Saturday, June 30, 2007

More Stupidity Posing as Research

The fertility industry discriminates against sperm donors, says US sociologist Rene Almeling. Her article this month in the American Sociological Review (pdf here) describes striking inequities in the market for eggs and sperm which, she says, reflect “gendered stereotypes of selfless motherhood and distant fatherhood”.

“Staff at egg agencies constantly thank women and encourage them to think about what a wonderful difference they’re making in the lives of recipients,” Almeling says. “The sperm bank staff is appreciative, but men aren’t told how amazing they are and what a great gift they’re giving.

They’re treated more like reproductive service workers. They come in. They clock in and out. Their sample is checked for quality. And they’re only paid when they produce an acceptable sample.”

In the market for American gametes, men are typically paid between US$50 and US$75 per donation, while women are paid around $5,000, along with bonuses and thank-you cards.

While it is commonly believed that sperm donors are readily available, in fact, few potential male donors meet the standards required by the clinics, while there is an oversupply of women donors. Almeling is investigating why the laws of supply and demand do not appear to work in the gamete market. News-Medical.Net, May 27

I think the above comments can be placed under a new category I might create which will be called "stupid questions with obvious answers trying to pose as research"...

There is no 'discrimination' against men by the medical industry vis-a-vis sperm donations. The discrimination, if you wish to call it that, is from evolution, God, nature, whatever. Which has deemed womens' contribution to be the more significant one in creating life. Men's role is perherial to the processs as men invest, contribute, risk practically NOTHING with their sperm donation.

I mean I used to own a cocker spanial and I'd walk him around the block. He'd lift his leg and urinate every now and then against a car or a building, I'm sure leaving some genetic material behind every so often. Following the logic of this person posing as research, my dog should have been given title to a few cars and buildings around the city because he deposited some genetic material here and there.

What nonsense.

It's ridiculous to compare a sperm donor with an egg donor (never mind a surrogate mother). The process to donate eggs is far more painful and labor-intensive (also potentially long term damaging to the ovaries) for women then for men and that's what the differences in pricing well as the differences in staff treatment of women, who are actually risking themselves as well as their potential for having offspring later, if an injury should occur to them during the donation process.

Men risk absolutely NOTHING. They read a magazine and eject into a dixie cup. It's ridiculous to try to compare the two levels of contribution/risk and claim discrimination.

Probably the reason there are fewer sperm donors anymore is that they've been chased away by fear of being hit up for child support at a later date if the laws should change. $75.00 per sperm donation is simply not enough money to risk that.

Why do people publish, no why do they even think such nonsense...that's the real question?

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Hasselhoff Custody Win – A Sick Joke

David Hasselhoff winning custody of his two daughters, after his disgraceful exhibition of drunkenness in the presence of at least one of them, probably both, is just another example of the dismal state of our family court system. We need to fire the Judge immediately who made this ruling and begin an investigation into the county this custody hearing was held in. As I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg there with discrimination against mothers running amuck.

Additionally this story had traces of what I would call masking the bad boys’ behavior by focusing on punishing the person who exposed the behavior, not the person who perpetuated it. Who told everyone about bad behavior becomes the ultimate crime in these situations, not the actual behavior itself. We saw this with the Alex Baldwin situation recently and even with the Woody Allen situation some years back.

Actually here in New York, I was stunned by the hostility that Mia Farrow had to face in the media both during and immediately after the Farrow-Allen custody trial ended. Where even though Woody Allen was caught red-handed with naked pictures of her 18 year old adopted daughter in his apartment (a daughter he had been hanging around since she was 12 year old by the way; anyone ever heard of the term: grooming, a practice used by pedophiles to seduce their victims); yet afterwards everyone was mad at Mia Farrow for making the public aware of the existence of the pictures, since it damaged Woody Allen’s image with his children.

Well, maybe Allen should have thought about his image with his kids BEFORE carrying on with his girlfriend’s daughter.

Additionally many of our intellectual elite ran around claiming Mia Farrow had falsely accused Allen of inappropriate behaviors towards another adopted daughter. Well excuse me folks, but all we can judge your future behavior by is what has occurred in the past, so Farrow had a right to be suspicious about this dirtbag Woody Allen based upon his past behaviors.

Anyway this whole Hasselhoff custody win coming so quickly after the release of that tape is very suspicious and appears to me to be the act of a Judge punishing a mother for trying to protect her children by appealing to the public. She probably saw the direction the case was initially taking and decided to go directly to the American people and make her case in an attempt to get justice and the Judge was mad at her about that.

I say overturn the case on appeal and get this Judge off the bench pronto…

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Small, Very Small Measure of Justice Meted Out to Brooklyn Mothers & Children

Well, at least this long-running saga has finally come to an end. I won’t say a happy one; however, as this unprincipled monster Supreme Court Justice Gerald Gerson was finally sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison. It wasn’t nearly enough but it was the best we could hope for; so I guess I’ll say I’m somewhat content. Hopefully Gerson will die in prison and I can finally say case closed.

Gerson destroyed the lives of dozens of mothers and their children (actually we’ll never know how many as none of the cases he fixed will be re-opened) and they allowed ONE of his victims (the mother of two sons) to speak at his sentencing.

Big deal.

Accepting bribes to fix custody cases, 99.9% of them businessmen in Brooklyn attempting to either get out of paying child support or to cheat their wives out of family assets by holding the kids as poker chips to be doled out in exchange for various concessions, this monster Gerson went his merry way aiding and abetting this pack of greedy beasts. Who, btw, for all intents and purposes got away with manipulating our legal system; but at least one of them didn’t, Gerson himself.

All I can say about this Gerson is good riddance to bad rubbish and leave it at that.

I would like to give a big shout out to Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes for finally bringing this monster down.

Ready their jail cells
Judge sentenced to 3-to-10; Brooklyn big sent to Rikers



Wednesday, June 6th 2007, 4:00 AM

Two former Brooklyn powerhouses - a Democratic leader and a judge - were led out of court in handcuffs yesterday in a corruption scandal that has prompted calls for sweeping changes in picking jurists.

"I am profoundly sorry," cried ex-Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson, 74, who broke into sobs before being sentenced to three to 10 years behind bars for accepting bribes.

Garson was convicted of taking cash, cigars, dinners and drinks from a crooked lawyer - all caught on tape - in return for favors.

"As I watched the tapes, I was embarrassed and appalled at my demeanor," he sobbed.

Just a few hours earlier in the same courtroom, Clarence Norman, the former Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman and 11-term assemblyman, was shackled and ordered to begin a two-to-six-year sentence for campaign corruption. His appeal was rejected last week.

"God is good," Norman said, hugging relatives before being shipped off to Rikers Island.

The courtroom drama yesterday closed the circle on a four-year probe into judicial corruption by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, who began going after Norman when Garson told investigators at his March 2003 arrest that the bench could be bought. No hard evidence has emerged of that yet, but the probe is continuing.

Yesterday, in a courtroom packed with family and Brooklyn residents who believed Garson had done them wrong, Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Berry slammed Garson for tainting the judiciary by allowing crooked lawyer Paul Siminovsky to "sucker him into" giving him lucrative appointments and fixing a case in exchange for thousands of dollars in free meals, drinks, cigars and cash.

"What you brought upon yourself is terrible. ... The perception you gave is that justice was being bought," Berry said in an hour-long speech before announcing the sentence. "You should be as pure as the driven snow. You abdicated your judicial responsibility, your moral fiber."

Sigal Levi said she no longer has a relationship with her two oldest sons because Garson gave custody to her ex.

"Mr. Garson, you sold my children for a very cheap price," said Levi, whose husband pleaded guilty to paying $10,000 to a middleman to gain custody. "You had a moral obligation to protect the welfare of my children. You abused the system and ruined all our lives."

Defense attorney Michael Washor asked Berry for leniency, citing Garson's battle with cancer and heart disease, personal tragedies and his bout with alcoholism.

But prosecutor Michael Vecchione shot back, branding Garson's courtroom a "vile, corrupt place" that he treated as a personal "piggy bank."

Garson does not have to head straight to jail, however. An Appellate Division judge allowed him to stay out of jail on bail pending his appeal. Garson declined to comment.

A federal judge ruled in August that the process for selecting state Supreme Court justices - where party bosses pick the candidates - is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to back-room wheeling and dealing.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Irrevelevant Bloggers' Choice Awards

It has just come to my attention that I received a "Bloggers Choice Award" for being Worse Blog of All Time. I went to the site to investigate and wasn't even able to comment on this total farce; however, after reviewing the names of some of the commenters I could see it was an orchestrated attempt to do a smear job on me. Of course, organized by the usual suspects.

I recognized some of the commenters from Stand Your Ground, Eternal Bachelor and Gonzo's Bar & Grill. Mens' rights nuts who have nothing better to do with their time then organize crap like this on the internet. Sad really. I'm old enough to remember when men were actually leaders for good in their community and did useful things with their spare time.

I guess those days are gone forever...

Just to let those morons know, this doesn't bother me at all as I consider any publicity to be good publicity and feel my cause is worthy enough to stand on its own if people visit my blog due to the attention generated from this dumb award.

So once again you people shot yourselves in the foot.