Thursday, February 25, 2010

Why Marry For Money The Next Time? Do It Right The First Time ~by Helen

As I was riding down the street listening to a country song where a male sang "Next time I am going to marry for money..." I realized just how much more evolved women are than men. Heck, us gals have been marrying for money since the beginning of time. An "enlightened woman" realizes that marriage allows you to earn more in one minute than what you could otherwise earn over a lifetime.

The book Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped into the Romantic Dream — and How They’re Paying for It states what should be obvious to most women. It was apparently written to educate the uninformed- (however few that might be in this modern era) concerning "the post-feminist dream." Authors Daniela Drake, MBA and television producer, Elizabeth Ford certainly hit the main point in the title. But the book fails to teach that the enlightened feminist lifestyle is not merely a dream.

Marrying for money is simply great advice. But it is not a new idea. Furthermore, the notion that women can’t have it all and need to revert to more traditional feminine roles is only half true. A woman can have a career and through the miracle of divorce and alimony, she can also have half of her lame spouse's wealth. Urging women to return to pre feminist states of reliance and supplication are not necessary to "marrying for money" or obtaining financial security. Face it, men are generally clueless. In fact, most men are so ignorant, they think their bride actually finds their jokes humorous and their crooked nose "cute." Long before modern books and advisers, mothers taught their daughters to marry good providers. But being a smart consumer of a spouse is not contrary to being a feminist. The smart shopper can be both a feminist and the wife (or even better ex wife) of a wealthy man. It simply takes an educated strategy.

Smart Girls Marry Money basically involves the authors telling us what they wish their mother had told them. While I don't know their mothers, I suspect they told them what was needed and assumed that common sense would guide them the rest of the way. Think about it. First, marrying into wealth is intuitively obvious to every grown women. It was ingrained in our head from birth. (Growing up wasn't the Ken doll always a doctor or rich tycoon?) Second, while statistically women may not traditionally earn as much as men in the workforce, with the help of divorce settlements, child support and alimony, there is no reason a gal's income should not substantially exceed the earnings of most male primates (including the ex.)

While authors may argue that women rarely bounce back post divorce, that is not my experience with "enlightened women." The enlightened woman marries for money the first time, extracts every penny from her estranged spouse in the form of property settlement, temporary maintenance, child support and alimony. This provides an educated woman with the sustenance to secure an even better target (an even richer man) the second time around. By the time you repeat this recipe for success three times, it's the enlightened woman who needs the prenuptial agreement. The authors assumption that women can only capture a man by having movie star looks grossly underestimates the female hunter's skill in capturing her prey. Furthermore, with wealth comes the means to improve one's physical appearance. (Think Joan Rivers.) Besides rich men have the same weakness as poor men... they make decisions using the wrong part of their anatomy.

Stephen Jenkins, director of the Institute for Social & Economic Research, concludes that five years post divorce, men were 25% richer, whereas women have less money than they did pre-split. He also concludes that 31% of mothers receive no payment for children. Jenkins conclusion is that women remain at a significant disadvantage. My conclusion is that those women had a crappy lawyer. In order to hit a man up-style, you need to have a good plan and a great lawyer! (Also when looking up statistics, child support is not taxable income and most gifts from the ex or others goes unreported.)

The authors did nail one point: romantic love is a foolish reason to marry. An enlightened woman should never leave a marriage because the passion (love, ergo) is missing from the relationship. Quite frankly, if you married for the right reason the first time (for money) that should have been absent from the beginning. The reason to leave is because you are ready to move up the food chain and increase your net worth. When the opportunity presents itself, she who hesitates is lost. When you have the opportunity to improve your station in life, you need to jump on it (him) immediately. A woman is never too old to be out of the game. A woman is never too old to keep searching for a better, richer opportunity.

Love is transient. With a good lawyer and financial advisor, wealth need not be! Naysayers say that if love is a reason to marry, than falling out of love is a reason to divorce. Such counselors are misguided. The reason to divorce is to improve a woman's financial station. Take your half and move quickly to the next opportunity.

The book also talks of sex and marriage. Personally, the two are mutually exclusive and anyone who would assume otherwise has likely never been married. The advice that it is imperative to marry young while physical seductive powers are strong is contrary to the position of enlightened women. Enlightened women marry initially for money and never stop looking for someone else with even more money. Through experience, women can continue to marry up the ladder just like men continue to marry younger women under the delusion that they are some how "trading up." Unlike some advisers, I don't advocate sleeping with your boss. That is unless you are confident of your boss's true net worth (or you have a great sexual harassment lawyer on retainer. ) Such a strategy may be a way to obtain job security; however, the close proximity rarely allows a gal the freedom to keep looking for a better paycheck during the working day. (Keep in mind the majority of folks meet their mate in or through their place of employment.)

Advice that men don’t want high-earning women is just plain silly. If your target does not think you have substantially less than he, then you are aiming way too low! Male-driven greed needs to take a backseat to female- driven wealth seeking skills. The Cinderella syndrome needs to be redefined into an educational based wealth seeking methodology. The assumption that the man will still pay for it remains constant, but by marrying for money and always looking to upgrade, men will pay SO MUCH MORE! Those against marrying for money argue that it is fine until he leaves you. After speaking to a good divorce lawyer, these opponents quickly see the error of their argument. Divorce after marrying for money will keep a gal in the lifestyle she has become accustom to. SEE ALIMONY LINK.

Enlightened women who choose to remain married do so because they have not found an upgrade yet. Perhaps they never will. But by making the right choice to marry for money, the enlightened woman will be financially secure in marriage and even more financially secure after a divorce! Enlightened women free themselves from servitude and drudgery and have the foresight to know that with a stroke of a judge's pen, they can have it all.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Awards For This Weeks Potential Bad Moves... And Teacher Lap Dance Wins!

There has been a series of bad moves in the news of late. Perhaps the most controversial was Johnny Depp's latest move to step into the field of justice. Rather than promoting his new movie 'Wonderland,' Depp will appear on CBS's '48 Hours Mystery' on Saturday to advocate the release of the "West Memphis Three." Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were convicted in 1994 of murdering three boys during a satanic ritual. Depp joins stars like Eddie Vedder, Winona Ryder, the Dixie Chicks and Demi Lovato in insisting the men were erroneously found guilty because of their fascination with heavy-metal music and Stephen King. "I firmly believe Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley are totally innocent. It was a need for swift justice to placate the community, " exclaimed Depp. In the mean time, Damien Echols is on death row subject to lethal injection. NY Post:
Will DNA and forensic evidence clear Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley of the crimes? The three defendants were tried and convicted of murdering Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Stevie Branch (three eight-year-old boys) in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993. A CBS show argues that juror misconduct may have contributed to the guilty verdict. Meanwhile, advocates for the defence continue to claim that police bungled the gathering of evidence, compromised the crime scene, ignored possible suspects and misplaced DNA samples. Jessie Miskelley, a mentally handicapped seventeen year old, was questioned for 12 hours without the benefit of a parent or a lawyer. Miskelley provided an error-filled confession that implicated Echols, himself and Jason Baldwin. Miskelley later recanted the confession. No physical evidence was offered to link the teens to the murders. Evidence that may have exculpated the defendants such as blood left behind the night of the murders by a bloody man were apparently lost by the West Memphis Police Department. The latter argument is potentially the most troublesome.
So just what are the DNA results? After years of legal argument, Echols' lawyers and West Memphis prosecutors agreed to DNA testing of almost 200 items. DNA results are being completed. Dennis Riordan (Echols' attorney) and the prosecution are keeping quiet about what the results show. Most believe the DNA testing will lead to a new trial.

Damien Echols was sentenced to death. Jessie Misskelley, Jr., was sentenced to life in prison plus 40 years and Jason Baldwin was sentenced to life imprisonment. All three were teens at the time of their arrests. Depp is not alone in his support of the West Mephis Three. In 2002, Henry Rollins produced the album 'Rise Above: 24 Black Flag Songs to Benefit the West Memphis Three.' In 2003, Winona Ryder hosted a benefit exhibition at a Los Angeles art gallery, featuring artwork by Raymond Pettibon, Shepard Fairey and Marilyn Manson. (Note: Ryder herself was convicted of grand theft and vandalism in a 2002.) USA TODAY . Johnny Depp Photos. While convictions of the three may well be reversed, critiques question the wisdom of Johnny Depp's public involvement in this controversial case at this specific time in his career. Should Depp consult his agent before he publicly offer such comments? Third place finish for potentially bad moves.

In second place concerning potential bad moves, a lawsuit has been filed by John Coomer against the Kansas City Royals that alleges that the team mascot "Sluggerrr" threw a hot dog that caused serious eye damage to him in 2009 according to the Kansas City Star. John Coomer claims the errant hot dog hit his left eye and led to a detached retina and cataracts. Coomer's alleged medical costs exceed $25,000. Why is it a potentially bad move? The Royals have signs up warning fans that they might be hit by a foul ball. So is it unreasonable to expect fans to also look out for promotional items being flung into the stands by the mascot? Did there need to be a sign specifically warning fans to be ware of flying hot dogs? Are hot dogs really that dangerous if you don't consume them?

In Conner's corner is the argument that the Royals should have known not to do this and therefore should have stopped the stunt before it ever took place. After all, Sluggerrr fired hot dogs into the crowd, either with a powerful air gun or with his super strong paws. Yet, on the other hand, the event is a real crowd pleaser. The marketing stunt generated more applause than the Royals team gets on the field. (The Royals have genuinely been unwatchable for the last decade.) Thus, extracurricular events may be about the only reason to attend a game. Was the hot dog dangerously hot? I suspect not. After all, it was apparently loaded into the air gun and shot through the air. What would the better move appear to entail? Early dialogue and compromise. Amicable settlement appears to be in order. Not that we want to eliminate attorney's fees in this time of recession; however, prudence suggests that The Royals should pay this man's medical bills and discontinue using the air gun to discharge hot dogs into the crowd. But we all know that prudence does not always prevail once the lawyer's brief cases are opened.

First place for potentially bad moves is in a class all by itself! Chrystie Fitchner is one of two teachers, asked to perform at a high school pep rally. The teachers exercised what appears to be incredibly poor judgment when they acted out a strip club like lap dance. Fitchner appears in a Youtube video receiving a lap dance from a male teacher. The two were performing as part of a dance-off for the school's spirit week. Four teams of teachers competed. Both Chrystie and the male who is believed to be a substitute teacher were apparently suspended without pay. VIDEO LINK

What is so wrong with a harmless dance? There appear to be head near crotch moments and at least gestures similar to "fondling." In sum, not appropriate entertainment for the pupils. On the other hand, some will argue that the dance is pale in comparison to many of the dances teens are routinely seen doing during school functions. Regardless, hands down Chrystie's display of lack of judgment tops this weeks potential bad moves.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Jason Robert Bourque and Daniel George McAllister Accused Of Igniting More Than the Passion of Local Church Communities!

How low can criminals get? Setting fire in churches? Somethings should be off limits even for the worst of souls. Jason Robert Bourque, 19, and Daniel George McAllister, 21, were charged with one count of arson each in connection with a fire set at the Dover Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas on February 8. Texas Department of Public Safety apparently have reason to believe that these two men are connected to nine other church fires that have been set since January 1. The pair are also considered suspects in the attempted break-ins at three separate churches earlier this month.

Apparently, multiple pieces of evidence points to one of the suspects utilizing DNA evidence concerning how the fires were lit. Governor Rick Perry thanked the local, state and federal officers who conducted the investigation. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Apparently, a tip to a hotline led to the arrests according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency had offered a $25,000 reward for information about the fires. Despite interviewing the suspects, there is still no information on motive. An 11th arson fire in Temple, Texas, is apparently unrelated according to Robert Champion of the ATF in Dallas.
Keep in mind, this dynamic duo is to be presumed innocent unless otherwise proven in a court of law!

Monday, February 15, 2010

Is Professor Amy Bishop Preparing For An Insanity Defense?

Professor Amy Bishop may be smarter than you think. Her defense is apparently that the shooting never happened. The victims are still alive. Sound crazy? Keep in mind, insanity can be a defense.

Furthermore, the suspect's past may support the defense. The college professor and mother of four who is charged with killing three colleagues and wounding three others at the University of Alabama was also a possible suspect in the attempted mail bombing of Paul Rosenberg, a Harvard professor, 17 years ago.Rosenberg was opening mail in 1993 when he spotted wires and a cylinder inside a package addressed to him. Boston Globe. Two pipe bombs were inside the package. A federal investigation included Amy Bishop, a postdoctoral fellow. Bishop's motive could have been that Rosenberg was going to give her a negative review on her doctorate work. Nevertheless, Bishop was never charged and must be presumed innocent in the mail bombing incident.

Bishop's possible motive in the recent shooting appears less clear. Three of Bishop's colleagues are dead, was it because the neurobiologist was denied tenure? But research reveals that in 1986, Bishop shot and killed her 18-year-old brother with a shotgun. At the time, she told police that she had been trying to learn how to use the gun when it accidentally discharged. Yet, three shots were fired. Once into a wall, then a shot fatally wounding her brother, and then a third shot into the ceiling. She was subsequently released and the incident ruled an accident. She was never charged, and again must be presumed innocent of all wrong doing.

Relatives and students insist that Bishop never showed any sign that she might become violent. The University of Alabama in Huntsville professor reportedly acted normal in the hours before she allegedly opened fire in a faculty meeting. The gun Bishop is accused of using in the shooting wasn't registered. So much for gun control. Bishop has been charged with capital murder. Other charges are pending. Her husband was detained, questioned and released. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Anderson apparently dropped his wife off at the faculty meeting. Bishop apparently called her husband less than an hour later and asked to be picked up. Bishop did not mentioned the shooting. When Anderson arrived to campus, his wife was in police custody.

The dead include: Gopi K. Podila, the chairman of the Department of Biological Sciences, and professors Adriel Johnson and Maria Ragland Davis. Wounded were Joseph Leahy and staffer Stephanie Monticciolo, both in critical condition. Luis Cruz-Vera was released from the hospital.

Bishop, after the shooting, has been described as "not being able to deal with reality." When arrested, Bishop denied that the shootings occurred. "It didn't happen. There's no way. ... They are still alive." And thus, the insanity defense begins...

Update 2-19-10: Roy W. Miller has been appointed to represent Amy Bishop. Miller told the A.P. that his client has severe mental problems that appear to be paranoid schizophrenia.
And so the defense progresses...
Bishop is presumed innocent of all charges unless otherwise proven in a court of law!

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Will Google Web-Cams Deter Crime Or Just Invade Privacy?

Paranoid people often think that someone is watching them. Ironically, now days this is often reality. Have you seen Google's street web cameras? You can walk down most streets in the major cities of the U.S. without ever leaving your living room. In England, surveillance cameras are even more common. While the objective was to reduce crime in England, a reduction has yet to be seen. Convictions; however, may be on the rise in large part due to the cameras serving as witnesses.

Recent moves by Google raise the inquiry of whether indoor cameras will soon broadcast live on the web. Sure, private surveillance video is currently available to owners with remote access via the Internet. But what is being contemplated is putting live gas station and convenience store surveillance video live on the web for anyone to view. Science fiction? Well, there appears to be some truth to the rumor that Google is negotiating with some select store owners to put their surveillance cameras on the net. Is live surveillance in public places fair game? How about in businesses? How about in homes? Far fetched you suggest? Well, do you have a relatively new lap top? Bet that lap top has a built in camera. How often is that camera watching the user of the lap top? Do you know how to tell when the camera is recording and/or broadcasting?

There are many cameras available for view on the web. For example, EarthCam and the New England Aquarium provide live views of historic downtown Boston, Boston Harbor, the adjacent Marriot, Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market. Peruse some of these cameras by Google searching Google live web cams. You may be amazed at what (or who) you may see.
Update 2-19-10: Have we merely examined the tip of the iceberg? A class-action lawsuit has been filed in Pennsylvania accusing the Lower Merion school district of "unauthorized, inappropriate and indiscriminate remote activation" of web cams in laptops issued to students. Assistant Principal Lindy Mastko of Harriton High School allegedly informed a student that he was "engaged in improper behavior in his home. " Mastko allegedly told both the boy and his father that the school district could remotely activate the web cam on student lap tops! The school district initially did not respond to the accusations. Others have alleged that their MacBooks' green webcam lights went on at random times. If the school was eavesdropping, was it an unlawful invasion of privacy? The Lower Merion School District superintendent Christopher McGinley issued an official response acknowledging "a security feature intended to track lost, stolen and missing laptops." However, the web site claims that the school district " has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever" but that the matter is "under review."
The school and its officials are presumed innocent unless otherwise proven in a court of law. In the mean time, ask yourself this, how could Legal Pub have timely foreshadowed these problems?
Update 2-22-10: The FBI is now investigating the allegations that a school official remotely monitored a student at home. The FBI became involved after a family filed a lawsuit against the Lower Merion School District. Stay tuned...

Monday, February 8, 2010

Dean Cage and Loretta Zilinger Reconciliation May Be A Blue Print For Society!

Can forgiveness bring peace? Consider the following improbable journey. In 1994, Loretta Zilinger, 15, was sexually assaulted by a man in Chicago. Zilinger testified at trial which resulted in the conviction of Dean Cage, then 26. Subsequent DNA testing in 2008 proved that Cage was sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit.
After Cage was released, he and Zilinger have become friends. They plan to address the public about their experience.

Think about the roller coaster of emotions. Loretta Zilinger, has had to come to grips with having wrongfully hated Dean Cage for all these years. The nightmare began back in October of 1994 when Loretta was on her way to Catholic school. She heard footsteps coming up behind her. Suddenly, a tall man grabbed her and hauled her into an empty building. The man threatened to kill her. She kept her eyes open as the man sexually assaulted her. She traced his nose, his eyes and his lips with her fingers so that she would be able to identify the assailant. Several days later, Chicago police brought her into the meat market where Dean Cage worked. A police officer instructed her to identify her attacker by gently tapping the officer's arm. She believed cage to be her assailant.

Cage insisted that he was innocent. In 1996, Zilinger's testimony helped convict Cage. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. After four appeals and 14 years in prison, Cage won his freedom. The DNA in the assailant's saliva did not match Cage's DNA. Cage was exonerated in May 2008.
Starting over

The conviction prevented Cage from marrying his fiance. Cage missed his sons' graduations. Prison prevented him from caring for his elderly mother. When Loretta heard of Cage's release she was scared. She asked the prosecutors for protection. Then she began to read about others blaming her for the wrongful conviction. Her assault and his release was continuing to bother her. So in November 2009, Zilinger, 31, packed her bags and headed for Los Angeles, California to appear on the "Dr. Phil" show to speak on behalf of rape victims. After explaining the DNA results, Phil McGraw, offered to let her meet Cage. Zilinger talked with her husband who had worked as a police officer in Indiana for almost eight years. Zilinger decided to face Cage.

Cage, now 43, thought he was doing another interview about his exoneration. Two years of freedom had helped fade some of the resentment he directed toward Zilinger. But he reasoned that the attacker, who has not been found, had ruined both of their lives. They were both victims. Zilinger and Cage embraced on the show and forgiveness occurred.

"Can you help me?" she asked.
"Can we help each other?" Cage responded.

Zilinger and Cage are helping to exonerated victims and the wrongfully accused. Since the show, the two have had lunch together. Zilinger's brother is helping Cage find a better-paying job. Cage currently works a minimum wage job at a barbeque place. Cage plans to marry his fiancee in May. Zilinger will attend as a guest.

This story is more than a tale of reconciliation. The words of Zilinger and Cage should be a blue print for society. "Can you help me? Can we help each other?" Let's hope the answer is yes.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Cary Clevenger Was A Hero That Cannon Jamison Could Count On When Things Were Looking Down...

Tired of hearing about all the evil in this world? Chalk one up for the good guys. 14-year-old, Cary Clevenger is one of the good guys. Miraculously, Cary was incidentally in the right place to catch Cannon Jamison, his friend's 2-year-old brother, who had fallen from a second-story window in Austin, Texas. The older boys were outside preparing to skate board when Cannon fell. Cannon apparently was pressing up against the second floor window screen trying to get the boys attention when he fell. See WEAN.

When Cannon fell, he apparently bounced off a wall lamp and fell into Cary's arms. Both boys tumbled to the ground unharmed. Cannon's mom Christie Jamison apparently had been in the kitchen and unaware that her two year old had fallen. After the incident, she took Cannon to the emergency room to make sure that he was not injured. Reportedly, the Jamison family has now installed window guards. Folks, this is an excellent idea for everyone with children! After all, not everyone is lucky enough to have a hero like Cary Clevenger save our family.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Got My Toes In The Water But Don't Want My Head In The Sand

Gorgeous Woman: I love that song, "Got my toes in the water, my ass in the sand..." So sexy. Come on Don, let's run off down to Mexico for some sun, water and tequila?

Don Juan: I would have jumped at the chance a few years ago, but now, that place is bad news.

Gorgeous Woman: How could a suit and tie guy like you turn someone like me down. What could you possibly know about "bad news?" It's safe if you aren't dealing with the cartels:

Don Juan: Even though this may be by only chance at a girl like you, I have bad nightmares about what is going on down there. Better go with your husband instead...

The conversation hinted of morality but was based in reality as the head lines read of 13 students being massacred at a party in Mexico. Don Juan's foreshadowing of the nightmare could not possibly have done justice to the gruesome reality. Armed men raided a party in Ciudad Juarez, a Mexican border city, and murdered 13 high school and college students. The reason for the attack? False information.

A total of 24 people were killed across Mexico since Saturday because of an ongoing turf battles between powerful drug cartels. Besides the deaths, two dozen teens and young adults were hospitalized following the assault in Ciudad Juarez. Will the violence spread to nearby El Paso, Texas?

Grieving survivors told The Associated Press on Sunday that the victims, mostly residents of the housing complex, had no ties to drug traffickers. Most theorize that the massacre was a mistake. The young adults had gathered to watch a boxing match. Two trucks pulled up loaded with armed men who opened fire.Ten died at the scene. Three others died at a local hospital. Chihuahua State Attorney Patricia Gonzales said that a witness just outside where the gunfire broke out may have more details.

Ciudad Juarez, a city of 1.3 million people, is struggling with drug cartel related violence. Troops and federal police seem helpless as the violence continues. More than 2,250 people were killed there last year alone. On Sunday three bodies were found in the border town of Nogales, just south of Arizona. The bodies were burned inside an abandoned vehicle. Also on Sunday, three women and two men, all Mexican citizens, were murdered while driving in their van with California license plates near the western Mexican city of Navolato.The bodies contained gun shot wounds according to Martin Gastelum, attorney general for the state of Sinaloa.

Violence also occurred in ocean side Lazaro Cardenas. About 20 heavily armed gunmen riding in trucks with tinted windows attacked a police station with grenades and assault rifles. A police officer and two civilians were killed.

More than 15,000 people have been killed in Mexico in the past three years in what is believed to be cartel-related violence. Perhaps Don Juan was right...
Update 5-12-10: Mexico remains a place to avoid. Four men were kidnapped from a wedding in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Their bodies have now been found in the bed of a pickup truck in the city. The kidnapped men included the groom, Rafael Morales; his brother, Jaime Morales; and their uncle, Guadalupe Morales. Municipal police did not release the name of the fourth victim. All of the bodies showed signs of torture. The FBI indicates that Rafael Morales was a U.S. citizen from La Mesa, New Mexico. The others may be citizens as well. The men were all kidnapped at gun point in the church during the wedding ceremony. A fifth man was apparently also shot to death during the incident. Some have theorized that the groom was connected to La Mesa. To date, police do not know the actual motive for the murders; however, no one thinks it was motivated by MARRIAGE STRIKE.