Mother: Most Beautiful Word in the World
Of course, there will be the usual jealous, demented misfits, who will be mad that father wasn't included within the list.
Oh well...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Mum's the word, says the world Mother was most loved, while father was absent, Mother is the most beautiful word in the English language, according to a survey of non-English speakers.
More than 40,000 people in 102 countries were polled by the British Council to mark its 70th anniversary. Mother, passion, smile, love and eternity were the top five choices - but father did not even make it into the list of 70 words.
But some unusual choices did make the list, such as peekaboo, flabbergasted, hen night and oi.
SOME OF THE TOP WORDS 1. Mother 2. Passion 3. Smile 4. Love 5. Eternity 48. Peekaboo 50. Kangaroo 61. Oi 63. Hiccup 70. Hen night Fantastic, destiny, freedom, liberty and tranquillity rounded out the top 10.
The British Council promotes the learning of English around the world and teaches the language to more than 500,000 people each year. Chris Wade, director of communications at the council, said the most favoured choices in the list were all strong, positive words. He said: "All of us have a mother and have a reasonable idea of who that person is, it's one piece of certainty we can have and it's also a very powerful word in a variety of cultures. "But I wonder if we would have had the same result if we had done the survey in the UK." He said the list showed the diversity of the English language: "There are words denoting concepts that people aspire to, like freedom; words that sounded fun like peekaboo and others that aren't really words at all but they convey real meaning, like oi."
Other words to make the top 70 included serendipity, loquacious, kangaroo and zing. There were also words imported from other languages, such as renaissance and aqua. Presumably, a maternal kangaroo would be highly rated indeed." We'll grab anything we can take. Lots of words have been stolen over the years," Mr Wade said. " But while other languages may be reluctant to use our words, [this has provided] a real richness in the English has evolved."
He said one English word to have gained widespread usage recently was flip-flop, which came 59th in the survey. Failed US presidential candidate John Kerry was accused by the Republicans of having "flip-flopped" - or changed his stance - on a number of policy areas. "Flip-flop was used a lot during coverage of the US election. If the survey had been done a year ago it probably would not be in the list," said Mr Wade.
Michael Quinion, whose recent book Port Out, Starboard Home examines some of the quirks of the English language, said it was a very "eclectic" list. He said: "These non-English speakers certainly have wonderful English vocabularies. "There seems to be a curious mixture of the formal and the colloquial. Oi is not a word that I would've thought turned up in English manuals all that often." The list also included what Mr Quinion said was his own favourite English word - serendipity, which came 24th. "It's so mellifluous but it's such a nice concept too."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewing the article below, which appears to be a bitter retort to the article above I can clearly see what piece of the puzzle has been missing from the Men Rights movement in the West. Basically nobody has mentioned that this movement is, at its heart, a hate movement.
It’s a hate movement against women in general, mothers in particular, especially single mothers, who also appear to be its biggest victims.
From the Men’s Rights Movement have emerged two umbrella groups the Father’s Rights and the Grandparent’s Right Movements and both of these movements have as their goal to get as many children separated from their mothers as possible.
This is their aim.
Millions of single mothers, many minority women (who have had infants seized) appear to have lost custody of their children through our court system with little or no cause. Additionally loopholes in various state laws are allowing fathers to abduct their children legally, if the mother hasn’t rushed down to the courtroom immediately after birth to get some sort of legal custody established.
Right now about 2.5 million women have lost custody of their children (figures from 2000 Census) some good number of these mothers to never see these children again (similar to the Jerica Rhodes situation) for no other reason then to appease this hate movement known as the Fathers Rights Movement (a subgroup of this Men’s Rights Movement).
Also, as I said above, these hate-filled groups have coopted millions of grandparents into aiding and abetting them in these activities leading to another 5 million women losing their children to paternal grandparents (figures from AARP) and again, losing all contact with their children.
Sadly these groups have been aided by a the gender neutralized militant wing of NOW, which has always had a radical stream running through it as we can see from the following quote: “"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” (Simone De Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p. 18.)
After reading the article below I will post some ideas to short-circuited the plans of these demented idiots.
"COMMENTARY
D.L. Stewart: For some inexplicable reason, mom's the word
By D.L. Stewart
Dayton Daily News
Like most persons who have had one of their own, I'm a great fan of mothers.
D.L. Stewart: For some inexplicable reason, mom's the word
RSS headlines available
Motherhood has been around nearly as long as there have been persons. Without mothers, the sales of flowers and candy in May would plummet, there would be fewer songs for Irish singers and the birthrate would fall dramatically. Because I have nothing but the deepest respect for mothers, I never would say anything bad about them. Besides, dissing someone's mother is a good way to get hurt really, really badly.
Still, I think those of us in the news business need to be a little careful about how — and when — we refer to motherhood.
The other day, for instance, there was a story about a traffic fatality. The headline said that a mom had been killed.
I'm very sorry for her family's loss, but I'm not sure why the fact that she was a mom was included in the headline. On the same page there were two stories about men, and both headlines merely used the word "man."
But I might not have noticed all that except for the fact that it came just a few days after a television report that caught my attention.
Promoting the upcoming 11 p.m. news, an announcer declared that the top story concerned "four moms" who had been found guilty of a serious crime that day. So I stayed tuned to the channel, and when the 11 p.m. news came on, a news reporter confirmed that the top story had to do with "four mothers."
According to the report, the four women had stolen some clothes from a store. As they were making their getaway, their car struck and killed a man who had just stepped off a sidewalk. All four women were found guilty of murder, although the verdicts may be appealed.
However it turns out, the story was a tragedy for all concerned. But I'm still trying to figure out where motherhood entered into it. If four guys who happened to have children were in that car, would anyone have reported that "four dads" had been found guilty of a serious crime?
Maybe it was because the thought of mothers committing a crime goes against our perception of motherhood. But in the past few years, stories involving mothers who have committed crimes against their children have become way too frequent to support that notion.
Or maybe it was because we're still uncomfortable with sending mothers to prison.
One of the women, in fact, immediately played that card. As the verdict was read, according to news reports, she pleaded, "We've all got kids. My baby is 1." At the risk of sounding hard-hearted, she probably should have thought of that before she went out to steal clothes.
Still, it's a tragedy. Four women will be going to prison. At least four children will be minus a parent. And, by the way, a man is dead.
None of the news accounts I saw mentioned whether he was a father.
D.L. Stewart's column appears Tuesday, Friday and Sunday in the Life section. Contact him at 225-2439 or by e-mail at dlstewart@Dayton-DailyNews.com.
Sadly I could see the envy dripping from this poor demented soul...that someone referred to these women as mothers...
Oh let's mount a campaign to stop the newspapers from doing that...
Well as we can also see beyond the envy the more important issue is that this envy has caused millions of mothers to lose custody of their children over the last decade or so, thus, these movements are gaining momentum. They have managed to get government funding for groups, which give fathers assistance (but not mothers) in learning how to gain custody of their children especially through these loopholes in state laws.
Additionally they have been putting out false statistics about mothers, especially single mothers and have managed to get public policy changes due to these statistically lies they’ve spread.
Thus:
One. The first area which must be addressed is the tax money spent ONLY on fathers. That must end. Either that money helps both single fathers and single MOTHERS or it has to stop. It’s the equivalent of giving men free attorneys to help gain custody of children from perfectly fine and loving mothers, many of them minority women btw as statistics appear to point to black women losing custody of babies; whereas white women are voluntarily giving custody of older children to their fathers. I have no problem with the latter situation MANY MANY MANY problems with the former…MANY...
Two. Organizations that insist on continuing to JUST help fathers must lose their non-profit status and be made to pay taxes on any monies they receive. These must include internet based groups as well.
Three. The FBI website must include pictures of abducted children and their parents in PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF PERPETRATORS who actually commit the crime. In essence if 2/3 of the perpetrators of this crime are men that should be the proportion of the pictures highlighted on the site.
What currently happens is it’s mostly women and their children featured on the site even though 2/3 of the parents who abduct their children are men…
That needs to stop yesterday.
Four. We need a separate statistics group to analyze any data coming out from any ‘fatherhood’ groups BEFORE it is released to the public. As it has just come to my attention that many fathers do not respond to the surveys of these groups at the same rate as mothers. Thus 50% of a lower response should NOT be allowed to be released as 50% of fathers…as 50% of 100 responses from fathers should not be allowed to = 50% of 1000 responses from mothers.
This, in fact, would be a statistical lie sent out to the public
Five. ALL media must now begin to put out 50% of all ads, movies, TV shows, news spots, magazine stories, etc., to be positive about mothers…36% of these spots must represent single mothers as our latest statistics show that 36% of births now occur to single mothers.
This will include internet sites as well…
The media has become much too focused on a small minority of single fathers to the detriment of single mothers, who make up the majority of the pool of single parents and are being underrepresented here.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Sunday, November 13, 2005
One Year Anniversary as a Blogger
I just wish to note that October 27th was my one-year anniversary of having a blog...
My very first post was inspired by Mary Colonna's situation in Pennsylvania and my first post of my 'new year' mentions her as well.
It's interesting, I orginally became involved in these matters after the location of a child, Ryan Patrick Greene, abducted from my state, New York.
He was abducted by his father and a step person when he was two years old and not located until his mother finally tracked him down (on her own, the authorities were useless) 14 years later...
YET the ending of this story was not even a day served in jail for the monsters who kidnapped him, not even ONE DAY...
"Sunday, January 21, 2001
Parents say it's like losing their children twice
By Jeffrey Klineman
Eagle-Tribune Writer
For years, the problem for parents who have had their children abducted has been locating their loved ones.
Now, however, as coordinated police work and a number of high-profile recoveries have focused attention on the subject of parental abduction, a new set of problems has emerged: how to overcome the abductees' almost unanimous rejection of the left-behind parents, most of whom have spent countless hours and dollars looking for them.
Last week, it took just one night for Ryan Patrick Greene, 17, of Newbury to decide he wanted to return to his father and stepmother after being reunited with his mother. He hadn't seen his mother in 14 years. His father and stepmother now face kidnapping charges.
But some experts would say that the one night Ryan Patrick Greene -- known as "Patrick" -- gave his mother is one more than most left-behind parents can hope for.
As recent cases have highlighted -- and many more that have been studied have proven -- the road to reunification is often a tragically brief one, ending with the abducted child returning to the kidnapping parent, and little or no relationship developing with the parent who did the searching.
"Initially, not one single abducted child ever wants to speak to or see the parent who was left behind," said Pamela Stuart-Mills, the head of the Rachel Foundation, a new organization based in Damascus, Md., that tries to facilitate the long, difficult process of reunion.
"When it's long-term, it's very hard to bridge that gap," Ms. Malky added. "Because of all the lies they're told, and for so many years, it's hard to break through. All they're hearing is the other side of the story. And they can't understand why we can't find them."
The failure of those reunions has been laid bare for the public recently through two well-known cases with Massachusetts ties.
Last week, after 14 years in hiding, Patrick was reintroduced to his mother. The reunion, which began in Newbury but continued in Oneonta, N.Y., the site of Patrick's abduction, lasted less than a day. The 16-year-old has said he intends to take advantage of a New York law that will allow him to emancipate himself from his parents. Patrick has said he plans to live with his father and stepmother in Newbury, even though the pair may face jail time for charges they kidnapped him.
Parents who are left behind are often lied about by the parent on the run, if not "killed off" completely through stories about car accidents or overdoses.
"Very often the abducting parent will program the child to believe the parent who has been left behind is noxious or dangerous," said Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a New Jersey-based psychiatrist, Columbia University Medical School professor and author who has written about "parental alienation syndrome," a condition, frequently associated with custody disputes, in which one parent turns a child against the other parent. "It provides some justification to explain to the child why they are in hiding."
Second, it is difficult to find a parentally abducted child. It took fourteen years and hundreds of false leads to locate Brian Greene and his children. And when the discovery is made, frequently children cannot believe that the parent has been looking for them."
AND as I pointed out not ONE DAY of jail time was handed out to the monsters who perpetuated this crime...
This injustice was actually what started my involvement in mother's issues.
I "met" Mary Colonna and many other mothers over the internet and after going back and forth on trying a number of things to get some light focused on our issues, I eventually decided to start a blog pertaining to them, as I felt the news media was covering motherhood issues, if at all, very inadequately.
When I first started this blog I was worried that I wouldn't have enough material to update often enough, as stories focusing on mothers were not plentiful...so I decided to try for once a week updates.
Now, I think I could post a couple of new posts every day. I don't know if there are more stories about mothers in the media, or if I've just become a better detective scooping them out or what...
Anyway my one year anniversary just passed...just thought I'd let anyone who was interested know.
My very first post was inspired by Mary Colonna's situation in Pennsylvania and my first post of my 'new year' mentions her as well.
It's interesting, I orginally became involved in these matters after the location of a child, Ryan Patrick Greene, abducted from my state, New York.
He was abducted by his father and a step person when he was two years old and not located until his mother finally tracked him down (on her own, the authorities were useless) 14 years later...
YET the ending of this story was not even a day served in jail for the monsters who kidnapped him, not even ONE DAY...
"Sunday, January 21, 2001
Parents say it's like losing their children twice
By Jeffrey Klineman
Eagle-Tribune Writer
For years, the problem for parents who have had their children abducted has been locating their loved ones.
Now, however, as coordinated police work and a number of high-profile recoveries have focused attention on the subject of parental abduction, a new set of problems has emerged: how to overcome the abductees' almost unanimous rejection of the left-behind parents, most of whom have spent countless hours and dollars looking for them.
Last week, it took just one night for Ryan Patrick Greene, 17, of Newbury to decide he wanted to return to his father and stepmother after being reunited with his mother. He hadn't seen his mother in 14 years. His father and stepmother now face kidnapping charges.
But some experts would say that the one night Ryan Patrick Greene -- known as "Patrick" -- gave his mother is one more than most left-behind parents can hope for.
As recent cases have highlighted -- and many more that have been studied have proven -- the road to reunification is often a tragically brief one, ending with the abducted child returning to the kidnapping parent, and little or no relationship developing with the parent who did the searching.
"Initially, not one single abducted child ever wants to speak to or see the parent who was left behind," said Pamela Stuart-Mills, the head of the Rachel Foundation, a new organization based in Damascus, Md., that tries to facilitate the long, difficult process of reunion.
"When it's long-term, it's very hard to bridge that gap," Ms. Malky added. "Because of all the lies they're told, and for so many years, it's hard to break through. All they're hearing is the other side of the story. And they can't understand why we can't find them."
The failure of those reunions has been laid bare for the public recently through two well-known cases with Massachusetts ties.
Last week, after 14 years in hiding, Patrick was reintroduced to his mother. The reunion, which began in Newbury but continued in Oneonta, N.Y., the site of Patrick's abduction, lasted less than a day. The 16-year-old has said he intends to take advantage of a New York law that will allow him to emancipate himself from his parents. Patrick has said he plans to live with his father and stepmother in Newbury, even though the pair may face jail time for charges they kidnapped him.
Parents who are left behind are often lied about by the parent on the run, if not "killed off" completely through stories about car accidents or overdoses.
"Very often the abducting parent will program the child to believe the parent who has been left behind is noxious or dangerous," said Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a New Jersey-based psychiatrist, Columbia University Medical School professor and author who has written about "parental alienation syndrome," a condition, frequently associated with custody disputes, in which one parent turns a child against the other parent. "It provides some justification to explain to the child why they are in hiding."
Second, it is difficult to find a parentally abducted child. It took fourteen years and hundreds of false leads to locate Brian Greene and his children. And when the discovery is made, frequently children cannot believe that the parent has been looking for them."
AND as I pointed out not ONE DAY of jail time was handed out to the monsters who perpetuated this crime...
This injustice was actually what started my involvement in mother's issues.
I "met" Mary Colonna and many other mothers over the internet and after going back and forth on trying a number of things to get some light focused on our issues, I eventually decided to start a blog pertaining to them, as I felt the news media was covering motherhood issues, if at all, very inadequately.
When I first started this blog I was worried that I wouldn't have enough material to update often enough, as stories focusing on mothers were not plentiful...so I decided to try for once a week updates.
Now, I think I could post a couple of new posts every day. I don't know if there are more stories about mothers in the media, or if I've just become a better detective scooping them out or what...
Anyway my one year anniversary just passed...just thought I'd let anyone who was interested know.
Great Minds Thinking Alike
As many of you know we are currently trying to get 39 more signatures for our online Child Support Petition to Hillary Clinton.
We are trying to get New York State to adopt the Colonna vs Colonna child support ruling that changed the way Pennsylvania awarded child support. PA now allows a low income non-custodial parent to get child support from a high income custodial parent in order to even out disparities in household income and make it easier for children to have a similar lifestyle in both households.
Surely we don’t want to see a child living in a home in a nice middle-class neighborhood with one parent and then during parenting time with the other moving into a trailer park? This could be quite confusing to a young mind not to mention demoralizing to the non-custodial parent to see their child maybe not even wanting to visit, due to a huge disparity in living standards.
Anyway I was quite gratified to see that this standard was also being applied in other countries now.
I guess great minds think alike. Thus, we have much to thank Mary Colonna for in her courageous struggle to make custody and child support rulings fairer to everyone.
www.Macleans.ca
"Supreme Court of Canada upholds mother's child-custody appeal
STEPHEN THORNE
OTTAWA (CP) - In a decision lawyers hope will clarify often-murky guidelines, the country's highest court said Thursday that support payments do not necessarily rise or fall in concert with changes to child custody.
In a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an appeal by a mother whose support income was significantly reduced when her ex-husband started seeing more of their child.
The high court awarded the mother $500 a month, down from the original $563 a month but more than the $339 awarded by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Eight of nine judges said courts must take the financial situations of both parents into account when determining support payments, and courts must recognize that many child-care costs are fixed.
Indeed, the court said the cost of raising children may actually be greater in shared custody than in sole custody.
"They're saying that time, in and of itself, does not mean that child support should be reduced," said Deidre Smith, lawyer for mother Joanne Contino.
"It's an important case because it helps Canadians understand how to interpret the child-support guidelines. This issue has been bedevilling Canadians, judges and lawyers . . . across the country."
The mother had primary custody of her son after she and husband Joseph Contino separated in 1989 and divorced four years later.
The father had access to his boy on alternate weekends and Thursday nights, but his visits increased by four evenings a month to accommodate his ex-wife, who had enrolled in an evening class.
Various courts awarded wildly varying amounts over a five-year legal fight.
In September 2000, Ontario Superior Court reduced Joseph Contino's payments to $50 a month and awarded him court costs of $3,800. The Divisional Court overturned the decision and boosted his payments to $688.
The appeal court set that decision aside and ordered child support payments of $399.61 a month.
The high court essentially said such awards cannot follow a strict formula and must take into account inherent fixed costs such as car and house insurance payments.
"The determination of an equitable division of the costs of support for children in shared custody situations is a difficult matter; it is not amenable to simple solutions," Justice Michel Bastarache wrote.
"Any attempt to apply strict formulae will fail to recognize the reality of various families."
Smith said food and the like are the only things that tend to change with custody arrangements. "And as expensive as it is to feed a teenage boy, it's not the biggest ticket item on any budget."
Justice Morris Fish disagreed with his colleagues, saying child support is an "imprecise" science that should at least ensure the child's standard of living with both parents.
He said the appeal court's $399.61 award fell within the "acceptable range."
The justices did not award costs, and their decision is not retroactive. Four highly anticipated Alberta cases slated to come before them next year will likely clarify retroactivity in such cases.
"Obviously, there has been a lot of difficulty for judges to come to a consensus about how to approach this kind of situation," said Smith.
She said two important principles appear to emerge from the high court decision - ensuring as little change to the child's standard of living as possible and demanding clear evidence from parents of expenses related to custody arrangements before changes to support payments are made."
We are trying to get New York State to adopt the Colonna vs Colonna child support ruling that changed the way Pennsylvania awarded child support. PA now allows a low income non-custodial parent to get child support from a high income custodial parent in order to even out disparities in household income and make it easier for children to have a similar lifestyle in both households.
Surely we don’t want to see a child living in a home in a nice middle-class neighborhood with one parent and then during parenting time with the other moving into a trailer park? This could be quite confusing to a young mind not to mention demoralizing to the non-custodial parent to see their child maybe not even wanting to visit, due to a huge disparity in living standards.
Anyway I was quite gratified to see that this standard was also being applied in other countries now.
I guess great minds think alike. Thus, we have much to thank Mary Colonna for in her courageous struggle to make custody and child support rulings fairer to everyone.
www.Macleans.ca
"Supreme Court of Canada upholds mother's child-custody appeal
STEPHEN THORNE
OTTAWA (CP) - In a decision lawyers hope will clarify often-murky guidelines, the country's highest court said Thursday that support payments do not necessarily rise or fall in concert with changes to child custody.
In a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an appeal by a mother whose support income was significantly reduced when her ex-husband started seeing more of their child.
The high court awarded the mother $500 a month, down from the original $563 a month but more than the $339 awarded by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Eight of nine judges said courts must take the financial situations of both parents into account when determining support payments, and courts must recognize that many child-care costs are fixed.
Indeed, the court said the cost of raising children may actually be greater in shared custody than in sole custody.
"They're saying that time, in and of itself, does not mean that child support should be reduced," said Deidre Smith, lawyer for mother Joanne Contino.
"It's an important case because it helps Canadians understand how to interpret the child-support guidelines. This issue has been bedevilling Canadians, judges and lawyers . . . across the country."
The mother had primary custody of her son after she and husband Joseph Contino separated in 1989 and divorced four years later.
The father had access to his boy on alternate weekends and Thursday nights, but his visits increased by four evenings a month to accommodate his ex-wife, who had enrolled in an evening class.
Various courts awarded wildly varying amounts over a five-year legal fight.
In September 2000, Ontario Superior Court reduced Joseph Contino's payments to $50 a month and awarded him court costs of $3,800. The Divisional Court overturned the decision and boosted his payments to $688.
The appeal court set that decision aside and ordered child support payments of $399.61 a month.
The high court essentially said such awards cannot follow a strict formula and must take into account inherent fixed costs such as car and house insurance payments.
"The determination of an equitable division of the costs of support for children in shared custody situations is a difficult matter; it is not amenable to simple solutions," Justice Michel Bastarache wrote.
"Any attempt to apply strict formulae will fail to recognize the reality of various families."
Smith said food and the like are the only things that tend to change with custody arrangements. "And as expensive as it is to feed a teenage boy, it's not the biggest ticket item on any budget."
Justice Morris Fish disagreed with his colleagues, saying child support is an "imprecise" science that should at least ensure the child's standard of living with both parents.
He said the appeal court's $399.61 award fell within the "acceptable range."
The justices did not award costs, and their decision is not retroactive. Four highly anticipated Alberta cases slated to come before them next year will likely clarify retroactivity in such cases.
"Obviously, there has been a lot of difficulty for judges to come to a consensus about how to approach this kind of situation," said Smith.
She said two important principles appear to emerge from the high court decision - ensuring as little change to the child's standard of living as possible and demanding clear evidence from parents of expenses related to custody arrangements before changes to support payments are made."
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Life of a Professional Soldier Should NOT have to be Burden of Children
Senate Committee Passes Measure on Soldier Custody
Legislation meant to help Military members with child custody battles has been passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bills would prevent a court from making a decision about a child's custody based on a parent's separation while serving overseas. It also would prohibit permanent custody from being decided while a parent is deployed overseas. The legislation already passed the State House. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration.
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=4066962&nav=0RbQ
Sadly this is one of those ideas that will have little impact on the problem of GI Joe or (Jane for that matter) losing custody of their children to the non-military parent.
Sorry but that’s the way it is and probably should be.
The Romans recognized this and didn’t allow their professional legionnaires to marry or begin a family until they left Rome’s service. The bottom line is this was obviously even cheaper for the Empire and it’s taxpayers; as they probably didn’t want to have to provide for thousands of widows and orphans in the event of huge battlefield fatalities. Not to mention the emotional impact of thousands of families losing a husband, father and head of household.
One of the ironies of our own lack of realistic discussion vis-à-vis the parent and the military was the news of Cindy Sheehan and her husband having her son’s military life insurance (which at $100,000 was far too high for a military man or woman with no family) as part of their divorce settlement. This is the sort of dollar amount that a man or woman insures themselves for when they have dependents. Not to leave as an unexpected windfall for their parents. Unfortunately because we have allowed so many parents into the military, life insurance had to be raised to reflect this reality.
Previously it was in the $10,000 range, which was adequate as a burial policy and to pay off the few debts that a single soldier might have accumulated.
This is also the same wrong-headed policy that is feeding the ‘custody’ of children problem.
The bottom line is that if you have those sorts of civilian obligations and responsibilities, a high-risk job where you can be deployed to any part of the world, at and for any length of time is NOT the job for you.
When you make the individual decision to choose the life of a professional soldier as your job, you have to expect to forfeit certain civilian privileges. In return you also forfeit certain responsibilities that civilians are burdened with, ie., providing their own food and shelter. Generally the army provides that for you, along with a salary and generous medical care in the event you get injured. Because guess what, chances are you are going to be injured; as you chose a high-risk profession call WAR.
That is why the military, is at it’s best, when it is reserved as a job for the young. You go into it, anywhere from 18 to 22. Put in your 20 years and (for men anyway who are financially, emotionally and biologically at their peak for siring a family anywhere from 30 to 40 years old) retire with some savings, training and a pension that will enable you to take your ‘stake’ and then settle down with a wife and start your family.
The military is NOT a 9:00 to 5:00 job that you put in your 8 hours and then return home to the spouse and the kids to settle down for dinner and helping out with the homework. You are on call to Uncle Sam, day or night, in any part of the world; as the nature of modern war today (and probably it was ever so, even in the time of the ancients) is that you never know where a need will break out and you’ll have to drag out the old battle shield and sword to start marching.
It was never a job for a person burdened with the civilian responsibility of a spouse and/or kids. Actually men, in the time of the ancients anyway, didn’t marry until their 30s (although girls were anywhere from 14 to 19 years olds when they married) so for the ordinary man being a soldier from the ages of about 16 to 30 probably worked out just fine.
I believe that the US has gotten away from this essential fact of a professional soldier’s life. Probably due to the fact that the US had two national emergencies in the last century WWI and WWII where nationwide mobilization had to take place and where parents were forced to get involved in the military. But those were national emergencies. In the ordinary course of events a country of almost 300 million people should have NO reason to have parents running around the battlefield as professional soldiers. Realistically, it’s a whole different set of skills sets.
Not to mention the high risk of injury or even death, which will leave thousands of children traumatized and cost civilians millions of dollars in benefits having to provide for them. I mean just recently I read about a man with ONE LEG and TEN KIDS who volunteered to return to Iraq. Sorry folks as proud as I was that he wished to continue serving his country, for his, ours and most of all for his family’s sakes, he should have been turned down and told to go home and focus on raising his children.
We have to accept that this sort of situation being successful is unrealistic on its face. Human children have one of longest periods of dependency throughout the animal kingdom. Probably the ONLY mammal that has a longer one then human beings is the elephant. A child needs a parent who is going to be physically there for them. Who is going to be there for them every night when they return home, have dinner, help them with homework, out there driving them to the soccer or baseball game every weekend or taking them to grandma…It is impossible to plan to be a consistent part of your childrens lives when you are on call at anytime, anytime to someone else and children need consistency. They need to be the number 1 priority in their parent’s life.
I have wrestled with this issue due to the number of mothers who lose their children due to being enlisted in the service. I do feel very badly for these women.
I’m sorry to say it, however, but I have to conclude that due to the fact that you cannot count on being there for your child, as your life is NOT your own, then you have to expect to forfeit custody if you are in the military.
Sorry mothers, it’s just the way it is.
Changing the laws to continue unrealistic custody arrangements is not going to solve the problem. The military needs to encourage (and ultimately maybe enforce though law) the idea that the life of a professional soldier is not conducive to having children. Beginning a family is a civilian pursuit; which should probably not happen until a soldier is once again a civilian.
Again, mothers, sorry. You would be wise to wait until you leave the military before having children. Probably women who wish to be mothers will not be able to put in the full 20 years for a pension (unless we get a law passed reflecting the biologically shortened time line of women) but until that happens ten or fifteen years is probably the more realistic ‘retirement period’ for women depending upon your age going in.
Custody, if you have children, will probably and should probably, reside with the parent who is the civilian…as they can provide the more stable and consistent environment for the child. If both parents are military, the one who is willing to leave the service should be the one who becomes custodial. Joint custody can apply if both can leave.
Nor should step persons or other relatives EVER be allowed to help a deployed parent continue an unrealistic custodial arrangement.
It’s uniquely American to believe that every problem has a solution where no one has to be hurt, but unfortunately, some problems have ONLY the hard solutions and adults must be prepared to make them or suffer the consequences.
Legislation meant to help Military members with child custody battles has been passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bills would prevent a court from making a decision about a child's custody based on a parent's separation while serving overseas. It also would prohibit permanent custody from being decided while a parent is deployed overseas. The legislation already passed the State House. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration.
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=4066962&nav=0RbQ
Sadly this is one of those ideas that will have little impact on the problem of GI Joe or (Jane for that matter) losing custody of their children to the non-military parent.
Sorry but that’s the way it is and probably should be.
The Romans recognized this and didn’t allow their professional legionnaires to marry or begin a family until they left Rome’s service. The bottom line is this was obviously even cheaper for the Empire and it’s taxpayers; as they probably didn’t want to have to provide for thousands of widows and orphans in the event of huge battlefield fatalities. Not to mention the emotional impact of thousands of families losing a husband, father and head of household.
One of the ironies of our own lack of realistic discussion vis-à-vis the parent and the military was the news of Cindy Sheehan and her husband having her son’s military life insurance (which at $100,000 was far too high for a military man or woman with no family) as part of their divorce settlement. This is the sort of dollar amount that a man or woman insures themselves for when they have dependents. Not to leave as an unexpected windfall for their parents. Unfortunately because we have allowed so many parents into the military, life insurance had to be raised to reflect this reality.
Previously it was in the $10,000 range, which was adequate as a burial policy and to pay off the few debts that a single soldier might have accumulated.
This is also the same wrong-headed policy that is feeding the ‘custody’ of children problem.
The bottom line is that if you have those sorts of civilian obligations and responsibilities, a high-risk job where you can be deployed to any part of the world, at and for any length of time is NOT the job for you.
When you make the individual decision to choose the life of a professional soldier as your job, you have to expect to forfeit certain civilian privileges. In return you also forfeit certain responsibilities that civilians are burdened with, ie., providing their own food and shelter. Generally the army provides that for you, along with a salary and generous medical care in the event you get injured. Because guess what, chances are you are going to be injured; as you chose a high-risk profession call WAR.
That is why the military, is at it’s best, when it is reserved as a job for the young. You go into it, anywhere from 18 to 22. Put in your 20 years and (for men anyway who are financially, emotionally and biologically at their peak for siring a family anywhere from 30 to 40 years old) retire with some savings, training and a pension that will enable you to take your ‘stake’ and then settle down with a wife and start your family.
The military is NOT a 9:00 to 5:00 job that you put in your 8 hours and then return home to the spouse and the kids to settle down for dinner and helping out with the homework. You are on call to Uncle Sam, day or night, in any part of the world; as the nature of modern war today (and probably it was ever so, even in the time of the ancients) is that you never know where a need will break out and you’ll have to drag out the old battle shield and sword to start marching.
It was never a job for a person burdened with the civilian responsibility of a spouse and/or kids. Actually men, in the time of the ancients anyway, didn’t marry until their 30s (although girls were anywhere from 14 to 19 years olds when they married) so for the ordinary man being a soldier from the ages of about 16 to 30 probably worked out just fine.
I believe that the US has gotten away from this essential fact of a professional soldier’s life. Probably due to the fact that the US had two national emergencies in the last century WWI and WWII where nationwide mobilization had to take place and where parents were forced to get involved in the military. But those were national emergencies. In the ordinary course of events a country of almost 300 million people should have NO reason to have parents running around the battlefield as professional soldiers. Realistically, it’s a whole different set of skills sets.
Not to mention the high risk of injury or even death, which will leave thousands of children traumatized and cost civilians millions of dollars in benefits having to provide for them. I mean just recently I read about a man with ONE LEG and TEN KIDS who volunteered to return to Iraq. Sorry folks as proud as I was that he wished to continue serving his country, for his, ours and most of all for his family’s sakes, he should have been turned down and told to go home and focus on raising his children.
We have to accept that this sort of situation being successful is unrealistic on its face. Human children have one of longest periods of dependency throughout the animal kingdom. Probably the ONLY mammal that has a longer one then human beings is the elephant. A child needs a parent who is going to be physically there for them. Who is going to be there for them every night when they return home, have dinner, help them with homework, out there driving them to the soccer or baseball game every weekend or taking them to grandma…It is impossible to plan to be a consistent part of your childrens lives when you are on call at anytime, anytime to someone else and children need consistency. They need to be the number 1 priority in their parent’s life.
I have wrestled with this issue due to the number of mothers who lose their children due to being enlisted in the service. I do feel very badly for these women.
I’m sorry to say it, however, but I have to conclude that due to the fact that you cannot count on being there for your child, as your life is NOT your own, then you have to expect to forfeit custody if you are in the military.
Sorry mothers, it’s just the way it is.
Changing the laws to continue unrealistic custody arrangements is not going to solve the problem. The military needs to encourage (and ultimately maybe enforce though law) the idea that the life of a professional soldier is not conducive to having children. Beginning a family is a civilian pursuit; which should probably not happen until a soldier is once again a civilian.
Again, mothers, sorry. You would be wise to wait until you leave the military before having children. Probably women who wish to be mothers will not be able to put in the full 20 years for a pension (unless we get a law passed reflecting the biologically shortened time line of women) but until that happens ten or fifteen years is probably the more realistic ‘retirement period’ for women depending upon your age going in.
Custody, if you have children, will probably and should probably, reside with the parent who is the civilian…as they can provide the more stable and consistent environment for the child. If both parents are military, the one who is willing to leave the service should be the one who becomes custodial. Joint custody can apply if both can leave.
Nor should step persons or other relatives EVER be allowed to help a deployed parent continue an unrealistic custodial arrangement.
It’s uniquely American to believe that every problem has a solution where no one has to be hurt, but unfortunately, some problems have ONLY the hard solutions and adults must be prepared to make them or suffer the consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)