Chris says below that "society gets just what it orders" in
regard to the blatant political bias of news stations such as MSNBC,
ABC, and CNN. I don't think this is correct. However, I do agree
that most TV viewers in the U.S. show little awareness of the bias, in
part because they have become conditioned to it over the years.

The fact of the matter is that, as survey after survey has
shown, the personal political views of reporters and editors who
produce these programs are VERY different from those of the U.S.
public at large. For more detailed information on these surveys, see
http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx. Nearly all reporters and
editors acknowledge, when questioned, that their own political views
are very much at the liberal end of the spectrum.

In the specific context of family issues, such as "child
support," this liberal bias produces coverage that is reflexively
skewed towards the feminist point of view.

Fathers' Day is coming up soon, and I can pretty much
guarantee that you'll be able to see the bias at work in the media
coverage of the event. I predict much attention will be devoted to the
terrible problem of American fathers walking away from their children.
However, anyone familiar with the facts knows that most fatherless
families have been created by mothers -- either by expelling their
husbands from their families or by deciding to have children by men to
whom they are not married. The media will agree that only in a
minority of situations do American fathers have any major role in
regard to their children. But they won't ask why this is so.





On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:14:41 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
. com...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all
to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It
was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form
of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.

My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which
conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up
something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix"
it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again,
thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to
reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but
it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof
since the government is the fool.
Phil #3

The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The
only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the
behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone
within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join
the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to
do with government. A dilemma of sorts.

Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a
nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and
them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off
soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment rights
by flexing our Second.
But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American
political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads) to
keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more. This is
subtle but observable in the local and national news and astoundingly
obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist propaganda machines.
This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows like King of Queens,
Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical fool and the smart,
level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By continuing to show this type
of behavior, people actually start believing it is "normal", therefore, in
their thinking, husbands/fathers are subconsciously seen as fools and
mothers/wives are seen as heroines.

Phil #3

Well said. The BIGGEST political propoganda machines are the so-called news
stations such as MSNBC, ABC, and my favorite, the Communist News Network
(CNN). It is a rare moment indeed that they actually report events without
injected emotions or opinions about it. Pretty scarry how so many people
follow their lead. Well, society gets just what it orders.