, wana go to the show"? "Hey, you forgot to clear your plate", "Geez don't do that at the table", "You have hockey practice when"??? .... Not living with your children can be like a prison sentence. So why is it then, that the media and politicians continue to want to make gains on our pain? Granted, this idiotic law is just a poke in the arm, it is meaningless really, but it is the optics once again. Divorced Dad's are a popular target of a prejudicial society, it makes every one feel good to take a poke at one. Even the elected officials at Queen's Park who allowed this law to be passed. So go ahead, take a poke, do your worst. I've already lost my heart and my soul.
So after reading this story a couple of times, I have difficulty pinpointing what the angle is here.
If I understand correctly (and admittedly, I may not, given the illogical nature of this measure), Ontario parents who drive with a suspended license and are behind in Child Support payments can have their car confiscated.
This whole thing sounds so arbitrary as to be almost laughable. How about driving with a suspended license on Tuesday evenings with a full moon? The two seem to be equally logical.
Given: people should not drive with a suspended license. Also given: Separated/Divorced parents should do all in their power to ensure their children are financially taken care of. What one has to do with the other however, remains baffling to me.
According to the article by The National Post, this new law falls under the Ontario Governments "Get tough on Dangerous Driving" bill. So in that regard, confiscating the car of someone driving with a suspended license makes sense. Presumably, the suspension is based on a number of traffic infractions. But what on earth do Child Support Payments have to do with traffic infractions?
It is a problem when ever a parent does not meet their Child Support commitments. As the article suggests though, there are several reasons why this could happen. Lack of funds for example. As it happens, unless the parent living away from the family home is well "placed" financially, Support payments can often result in chronic poverty for those parents. Life can become a juggling match of prioritizing living expenses between rent, food, car insurance, etc. Most parents living away from the family home would rather miss a bill or go with out eating to make a support payment. But there are others who have differing priorities.
So in the vast majority of cases, impounding the car of a parent who is behind on support payments makes no sense what so ever, give that most people need their car for work. So no car, equals no work, equals no support payments. "Geez Louise" even Homer Simpson could noodle this one out.
But that brings me back to the Suspended Licenses once again. They aren't talking about punitive car impounding for all parents behind on support payments, just the ones driving with a suspended license. So in what way is this a deterrent for parents who are in default of their commitments? And unless I miss my guess, driving with a suspended license would likely result in an automatic impounding of the vehicle anyway. So where is the deterrence factor there?
So I'm assuming that somebody somewhere is trying to send a message, and that the majority in Ontario's Parliament thought that idea was a good one. Unless of course they'd all fallen asleep by the time they got to that part in the reading of the bill, which to me, would be the only logical reason why this bit of nonsense would ever have seen the light of day.
But what would that message be I wonder? On whom are they getting "tough" ? I think the laws regarding driving while suspended are already pretty tough. But I guess it still happens, so sure, lets toughen them up a little more. But this law doesn't seem to do that so they must be attacking irresponsible parents then..... but only the ones who drive with a suspended license...... on Tuesday evenings with a full moon......Time to join Homer for a Duff me thinks.
Admittedly, I can be a tad jaded sometimes when it comes to politics. But "my god" what a lousy excuse of an effort to make political hay. The hot button topic seeming to be attacking "Dead Beat Dads". "Every body hates those guys so lets get tough on them, even if we aren't really". It looks good!
If I may take a minute here to talk about the phrase "Dead Beat Dad". I promised myself that I would not use that label in this post. It is a phrase concocted by the media and politicians at all levels to make political gains or to sell newspapers. And as a result, all Divorced Dads who miss payments are painted with the same "evil red brush" regardless of their circumstances. This phrase does nothing but lend credence to our societies prejudicial view towards Divorced Fathers in much the same way that the Family Court System's foot dragging around recognition of Parental Alienation does. Chronic deliberate non-payment of child support as well as PAS are evil. Both hurts children. But it seems to me that the Family Responsibility Office (I've never heard of this office before, but I suspect it is strategically located next to the "Ministry of Love") doesn't seem as concerned about PAS as support payments, both of which coincidentally, put many fathers behind societies eight-ball.
I'm here to tell you ladies and germs, that it is tough to be a Divorced Dad. It can rip your still beating heart from your body. Or worse, it can cause your heart to keep beating while the rest of you dies, and life becomes a matter of going through the motions. For any father who loves their children and the daily flow of life with them: "how did you do on that math test"? "hey, wana go to the show"? "Hey, you forgot to clear your plate", "Geez don't do that at the table", "You have hockey practice when"??? .... Not living with your children can be like a prison sentence. So why is it then, that the media and politicians continue to want to make gains on our pain? Granted, this idiotic law is just a poke in the arm, it is meaningless really, but it is the optics once again. Divorced Dad's are a popular target of a prejudicial society, it makes every one feel good to take a poke at one. Even the elected officials at Queen's Park who allowed this law to be passed. So go ahead, take a poke, do your worst. I've already lost my heart and my soul.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
99 Red Balloons. Real fathers for justice
When a person wins in family court, an adversarial system that favours the parent with the best lawyer or the most money, the biggest loser often ends up being a child. Often times, these life shattering decisions are left to idealistic Judges with agendas of their own. So the life of one small child is inconsequential compared to the high ideals and political manoeuvrings of the men and women in robes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)