Is it ever unethical to force a father to pay child support

The only time a biological father should be relieved of the support obligation is when he is not married to the mother, and he has unequivocally told the mother that he does not want a child. Otherwise, it is always ethical to force the biological father to pay child support. Many deadbeat dads put their own interest above the interest of the child. Thus, creating a conflict between them and the court system because the latter is only concerned with the best interest of the child. These "fathers" ignore the fact that it takes a lot of money to raise a child. Why should the child be penalized for drawing the losing lottery of a "father" who skips out on an obligation as old as humanity itself? I'm referring to the obligation to provide for the support of a child. The amount of the obligation is a separate matter, and it can legitimately be argued that the court system has some inequity build in. However, that inequity is usually overstated. Those fathers who have been denied visitation often have a legitimate gripe. But, for the father who sincerely wants the company of his child(ren), the system provide him a remedy. Sadly, all too many father use deprived visitation as an excuse, rather than expending the effort to force the visitation issue. Some really don't want visitation. They just need to have a reason to avoid child support.

What's Wrong with the Black Community?

Trick question. Like the rest of America, "black America" is a diverse, multifaceted entity, and its parameters are sometimes difficult to define. Loaded with so much that is great and wonderful, high achievement, community empowerment, and a growing middle class, black America does have its share of problems. Those problems work to lessen the potential of a community ready to take full advantage of the American dream. Like most communities, the black community is hyper sensitive to criticism. That's a problem. An unwillingness to take a hard look at oneself is a problem for any individual, and the same is true of a community. Remember the hubbub with Bill Cosby? Dr. Cosby was viciously and brutally attacked by so many members of the black community that you would have though he was David Duke. Some of the attackers are very prominent achievers. the attacks ranged from "he shouldn't talk about those things in front of white folk" to " he should have to walk a mile in my shoes" to "he shouldn't indict all poor people." In my opinion, what most of the attackers fail to acknowledge is that bill Cosby didn't say anything that wasn't true. At least, it was true for an all too significant part of the black community. No where in Cosby's remarks did he say that his comments applied to all black people or all poor black people. The sad fact is that many black people refuse to let go of the remnants of the sad and tragic history of black people in this country. One of the worst things affecting the black community is the notion that we must reject all things white. Or more specifically, thing perceived to be white. Worse yet is the notion that achievement and education is something reserved for white people. Yes, believe it or not, among a significant part of the black community, to work hard in school or to try to get a good job and make something of oneself, is a bad thing. Translate, a white thing. When Cosby talked about young kids, and not so young "kids", buying bling and sneakers, he didn't make that stuff up. This behavior wasn't fiction. Can anyone really suggest that when the choices are between an expensive pair of sneakers and putting the $150.00 in a mutual fund of other savings account, that purchasing the sneakers is the wisest choice? Cosby wasn't indicting all black people or all poor people. But, he was talking to those to whom those criticisms applied. No pun intended, but if the shoe fits, wear it. Just so long as it isn't a pair of sneakers. Just about anyone will tell you that the first step to solving a problem is recognizing it. The black community can never expect to address the self destructive issues if it refuses to look in the mirror.

O.J. Never Dies

The other night one of the cable channels aired a 4-hour program supposedly portraying the inside story about how the Simpson "Dream Team" interacted during the socalled trial of the century.
I must admit to being facinated by it all. Oh so many years later, the O.J. trial is still compelling. Whether you believe he did it or not.
Why did scores of black people cheer when O.J. was aquitted? Was the verdict a "win" for black people. No!! Most white people hate to admit it but race is one of those things about America that is always in play. It doesn't need to be said. So many white people have the notion that if they don't mention race then race has nothing to do with anything. Such nonsense. Or is it naivete. Or is it a clever diversion because they know that it's true.
Immediately after the verdict, white commentators attacked the jury. They forget that the jury was racially diverse. It wasn't a "black" jury like so many people claim. For the record, let me say that I believe he did it. But, the case had flaws, serious flaws.
The government tried the case they had. Between Furman and the Detective who carried the blood around in his pocket, how could anyone have confidence in the evidence Clark and Darden presented. Furman is/was a bigot and wasn't above "enhancing" evidence to get someone he believed to be guilty. But, isn't that true of most police officers, black or white? And, you have a detective carrying around blood evidence in violation to common sense and contrary to his prior behavior. And, remember some of the blood in the vial was missing? Remember that!?!

Nicknames

this nickname came from a fellow I went to college with. I've never been certain whether it was an insult or complement. Knowing this guy, it was probably an insult. I say that because this fellow was one of the most arrogant people you'd ever want to meet, or not meet. As a matter of fact, he was one of my Dean of Pledges. A miserable time was had by all. How did you get your nickname?

Chains of Our Own

Some remnants never seem to dissolve from our psyche. When will some in our community give up the ghost when it comes to this notion of who is, and who isn't "black enough?"
Here we are again when talking about Sen. Obama, giving the dominant media fodder for discussions about things of which they know litte. Tucker Carlson. Raises the discussion about "black enough." We fail to understand that such notions make us appear juvenile and unsophisticated when lager issue should drive our political discussion.
Professor Davison alerted us years ago to the destructive effects of our refusal to rid ourselves of the lessons learned at the master's whipping post. We shouldn't fail to appreciate and honor the diversity within our own cultural boundaries. Obama's diverse "black" upbringing is an asset, not something to be criticized as not black enough.
Rev. Sharpton's comments are certainly appropos. He reserves his support of Obama, not on some fragile logic or cultural immaturity, but on whether he believes the Senator will truly represent the interest about which the Rev cares.