On Wednesday, with little fanfare or controversy, Occupy Davis left Central Park, having decided on Monday that there were other ways to more effectively protest.
“Frankly this is the way it should operate,” Councilmember Souza told the Enterprise. “People should have the ability to express their First Amendment free speech rights.
“But it was a little inconvenient for folks and the movement is moving to the next stage of its evolution.”
Such was not the case elsewhere. There were another 23 arrests in Sacramento this week at the city’s Cesar Chavez Park.
There have now been 110 people arrested at the Park since Oct. 6. There are nine trials on the misdemeanor charge scheduled to start Dec. 13. The District Attorney refused to prosecute, but the City of Sacramento is pursuing the cases, which carry six-month jail sentences for a curfew violation.
Occupy Sacramento maintains the First Amendment does not end at 11 p.m. (midnight on weekends), and that free speech and freedom of assembly rights continue for 24 hours a day, despite a local ordinance banning First Amendment activities in city parks at night.
Meanwhile, there were mass arrests in Los Angeles last week, as hundreds of protesters were arrested. According to news reports, Los Angeles police managed to “avoid fierce confrontations that marred sweeps in Oakland and New York.”
“No tear gas was used in the shutdown of what was the nation’s largest remaining Occupy camp. More than 200 people were arrested in the operation that involved 1,400 officers” the LA Times reported last week.
“They were like storm troopers. They encircled us,” said protester Cheryl Aichele
The LA Times also noted, “The protesters largely kept to their promise of confronting the police peacefully. While some taunted police verbally and a few rocks were thrown, most protesters either left on their own or nonviolently submitted to arrest, with many going limp and forcing the police to carry them out.”
“Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa appeared proud and relieved after the eviction, and thanked officers in a brief predawn news conference,” the LA Times reported.
“I said that here in L.A., we’d chart a different path. And we did,” Mayor Villaraigosa said.
Such was not the case in Oakland.
The mayor of Oakland had originally supported what was a month-long camp on the plaza in front of City Hall. However, in October, Police were called in to clear the area.
On October 25, protesters tried to reclaim their occupy site/ That led to clashes between the police and protesters, resulting in injuries, some of which were serious, and arrests.
The site was re-occupied by protesters and a general strike brought thousands of demonstrators to downtown Oakland for a day of action, including a march to the Port of Oakland, which was forced to shut down operations.
There are now investigations into the alleged police misconduct, that are being conducted by the Oakland Police department, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild.
Law enforcement once again cleared the protest encampment November 14. Mayor Quan’s decision to allow the police intervention resulted in the resignation of the mayor’s unpaid legal adviser, Dan Siegel, and Deputy Mayor Sharon Cornu.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, police made a surprise raid in San Francisco, in which they cracked down on the Occupy encampment at Justin Herman Plaza at the foot of Market Street in downtown San Francisco.
San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr defended their response and the dozens of arrests made.
“We don’t have any reports, at least at this time, of any of the Occupy people being injured,” the police chief said Wednesday night.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “Some protesters complained of injuries, but it wasn’t clear whether any were serious. Most expressed anger that cops gave them only five minutes to pack up their belongings and leave the plaza.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2011/12/police-chief-defends-occupy-sf-response#ixzz1g37TSsUc
And of course we are all well aware of what happened on the UC Davis campus, when they tried to clear protesters the Friday before Thanksgiving.
What these cities have in common, aside from large occupy movements, is that they are headed up by Democratic mayors, who have not hesitated in attempting to shut down the occupy movement as it has become inconvenient.
This is something that is not lost on many in the movement.
“Thousands have been arrested in a nationally coordinated assault on the right of political speech and assembly, carried out mainly by Democratic Party city administrations,” one sympathizer reported.
Last week, the general assembly of Occupy UC Davis passed a resolution denouncing the attack on UC Davis students and calling for a break with the Democratic Party – the first of its kind adopted at an Occupy protest.
“We, the students of UC Davis, condemn the brutal police assault and pepper spraying of fellow students, who were peacefully protesting on November 18,” the resolution reads.
They note: “This attack is part of a nationwide – in fact global – crackdown on demonstrations against social inequality and the domination of politics by the rich. While the American government invokes “democratic rights” to justify wars abroad, it responds to social protests at home with riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets.”
“Throughout the country, Democratic and Republican politicians – including the Brown and Obama administrations – are dismantling public education, cutting social services, and undermining all our basic social and democratic rights. Some of the most brutal attacks on Occupy demonstrations have been carried out by Democratic Party mayors,” the resolution continues.
Many see a link between the movement and liberal politicians. But for the most part, liberal politicians have kept their distance, other than to denounce the pepper spray attack at UC Davis.
Democratic mayors have often been on the frontlines of crackdowns against protesters. While the southern Democratic mayors and governors led the way in a different era, it was Mayor Daley in Chicago, whose response to protesters at the 1968 Democratic Convention led to the brutal crackdown, with protesters chanting that the “whole world is watching” and indeed it was, and that crackdown likely aided the demise of the Democrats nationally that year.
Democrats, in trying to avoid the stain of radicalism, are wasting an opportunity to capitalize on the energy, not just by those central to the movement itself, but those sympathizing with the movement who largely sat out last year’s midterm elections.
Instead, the Democratic officeholders have shown once again that the establishment knows no party label and will fight at many costs to protect the status quo, even at a time when that status quo at both the national and state level is seen as failing its citizenry.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The problem is that many of the protests in the larger cities turned violent. In Oakland I watched footage of protestors trying to actually burn down a building. In a situation like that, a mayor of a city has no choice but to crack down. In other cities there were shootings, attempts to shut down businesses, public urination, rats/roaches, rapes, etc. When protestors seriously infringe on the rights of others, leaders have no choice but to bring in law enforcement.
The difference in Davis was the protestors remained peaceful, neat and clean. Bravo to the Davis protestors; and bravo for the CC/Davis police for just waiting things out until it got too cold and miserable for the protestors to stay.
“The problem is that many of the protests in the larger cities turned violent. “
For the most part, they only turned “violent” when confronted by police.
ERM
“The difference in Davis was the protestors remained peaceful, neat and clean. Bravo to the Davis protestors; and bravo for the CC/Davis police for just waiting things out until it got too cold and miserable for the protestors to stay.”
I invite you to electronically celebrate with me the first time you and I have been completely in agreement on a protest issue !
And one more addition to your kudos. Bravo to the Davis CC members who I know we’re privately struggling to help formulate the best response.
[quote]I invite you to electronically celebrate with me the first time you and I have been completely in agreement on a protest issue ! [/quote]
Whooohooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
I agree wholeheartedly the CC did this one exactly right… but that is bc the protestors did this exactly right!
[quote]For the most part, they only turned “violent” when confronted by police.[/quote]
Nope! From huffingtonpost:
[quote]“We go from having a peaceful movement to now just chaos,” protester Monique Agnew, 40, said early Thursday.
Protesters also threw concrete chunks, metal pipes, lit roman candles and molotov cocktails, police said.
The far-flung movement of protesters challenging the world’s economic systems and distribution of wealth has gained momentum in recent weeks, capturing the world’s attention by shutting down one of the nation’s busiest shipping ports toward the end of a daylong “general strike” that prompted solidarity rallies across the U.S.[/quote]
In Oakland they attempted to burn a building. In other camps around the country rapes took place, shootings, rats/roaches, takeover of public parks so the public could no longer use them.
ERM
“In Oakland they attempted to burn a building. In other camps around the country rapes took place, shootings, rats/roaches, takeover of public parks so the public could no longer use them.”
While I agree with you that arson and violence are never acceptable means of protest, I would point out that our society, with the increasing disparity in wealth, seems willing to accept a fair amount of violence directed against the most vulnerable members of our society, and children living in rat/roach infested housing or living out of cars or tents as long as those of us who are more affluent do not have to see it. It is only when these conditions are situated in what we consider “our space” that we find them objectionable enough to take action. And then usually just to suppress with the use of force. This is part of what the Occupy movement is about. And in some of these situations, our very response seems to be making their point more dramatically that they ever could.
medwoman: [i]”children living in rat/roach infested housing or living out of cars or tents as long as those of us who are more affluent do not have to see it. It is only when these conditions are situated in what we consider “our space” that we find them objectionable enough to take action. And then usually just to suppress with the use of force. This is part of what the Occupy movement is about.”[/i]
I don’t think that is what the occupy movement is about.
But, I do agree with you that we like our pristine gated communities to be cleared of all the poor and unwashed. You bring up something interesting to me… observations that I have made before. As it relates to places where you see the widest gaps in income disparity and this tendency for class separation in society, those places tend to run politically blue. Davis and San Francisco are good examples. It is primarily a mix of affluent liberals and poor but they mix like oil and water.
Now take places like Chester California or McCook Nebraska, small towns (that I am familiar with) where there are far fewer liberals, and you find Section 8 families living next door to the wealthy owner of the local car dealer. They both attend the same church and interact with each other on a regular basis. Income levels are much less a factor between friends than are individual behaviors.
There is a subtle, but profound, difference here… and I think it is a source for understanding some of our ideological conflicts. I think the reason affluent liberals tend to focus more on class difference, is that they don’t routinely associate with lower economic class people. They have to make appointments to “help” rather than just have routine and random encounters with their neighbor. There exists a level of gated community guilt that drives their desire to redistribute wealth.
During my last trip to Nebraska to see family, I attended a local community event to raise money to help renovate the old Fox Theater in town. I set at a table that included one of the most wealthy land owners from the area, and my uncle Mike who barely scraped a living doing odd jobs as a handyman. They went to play golf together the next morning. My guess is that my uncle Mike insisted he pay for his round, and the wealthy land owner didn’t argue about it.
The Occupy Movement seems to be populated by a great number of people unwilling to accept a life like my Uncle Mike, and believing that someone else should pay for their round of golf.
[i]”… our society … seems willing to accept … children living in rat/roach infested housing or living out of cars or tents …”[/i]
Where is the responsibility of the mothers who bear these children and the fathers who (most of the time) abandon these children? Society did not choose to give birth to them. Their parents did. But these so-called parents never gave (to use your animate references) a rat’s tushy or a roach’s thorax to plan for their own kids lives. They* did not wait until they were financially stable to have children. They (most often) did not wait until they were married and certain their marriages were stable and secure. They never gave thought to the education of their kids or how they would pay for the housing, clothing, food, health care and so on that their kids would need.
I understand, of course, that these horrible choices these irresponsible parents make is not the fault of the kids. And I agree that as a society we need to do what we can to try to help the children.
But the first line in this sort of case always has to be to question the parents as to why they chose to do this to their kids. Why a woman, often times, will sleep with a man who is a bad character and why she chooses to bear his children? And why these males, who very often are incapable of taking care of themselves have no regard whatsoever for the women they knock up and the offspring they produce?
I also recognize that there are exceptional circumstances** in some cases. Some women thought all was well and then come to find their husbands are insane or brutal or for some other reason they have to leave and for a time they are left out in the cold with thier kids. I know these cases exist. But in general, the parents of the kids who are living in tents and cars are at fault, in that they made terrible life choices and they now expect the rest of society (including their kids) to pay for their mistakes.
*Speaking generally of those who are raising kids in cars or tents.
**When I was an undergrad at UCSB, living in Isla Vista, I knew this sort of family. The mother was in her early 30s, though she looked much older. I don’t know exactly what was wrong with her, but she had some kind of mental illness. She had a son, Brandon, who was a 14-year-old when I met him. And she had two young daughters by two different men. Both of those girls seemed to be mildly retarded. And she had another child on the way. The mother and the three kids lived in a broken down VW van. They lived off of AFDC and foodstamps and handouts. After some time, some of my friends took Brandon*** in, to live with them. I served one season as Brandon’s Little League coach (for kids age 13-15). … How would I solve this sort of problem? I think the best answer would have been, when the mother was 18 years old and clearly never going to be a responsible adult, I think she should have been given a choice: take $25,000 cash and have your tubes tied; or, if you ever give birth and you prove you are unfit to care for them on your own, we take your children from you and put them up for adoption.
***I don’t know what happened to Brandon. He was, not surprisingly, a very bitter kid. He was living around all of these college students who came from good, intact homes. And he compared that with the sh!tty hand he was dealt from his mother. At the same time, Brandon was intelligent. He was a good looking, blonde-haired kid who was great on a skateboard and he was a good surfer and a good baseball player. Once he was 15 and 16, he was also getting a lot of attention from 18 and 19 year old college girls who (I think) assumed he was older than he was. But my guess is that his attitude–that life sucks and that he was screwed by dint of his family–eventually sank him.
[i]”But my guess is that his attitude–that life sucks and that he was screwed by dint of his family–eventually sank him.”[/i]
It is interesting. I never had to live with my family in a van, but our family of five did live in a single-wide trailer for my early years. We moved quite a bit and eventually moved up to rented houses in working-class neighborhoods. Then my dad developed mental health problems and could not hold down a job. My mother lacked any college education and was working in minimum wage service industry jobs. We moved back to the Mid West where her family lived and just got by until she remarried and we moved to California.
What I remember was that I knew we didn’t have much money, but I never had any depression or anger over being poor. I never was envious or angry at others because they had more. I always understood that I could work harder to get many of those things if I wanted them. I always understood that some would have it better and some worse than me. I talk to my two brothers about this and they have similar memories, feelings and thoughts.
Aside from it being related to mental health problems (another problem that warrants a different discussion), why has being poor become a permanent and/or tragic circumstance in our social dialog today? Does happiness require some percentage share of our total wealth? Or, do the media and politicians exploit classism and convince people they cannot be happy without acquiring more material things that wealthier people can buy?
Wealthy and poor people have always existed. In this country, unlike most other countries past and present, income mobility has prevented the classism being used as a political wedge. Income mobility has shrunk somewhat due to the globalization of the economy and the loss of manufacturing industries; however, it is still very strong compared to most of the world where economic class divisions are real and sticky. Also, globalization provides all workers increased opportunities to participate in a larger economic pool… so why are we not all exploiting these opportunities to help increase individual wealth?
I see a large population of lazy and risk-averse people feeling entitled for an easy life of handouts. If we stop giving free stuff to them (including inflated wages, 3% at 50 pension benefits, and fully-paid health care for life), we could better afford to help the mentally ill, and improve education for the kids living in vans so they have better odds for climbing out of poverty.
Jeff
” Now take places like Chester California or McCook Nebraska, small towns (that I am familiar with) where there are far fewer liberals, and you find Section 8 families living next door to the wealthy owner of the local car dealer. They both attend the same church and interact with each other on a regular basis. Income levels are much less a factor between friends than are individual behaviors.
I know how much you like to see this as a Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative issue and I suspect that your feeling that conservatives are morally superior is sincere. That has just not been my experience. I grew up in a town in rural western Washington which at the time was almost exclusively conservative. I guarantee you that the differences inherent in the wealth divide were pervasive. We had kids that did not have enough to eat, and we had kids whose parents routinely flew them to Hawaii and to Europe for vacations. Now I understand that you and Rich feel this is exclusively the responsibility of the parents, while I take a broader societal view.
Rich
A couple of points as a doctor:
1) Society does play a major role in who conceives. Until fairly recently, insurances companies were nearly universally covering Viagra but fighting tooth and nail not to cover contraceptives.
2) The Catholic and other major religious organizations have blocked attempts to make contraception conveniently available and affordable
3) As a society, we choose not to offer effective sexual education ( namely done by someone able to present the information in a factual,informational manner without having the conversation degenerate ) in our schools
4) As a society, we are inundated with TV adds for Viagra, but no corresponding push for responsible contraception
5) As a society, we do not prioritize preventive health care for our vulnerable rural and inner city populations
6) On the pretext of protecting the random six to ten year old who might inadvertently walk in and accidentally pick up Plan B, Obama just supported blocking the sale of this essentially risk free medication, also known as Plan B to individuals under the age of 17 without a prescription.
Another way our society sabotages the efforts people make to act responsibly.
[i]”I know how much you like to see this as a Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs conservative issue and I suspect that your feeling that conservatives are morally superior is sincere.”[/i]
I am not arguing moral superiority; it is validity and usefulness of policy differences and worldview that I am arguing. I suppose it is morality considering the most basic definition of right versus wrong. However, I would never opine for a wholly conservative view of the world. Balance and debate is required. The problem today is that the media and universities have polluted the minds of too many young people toward a European socialist worldview. The US has been a primarily a conservative nation and it has served us well. It is tilted way too far left now and we are heading toward another great Greek tragedy. I think the stakes are high enough that I would even welcome back a little Joe McCarthy. Historically, we fought back socialism, Marxism and communism for a good reason. Now they are taking over the country from the inside. You probably do not see it, or do not care, because you subscribe to the same worldview. I know your heart is in the right place, but I think your head is not… considering the long view for what serves a country and society well. Collectivists attempts have all failed and have left a trail of profound human misery and suffering. We would be better off with a dictatorship or monarchy.
Red versus blue is our new color bias… even comrade supreme leaders Peloski, Reidski and Obamastro model it for us. I think we should get used to it.
Jeff
“polluted the minds of too many young people toward a European socialist worldview.”
This would hardly seem to be a starting place for “balance and debate”. It you start from the premise that folks who do not think as you do have “polluted brains” that is pretty much the end of a productive conversation, don’t you think ? I’m fairly sure you would have objected had a liberal made such an attack on conservatives.
medwoman:
You are right, that was not a good choice of words.
How about: “influenced the minds of too many young people toward a European socialist worldview.”
I was thinking that their brains are actually a mess… filled with leftist propaganda and void of facts and opinions in opposition to that worldview held by the majority of university educators. However, “polluted” was too strong and incendiary a word for me to use. Good call.
I have a nephew attending UNV Reno and he emails me after attending class to ask my opinion on history and events being covered in his classes. He soaks it up and tells me that nobody else in the class are bringing up similar points. He has concluded that everyone is being brainwashed to think like a lefty. According to him he has not found one educator with a right-leaning viewpoint (that will admit it). He is a business major so I told him he will likely find a few beginning his third year.
A survey of about 1000 people done by the American Revolution Center recorded that 89% of people surveyed thought they had a passing knowledge of the Revolution and our founding documents and principles. However, when given a rudimentary test, 83% of those people failed.
[i]”1) Society does play a major role in who conceives. Until fairly recently, insurances companies were nearly universally covering Viagra but fighting tooth and nail not to cover contraceptives.”[/i]
One can buy a box of condoms for less than $1 per rubber.
Moreover, most people who have good health insurance plans also have reasonably well-paying jobs. As such, if their insurance coverage omits birth control, there is usually no financial reason why people with those expensive health plans cannot afford to buy a box of condoms or this kind of product:
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/52012754_8e21a42a79.jpg[/img]
Also, according to this (perhaps unreliable source*) ([url]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080205145132AAvjg76[/url]) Medicaid plans apparently cover most forms of contraception.
*I imagine you know if that is wrong or right. So please correct me if it is wrong and feel free to cite a better source if you know of one.
[i]”4) As a society, we are inundated with TV adds for Viagra, but no corresponding push for responsible contraception.”[/i]
On late night cable TV shows, they occassionally will have condom ads, like his one ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_jMmH5i2uY[/url]). But you are right that there are Viagra ads all day long.
[i]”6) On the pretext of protecting the random six to ten year old who might inadvertently walk in and accidentally pick up Plan B, Obama just supported blocking the sale of this essentially risk free medication, also known as Plan B to individuals under the age of 17 without a prescription.”[/i]
Yeah, that was a wrong choice in my opinion. I think Obama thinks it will help him get re-elected to seem conservative on that question.
Nevertheless, the good news is that the teen birth rate has been falling steadily for the last 15-20 years ([url]http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR10-014.aspx[/url]). I’m not sure why it has fallen. It’s not unlikely that one of the reasons is that welfare programs for teen mothers used to be more generous, but now more girls see it as disadvantageous to them to bear kids.
Rifkin
Relative efficacy rates for means of contraception : expressed in statistical probability of conception within one year
sterilization < 1%
IUD, Implanon, DepoProvera all < 1%
Patch, Nuvaring, BCP all < 3-5%
Condoms, Diaphragm, contraceptive foams and gels,the Sponge all < 15-20 %. So while way better than nothing, not considered statistically
effective
Withdrawal < 15 - 20 % also not considered statistically effective since this is as I explain to my patients a one in five to one in six chance that
they will conceive in one year.”
No means of contraception carries an 80% chance that the woman will conceive within one year of course with age variation.
Using condoms is great for protection against sexually transmissible diseases, but is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette in terms of pregnancy protection.
It is indeed good news that the teenage pregnancy rate is dropping. However, since this is what I do for a living, I have a different perspective on the likely reasons., I think some more important factors are an increased willingness to talk about the subject ( when I started in medicine in 1983, there was much more reticence, mothers who are more willing to be proactive in protecting their daughters, and despite my comments earlier, a greater societal acceptance of contraception.
Even with the decreasing teen pregnancy rate, the overall percentage of unintended pregnancy is still between 45 and 50% with some age related variation.
Rifkin
I had an interesting experience while doing a rural medical outreach in Honduras last year. In four days of seeing between 35 to 45 patients a day, I met only two women who were not using a statistically effective means of contraception. This is due to a very savvy and effective governmental policy. Recognizing that it is much less expensive to prevent an unintended pregnancy than it is to raise economic orphans to age
18, the government has adopted a very effective preventative program.
The government supplies IUDs or DepoProvera, both as statistically effective as sterilization, for free. Birth control pills are available at a nominal charge. I think our society could benefit from a similarly incentivized program but fear it will not happen in my professional life, or possibly in my lifetime at all.
Jeff
“their brains are actually a mess” Boy, as an unapologetic liberal, that makes me feel so much more hope for a productive conversation.
Do you understand how offensive and hubristic your comments are ?
[i]”I think our society could benefit from a similarly incentivized program but fear it will not happen in my professional life, or possibly in my lifetime at all.”[/i]
Niger TFR: 7.6 children born/woman
Honduras TFR: 3.09 children born/woman
Mexico TFR: 2.29 children born/woman
United States* TFR: 2.06 children born/woman
Hong Kong TFR: 0.9 children born/woman
*The U.S. TFR would be 20% lower not counting our immigrant population which poops out far more kids than native born citizens.
Rifkin
Yes, but my point was not to compare the births per woman since there are no comparable statistics of which I am aware for intended vs unintended pregnancy from Honduras. My point was merely to illustrate an effective alternative strategy to our complete lack of strategy in this country.
[quote]While I agree with you that arson and violence are never acceptable means of protest, I would point out that our society, with the increasing disparity in wealth, seems willing to accept a fair amount of violence directed against the most vulnerable members of our society, and children living in rat/roach infested housing or living out of cars or tents as long as those of us who are more affluent do not have to see it. It is only when these conditions are situated in what we consider “our space” that we find them objectionable enough to take action. And then usually just to suppress with the use of force. This is part of what the Occupy movement is about. And in some of these situations, our very response seems to be making their point more dramatically that they ever could.[/quote]
How is shutting down the port of Portland Oregon of help to citizens out of work? This is where the OWS movement really went off the tracks. Argue all you want about existing social injustices, it does not justify more social injustice by closing down businesses that provide jobs. How is keeping people from getting to work going to help the situation?
[quote]I also recognize that there are exceptional circumstances** in some cases. Some women thought all was well and then come to find their husbands are insane or brutal or for some other reason they have to leave and for a time they are left out in the cold with thier kids. I know these cases exist. But in general, the parents of the kids who are living in tents and cars are at fault, in that they made terrible life choices and they now expect the rest of society (including their kids) to pay for their mistakes. [/quote]
You would be surprised how many people end up in poverty bc a spouse walks out of the marriage despite having vowed to be faithful and true, leaving their partner to deal with supporting the children. I know, bc I was the victim of such a cheating spouse. I learned over time that I was far from alone – it is a common phenomenon these days in a society that does not really condemn adultery and allows “no fault” divorces with no consequences for bad behavior. Gov Wilson quoted a statistic one time indicating 80% of parents with children in poverty were the result of their significant other walking out on them and failing to support the children. CA for instance, is notorious for not being very good about enforcing child support laws…
[i]”CA for instance, is notorious for not being very good about enforcing child support laws.”[/i]
Elaine: My experience is that the state marital disillusionment and child welfare system is hostile to divorced men and sympathetic to divorced women, and financial impacts to complying fathers can be extreme. My brother is a good example. He moved out escaping his abusive wife (she outweighed him by 50 pounds and would frequently become enraged and violent). She then quit her job at a grocery store, got a doctor to diagnose her as bipolar with chronic back pain and unfit to work. Next she conveniently went on disability right before she filed for divorce. By CA law, my working-class brother had to pay for her aggressive and obviously man-hating attorney as well as his attorney. In the end, his entire 401k and 70% of his ongoing net pay went to pay attorney’s fees and to his ex-wife for alimony and child support. After four years he filed to stop the alimony, but his wife’s attorney again help her maneuver to extend it another 18 months. Again, my brother had to pay for those legal fees too. All this time his ex-wife was living back with her parents, driving a new car, wearing new clothes, etc… meanwhile my brother was barely surviving in poverty.
My brother was laid off two years ago and after a year of being unemployed, he moved to the Mid West to take a job that pays him about 60% what he was making in CA. He filed with the state to have his child support stopped while he was unemployed… the state denied his request. So he became a “deadbeat dad”. After getting the new job he filed for have his child support reduced and to make an offer to make up the difference. Again, the state refused.
If you want to see more fathers contribute child support after divorce, you should advocate for reforming a system that is punitive to men. My brother agrees with you that no-fault divorce is a big problem… but only part of the problem.
Jeff
“My experience is that the state marital disillusionment and child welfare system is hostile to divorced men and sympathetic to divorced women, and financial impacts to complying fathers can be extreme.”
Since we seem to be employing anecdotal evidence, I will share an alternative view. My situation was similar to Elaine’s. I had supported my husband outright for six years which enabled him to return to school, get his degree, complete his training and establish his career because I truly believed we shared the same family values and were working as a team. I was wrong. As soon as he considered himself financially stable,
he left after what turned out to be a series of affairs. Since the State of California has its “no fault” policy, this cost him nothing, and cost me
over $ 400,000 dollars, no child support, and if I had not had a very good lawyer who gave me very good advice about rapid settlement, would also have left me paying alimony and part of my retirement. So much for bias against men.
Now, I will grant you this is only one story, but because of my profession, I hear similar, and much worse, in terms of the impact of men abandoning their families daily.
Elaine
It would appear that we have more than tech challenges and the approval of the way Occupy Davis played out in common.
medwoman: I’m sorry. Sounds like you had a rough time and your ex behaved like the worst kind of selfish jerk. I am surprised about your experience though, because my experience and understanding is that women retaining primary care for children are generally given the greatest consideration and care by the CA system.
I don’t disagree that there are numbers of men abandoning their families; my point was that the system pushes some of them to that point.
I am curious though, since your ex committed adulty, wouldn’t this represent grounds for divorce? How would no-fault divorce apply in this case?
Democratic mayors isn’t that redundant? If there were many Republican mayors they would do the same. Bloomberg had the cops through them out as soon as he could. Guliani regularly had the cops enforce his drive to clean up the city.
Rifkin always wants to coerce people into sterilization despite the horrific racial, social and moral history of such programs dating back to to the eugenicists and Nazi attempts to purify the race with such programs. I find his position both shamefully abhorrent and sickening.
should read: cops throw them out
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/redress-weighed-for-forced-sterilizations-in-north-carolina.html?pagewanted=all
From today’s NY Times as linked above with just a little piece below:
LINWOOD, N.C. — Charles Holt, 62, spreads a cache of vintage government records across his trailer floor. They are the stark facts of his state-ordered sterilization.
Related
DOCUMENT: View From the Inside
Questions and Answers on North Carolina Eugenics (N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation)
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Enlarge This Image
Andy McMillan for The New York Times
Mr. Holt, 62, at home with his relatives James Williams Jr., center, and Matthew Williams.
Enlarge This Image
Rich Addicks for The New York Times
Nial Ramirez, now 65 and living in Union City, Ga., was the first to sue the Eugenics Board of North Carolina, in 1973.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (320) »
The reports begin when he was barely a teenager, fighting at school and masturbating openly. A social worker wrote that he and his parents were of “rather low mentality.” Mr. Holt was sent to a state home for people with mental and emotional problems. In 1968, when he was ready to get out and start life as an adult, the Eugenics Board of North Carolina ruled that he should first have a vasectomy.
A social worker convinced his mother it was for the best.
“We especially emphasized that it was a way of protecting Charles in case he were falsely accused of having fathered a child,” the social worker wrote to the board.
Now, along with scores of others selected for state sterilization — among them uneducated young girls who had been raped by older men, poor teenagers from large families, people with epilepsy and those deemed to be too “feeble-minded” to raise children — Mr. Holt is waiting to see what a state that had one of the country’s most aggressive eugenics programs will decide his fertility was worth.
LINWOOD, N.C. — Charles Holt, 62, spreads a cache of vintage government records across his trailer floor. They are the stark facts of his state-ordered sterilization.
The reports begin when he was barely a teenager, fighting at school and masturbating openly. A social worker wrote that he and his parents were of “rather low mentality.” Mr. Holt was sent to a state home for people with mental and emotional problems. In 1968, when he was ready to get out and start life as an adult, the Eugenics Board of North Carolina ruled that he should first have a vasectomy.
A social worker convinced his mother it was for the best.
“We especially emphasized that it was a way of protecting Charles in case he were falsely accused of having fathered a child,” the social worker wrote to the board.
Now, along with scores of others selected for state sterilization — among them uneducated young girls who had been raped by older men, poor teenagers from large families, people with epilepsy and those deemed to be too “feeble-minded” to raise children — Mr. Holt is waiting to see what a state that had one of the country’s most aggressive eugenics programs will decide his fertility was worth.
[i]”Rifkin always wants to coerce people into sterilization …”[/i]
I don’t believe in coercion. I believe in giving an incentive which is beneficial to people who are unfit or unready to bear children to not have children.
Yet, because you think you are morallly superior, you call me a racist for saying something which is not about race, but is about helping people who need help.
By the way Toad … I don’t know who you are. I am not a violent man. But for your sake, it’s best you stay anonymous, if you insist on falsely calling me a racist. I find your accusation more than despicable.
Jeff
I don’t disagree that there are numbers of men abandoning their families; my point was that the system pushes some of them to that point.
I am curious though, since your ex committed adulty, wouldn’t this represent grounds for divorce? How would no-fault divorce apply in this case?
You have some misconceptions about our legal system that I shared until my divorce. All divorce in California is “no fault” even if one party is clearly, and even admittedly at fault. Assets are split 50/50 in almost all cases unless you have a valid pre nuptual agreement or can make a mutually agreeable alternative arrangement. Custody also is almost always 50/50 unless there is egregious behavior which could actually endanger a child. The party with the higher income can expect to pay alimony and or child support regardless of how long they have supported the other person, or what the couples agreements were unless they were spelled out in legal documents.
I also do not understand your comment “the system sometimes pushes them to that point.” What exactly does “the system” , whatever you are defining that to be, push anyone to abandoned their family ?
Rifkin
Offering sterilization, with it’s disadvantage of being permanent, to those who are unable to support children is no longer necessary. As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, we now have three completely reversible means of contraception that are as or nearly as effective as sterilization
With < 1% failure rates, the IUD, the Implanon, and the contraceptive shot. The beauty of these means of contraception is that they allow time for women who potentially need to get their education, get off drugs, get out of an abusive relationship, or do whatever it is they need to do to be able to provide for themselves and a child without forever sacrificing their ability to conceive.
[i]”I also do not understand your comment “the system sometimes pushes them to that point.” What exactly does “the system” , whatever you are defining that to be, push anyone to abandoned their family ? “[/i]
No, pushes them to be “deadbeat dads” because they cannot afford the costs and they receive much less support than do divorced women.
What pushes them to divorce can be many things. Every person is different, and every relationship is different. It is interesting to me that you use the term “abandon their family”, because my brother used that same exact term even though his ex-wife had primary custody of his son. He then start saying “blew up the family” which actually made a bit more sense to me since the family unit was dispersed by the divorce.
Child support is determined by a formula, and favors the party with primary custody… which is usually not the dad.
[quote]Child support is determined by a formula, and favors the party with primary custody… which is usually not the dad.[/quote]
This is exactly… WRONG. The person with custody of the children oftentimes does not have the educational experience necessary to get a decent job, so has to backtrack and get training or take a low paying job. Oftentimes the noncustodial spouse works for cash, so does not pay child support bc their wages are not subject to garnishment. Since states are notoriously bad about enforcing child support laws, the noncustodial spouse oftentimes skates on child support responsibilities. As I said before, Gov Pete Wilson cited the statistic that 80% of single welfare parents were living in poverty bc a significant other had walked out on the family and was not paying child support.
Another huge problem in our “no fault” divorce system is just that “no fault”. What it means is that a spouse can cheat, be an alcoholic, be abusive, etc., but when it comes to divorce, walk away from the marriage with no consequences for their bad behavior, leaving the wronged spouse oftentimes in abject poverty. But if the abusive spouse, for instance, has custody of the children, the court does not want to financially punish the child for the wrongs of the parent, so awards child support suitable for the financial circumstances in regard to both parents.
Where it really goes sideways is in the realm of child custody. Women more often than not are given primary custody as a matter of course, regardless of fault in the divorce. This is wrong IMO. I honestly believe fault should be taken into account when awarding custody, and the best interests of the child should be paramount, as is the legal standard, but often it is not followed. I have practiced family law, so I know of what I speak. Too often custody and visitation are given to unfit parents as a matter of course…
In divorce, two cannot live as cheaply as one; more often than not (but not always) one spouse was gravely more at fault than the other (and by the way, according to a private investigator I hired, women cheat just as much as men); it is very hard on the children, who are hopelessly caught in the middle of the tumult thru no fault of their own…
A couple of clarifications about divorce in California, and Elaine, please correct me if I am wrong.
1) While a couple of decades ago, the trend was to favor mothers in custody, more recently, for at least the past 10-15 years the trend has been to default to a 50-50 arrangement. When I was trying to have this modified in our case due to the obviously negligent behavior of their father while in the marriage, since I was carrying his child raising responsibilities as well as my own while he conducted his affairs, I was advised ( correctly as things worked out) not to fight this since unless we could prove endangering behavior such as doing drugs in front of the children, this issue would be decided against me.
2) Jeff mentioned “grounds for divorce”. In California, there is no need to demonstrate “grounds”. Basically anyone can divorce anyone else at any time for any reason. That is the heart of “no fault” divorce along with as Elaine has mentioned, no repercussions for bad behavior.
3) While women cheat as often as men, they do not leave their children as often as men do. Another reason for the large discrepancy in children living with single mothers.
A note in defense of the State of California with regard to the now nearly universal 50/50 custody arrangements,
an attorney explained to me that this seemingly very unjust system was adopted to spare children from having to side with one parent over the other in order for the state to determine who should get custody. This is an admittedly imperfect system, but was designed to prevent further traumatization of the children by having to effectively choose which parent to live with thereby risking alienation of the other parent, and unacceptable risk to a child even if it is clear to them who is the more devoted parent.
I didn’t call you a racist Rifkin I just pointed how sterilization programs have led to racism and genocide something you fail to comprehend. I have no doubt that in your own mind you fail to see how easily paying for sterilization could lead to such abuse so I posted a story right out of yesterday’s NY Times that lays it out for you. I hope you read it but your post indicates you did not. One interesting aspect of the story is that the victim is waiting to find out from the courts what his fertility is worth. Your arbitrary $25,000, in my opinion, understates the value significantly by many measures. How much is having someone to take care of you when you are old worth?
Elaine: On the child support issue, let’s leave out from the discussion the folks at the bottom of income levels, because there is no easy answer there. They live paycheck to paycheck supporting one house, and then of course something is going to give trying to support two.
I am focusing on the middle class… a family where two spouses are generally both working. Custody can rarely be shared 50/50 unless the parents continue to live in the same school district. Usually, the kids live with the mother during the week, and the dad gets them on the weekend. In this case the formula will cause the dad to have a larger child support responsibility even if he makes a bit less than the mom.
Go here to use the CA Child Support Calculator [url]https://www.cse.ca.gov/ChildSupport/cse/guidelineCalculator[/url] and play with the “Time With Kids %” to see how it impacts the dollar about for support.
One other impact to the dad in this situation… the mom gets her weekends off, and the dad has the kids.
medwoman: My point about no fault divorce was based on the fact that I assumed you didn’t want to stay married to him after cheating. I could not understand how – assuming no no fault divorce – it would have changed things for you. Is your point that he should not have been entitled to 50% and shared custody because of the infidelity? That seems a slippery slope. I agree that no-fault seems to penalize the more trusting and reward the less trustworthy spouse. However, at least everyone knows the 50/50 rule when the enter into the partnership.
I understand that before no-fault divorce couples that wanted to divorce would go so far as to stage acts of infidelity in order to get the courts to accept their petition.
Jeff
Yes, Jeff that was my point. Marriage as established in this country is both a social and a legal ( contractual) arrangement. You are a businessman. Please name any other contractual arrangement in which the assets are distributed equally between parties when only one has repeatedly and admittedly broken the terms of the agreement and in fact agrees that the other party was blameless. The courts seem to be willing to address fair distribution of assets in other contractual arrangements, but not with regard to this one.
As for everyone knowing the 50/50 rule, you would have to be a lawyer to understand all the ins and outs of how this is applied, which assets count, which don’t, how many years of support count, how long ago or recent they have to be, what other mitigating circumstances count and which don’t , how alimony decisions affect or don’t affect other aspects of distribution. So what “everyone knows, or think they know going in can be far from the reality they experience in the end.
I would favor requiring a prenuptial agreement for all marriages that spells out under state law what one can and cannot anticipate should dissolution of the marriage occur. The state requires a marriage license, why not some kind of binding ( legally as well as religiously ) agreement which would prevent one partner who just happens to trust that they are both sincere in their oath from being taken advantage of ?
Don
I realize that Jeff and I have wandered fairly far off topic. Please feel free to reassign our recent posts to the bulletin board if Jeff agrees.
[quote]1) While a couple of decades ago, the trend was to favor mothers in custody, more recently, for at least the past 10-15 years the trend has been to default to a 50-50 arrangement. [/quote]
Judges have a bias and almost always award primary custody to mom. That is just the reality…
[quote]Usually, the kids live with the mother during the week, and the dad gets them on the weekend. In this case the formula will cause the dad to have a larger child support responsibility even if he makes a bit less than the mom. [/quote]
Child support is based on ability to pay…
[i]”Please name any other contractual arrangement in which the assets are distributed equally between parties when only one has repeatedly and admittedly broken the terms of the agreement and in fact agrees that the other party was blameless.”[/i]
Medwoman, the default for all legal partnerships is 50/50 unless otherwise stipulated in a legal partnership agreement. Even when stipulated, disputes tend to get pushed to a 50/50 resolution as that is the basis for partnership (equal authority, accountability, risk, etc…). Unfortunately infidelity is not a criminal act, so unless there are contractual remedies within the specific marital partnership agreement, I don’t see how this can be used to demand monetary penalties in a marital disillusionment.
I have a question. Let’s say a wife cheats on a husband who had previously refused intimacy and, she felt, was cold and disconnected from her over the last, say, twelve months. Should the wife be monetarily penalized at divorce? Also, without no-fault divorce, let’s say that the wife wanted out, but the husband refused and he claimed he had health problems that prevented intimacy, but otherwise he still loved his wife. Without no-fault divorce, couldn’t this wife be forced to stay married by the court refusing to grant her petition for divorce? If she then had an affair, would it be fair to penalize her for doing so?