Dal 27 settembre al 12 ottobre 2007, con un congruo anticipo sullo svolgimento dei fatti, la NATO ha condotto manovre militari basate sullo scenario di un conflitto in un regione dei Balcani sull’orlo della guerra civile. Chiaro riferimento alla neoindipendente provincia del Kosovo, autodichiaratasi tale unilateralmente lo scorso 17 febbraio 2008. L’esercitazione, denominata Noble Midas 2007, si è svolta nel mare Adriatico ed in Croazia, con la partecipazione di 2.000 militari su 30 fra navi e sommergibili e 20 aerei.
Il contrammiraglio Alain Hinden, comandante francese delle manovre, ha dichiarato che le manovre erano state impostate già da anni per apportare un intervento di “assistenza umanitaria” targato ONU (e NATO) nei Balcani od anche in una qualsiasi altra area del mondo. Il comandante Cunningham, ufficiale a bordo della Illustrious di Sua Maestà Britannica, ha invece sottolineato che “un’integrazione delle forze NATO a questo livello semplicemente mai era avvenuta in precedenza”.
E quest'anno si replica: quindici paesi della NATO parteciperanno dal 26 settembre al 10 ottobre all'esercitazione navale Noble Midas 2008 nel Mediterraneo centrale. Pianificata dal Comando Alleato JFC di Napoli, l'esercitazione sarà condotta dal quartier generale della Componente Marittima Alleata (CC-MAR Napoli). L'obiettivo è l'addestramento delle forze navali che saranno assegnate nel 2009 alla Forza di Risposta NATO (NRF).
Noble Midas 2008 coinvolgera' circa 3.800 militari, più di 30 navi e quattro sottomarini, supportati da aerei ed elicotteri. Parteciperanno forze di 10 Paesi NATO (Bulgaria, Francia, Germania, Gran Bretagna, Grecia, Italia, Romania, Spagna, Turchia, Stati Uniti d'America). Belgio, Estonia, Norvegia, Olanda e Polonia saranno rappresentati o forniranno personale all'esercitazione. Tre paesi del Partenariato per la Pace - Albania, Croazia ed Ucraina - saranno presenti con osservatori.

A couple of quick notes on the folks at the table. The table was hosted by Elizabeth Treanor-Oesterle (VP, Government Relations Counsel for the NRF) and Paul G. Martino (a lawyer from Alston & Bird, and a Beltway vet). We were joined at the table by Thomas A. Cohn, a lawyer who recently spent 17 years at the Federal Trade Commission. It was a great perspective to balance out the table. There were two attendees at the table and only one other technology company besides me. I find this surprising. The stuff discussed at the table is crucial to the future of the industry as a whole, not just consumers. Seems to me if tech companies were interested in investing in technology built for the long haul, they'd want to learn how to avoid being the next NebuAd.

Speaking of NebuAd, they were a hot topic among those seated around the table. The folks hosting the table believed NebuAd had great technology and was a company on the rise. According to Martino, when consumer advocacy groups targeted NebuAd (how about that for turning the tables) for an infringement on customer privacy, the company actually welcomed the opportunity to testify before Congress. They thought they'd have an opportunity to put their name out there and actually gather customers based on the "there's no such thing as bad press" rule of public relations. Turns out that was a slight miscalculation, as their meteoric rise was followed quickly by an equally rapid fall, and the consumer advocacy groups winning the first round.

The NebuAd portion of the conversation wrapped up with a bit of advice from the table hosts -- don't make a splash. They discourage making a splash with this type of technology now because of the potential backlash.

Okay, let's get to the rest of the debate. There are two aspects -- (1) what legally constitutes private versus public information online and (2) who enforces violations? The role of online marketers in all of this is to try and preserve the flow of information (data) between the online retailer and their direct consumer. According to the folks at the table, consumer advocacy groups pushing for privacy online have historically attacked how the data is collected. While that issue still has a seat at the table, they have shifted focus to include the other primary aspect of BT -- how the data is being used once it's collected.

Consumer advocacy groups are pushing for comprehensive privacy legislation that will mandate opt-in and opt-out protocols whose scope will essentially include the entire Internet. So, if this privacy legislation were to first make it out of committee and then pass, who would regulate and/or enforce them?

The FTC enters the conversation here, though their discretion is no longer crystal clear. Are they a regulatory agency? Are they an enforcement agency? They were originally designed to be an enforcement agency, but are attempting to stretch those boundaries according to Martino and Treanor-Oesterle. Those at the table are concerned about precedent here, among other things. What do you all think -- should the FTC enforce or regulate and enforce legal violations of consumer privacy (as defined by Congress with the help of consumer advocacy groups)?

Here's a scary tidbit. No one at the table (insiders and all) believed Senators, members of Congress, or any of their staffers actually know what they're talking about when it comes to defining private information online or how the technology works. The quote from Martino is, "Senators and staffers are devoid of understanding the marketplace." Yikes.

But, before I've scared anyone off, there's hope for some forms of targeting. The ire of the consumer groups is focused primarily on affiliate and ISP level targeting, not at all on domain or onsite level targeting. It doesn't appear that onsite targeting will enter the conversation because it's hard to quantify legally. It's no different than going into a physical store and seeing conditioner next to shampoo on a shelf because it's a complementary product. Once you've walked into a store, you've effectively "opted-in," just as once you've entered a website to shop, you've also "opted-in." The debate becomes obviously silly if onsite targeting ever comes under attack.

Here's another ray of hope: Martino and Treanor-Oesterle are not only gifted but passionate about this issue, about the rights of online marketers and they strongly believe that the technology enables better shopping. They're pushing back on the attacks from privacy groups on how the customer data is collected and what it's used for as well as the FTC's attempt to shift their scope and purpose.

Before I leave you contemplate all of this, I'll reiterate a point I've made on this blog before. I can't help but wonder if this debate would have happened if a public relations firm had stepped in and articulated the reality we live in by saying, "You know what, industry? Behavioral Targeting is a bad, bad name for this stuff. Consumers don't want to feel targeted, like Big Brother is following them around trying to get them to spend more money. Instead of Behavioral Targeting, let's call it Marketing to Un-Authenticated Site Visitors." Though it's far less catchy, it's more descriptive and less likely to be the bamboo under consumer advocacy groups' collective finger nails.

Okay, this entire debate on consumer privacy basically boils down to one central issue. Who controls customer data, individual consumers or online marketers? The privacy groups argue that the consumer purchase data is a private, intellectual property right; whereas online retailers believe there is nothing wrong with knowing what online customers have looked at and purchased before.

Let's get to the questions! What do all you loyal readers believe? Who owns the data? Are privacy groups going after this simply because online shopping has quantifiable data? Is a consumer's individual data theirs as a intellectual property right? Should the FTC's scope increase?

Kraj:

W niedzielę na XII już posiedzeniu Narodowej Rady Fatwy [NRF] Najwyższego organu religijnego Yslamu Rajńskiego [RY] duchowni rozstrzygną kilka ważnych kwestii jak m.in. podejmą decyzję o powołaniu "Narodowego Komitetu na rzecz Budowy Meczetu Allaha Ahmedeiego" czy też o likwidacji Rajńskiej Policji Religijnej [RPR], którą kieruje Generalny Naczelnik RPR Umma Dżalal bin Sezer.

Duchowni yslamscy pod przywództwem Wielkiego Mułły Szejka Ajatullaha Osamy bin Ramzaniego będą usiłowali także rozpocząc debatę a następnie podjąć decyzję o likwidacji Ruchu Yslamizacji [RY] czym mieli zająć się na sierpniowym posiedzeniu ale z powodu sprzeciwu Ummy Sezera spadł on z porządku obrad.

Redaktor Naczelny /-/

Two Brothers Indicted for Major Theft RingWest Palm Beach August, 2oth, 2008

Kraj:

Wieczorem Wielki Mułła Ajatullah Szejk Osama bin Ramzani na mocy dekretu religijnego podniósł do godności duchownych Yslamu Rajńskiego w stopniu Imamta Jego Ekscelencję Wezyra Al-Farun Faruna an WW oraz Ahmeda an Abizaida.

Obradująca od dnia wczorajszego na XI posiedzeniu Narodowa Rada Fatwy [NRF] miała zająć oficjalne stanowisko odnośnie likwidacji Ruchu Yslamizacji [YR] kierowanego przez Imama Osamę at Abladena o co wniósł sam Wielki Mułła Ajatullah Ramzani ale z powodu sprzeciwu Ummy Dżalala bin Sezera duchowni mają zająć się tym problemem na najbliższym posiedzeniu NRF. Prawdopodobnie w dniu jutrzejszym duchowni yslamscy zaakceptują Świętą Księgę Yslamu Rajńskiego.

Redaktor Naczelny /-/

Kraj:

Zbierająca się w dniach 10-12 sierpnia po ponad pięciomiesięcznej przerwie Narodowa Rada Fatwy [NRF] najwyższy organ religijny Yslamu Rajńskiego [YR] omówi kilka ważnych i istotnych spraw dla tej religii i jej wyznawców.

Przewodniczący Narodowej Rady Fatwy Wielki Mułła Ajatullah Szejk Osama bin Ramzani w rozmowie z "Dar Al-Hayat" powiedział iż podczas trzydniowego posiedzenia rada przyjmie w swoje szeregi nowych duchownych yslamskich, omówi kwestię Ruchu Yslamizacji oraz prawdopodobnie też zreformuje prawo religijne oraz zatwierdzi świętą księgę Yslamu Rajńskiego nad którą od 3 marca pracuje Komisja ds. Wiary Yslamu Rajńskiego.

Redaktor Naczelny /-/

Bradshaw, Stimson, Williams & Skinner
(University of York SPRU).

Economic & Social Research Council
Programme on Population and Household Change
Seminar March 1997

(A review by Robert J. Whiston, FRSA).

This is an excellent if, at 20 pages, a rather short pilot into the uncharted waters of Non-Resident Fathers and, by implication, fatherless children.

From the very beginning (page 1) the very pertinent and political point is made that, in these sensitive times of accounting for the tax-payer money, Non-Resident Fathers are not likely, if ever, to be dependant on public services, i.e. state benefits, on the scale presented by single mothers. This nicely parallels the situation with regard to single fathers, with custody of children, who are also less likely to call upon, or be a burden to, state resources. (OPCS "Population Trends", verifies the fact that almost 70% of lone fathers are in full-time employment compared to only 40% for lone mothers – almost half of which are in part-time employment).

Whether these two points will lead to a realisation by Gov't that, at a stroke, expenditure can be slashed by allowing the very many fathers who want to bring up their children a major share in the process, is problematical.

Many of these fathers it would appear have captured the knack that is said to elude so many women, i.e. they are able to combine home with work commitments. By strategies that include balanced days, being self-employed or working at home, men have overcome the very obstacles said to pose the greatest barriers to women returning to the workplace.

Whether this feminine inability is by design or accident, or a function of the different socio-economic class between the two groups is debatable (and with so little data or research directed towards fathers, we couldn't possibly comment at this stage).

It is perhaps worth noting that later on in the Paper figures show that 20% of fathers that were made childless and Non-Resident simply dropped out of the labour market. This should be compared with other estimates that up to 40% of divorced men become less economically active.

Perhaps inadvertently, lone fathers have pioneered a viable way forward for policy makers. Ever practical, men have pre-empted Gov't initiatives by employing full or part-time help (usually female) to help with meals, shopping, clothes washing and buying. The Gov'ts variation on this theme, of course, is the preferred gender reversal approach where millions of pounds will be committed in a 'macho' attempt to show who's in charge.

It continues (and we're still on page 2) in the same vein with some frighteningly poignant observations that are perhaps lost on the rather dull brain cells that are bequeathed politicians and are mandatory for civil servants. The Paper is unequivocal in its castigation of the assertion that fathers are feckless. Almost stridently it mocks, with the aid of statistics, the hollowness of that and the imported term from the U.S. of Deadbeat Dads. Unfortunately, both expressions have entered the popular culture with a vengeance. The York Report explodes the perceived persona as essentially a mythical creation. The blame for this is firmly placed on the Murdoch Press during its successful courtship and ingratiation of the Thatcher administration. Figures from the statistical dept of the Dept of Social Security amply demonstrate that the number of so called dead-beat-dads match almost exactly those fathers who are unemployed or disabled and unable to work.

Commentators all too easily forget that we have, from the 16th century onwards, records and private diaries of men detailing the delight taken in fathering children and being a father to children. Fathers have always enjoyed joining in games and watching their children's development (see "Roads to Divorce" Prof. Stone, Princeton University (trilogy) and "Fatherhood Reclaimed", Adrienne Burgess).

Reading this paper I can't help but feel the authors haven't quite come to terms with the relevant dynamics. Fatherhood, for a man, is a serious but unspoken role he knows his peers and the community at large will judge him by. Less mature males, boys and young men, may be more disposed to so-called macho tendencies and haven't this commitment fully developed. However, in my personal experience, as an employer, even the most wayward apprentice is pulled up short by his entrance into paternity. The transfiguration is truly remarkable.

Where I question the Paper is in the notation that 50% of lone fathers are widowers. Way back in 1971 - before the onslaught of the 25 or more divorce reforms measures - only 20% of men became lone parents through divorce; the vast majority became so via widowhood. By 1991 widowhood had taken a back seat as a source of lone fatherhood accounting for 25% and divorce over 50% (OPCS Population Trends No.71 pp31. See also 'Lone Parenthood & Demographic Change', Haskey, and "Lone Parenthood: Coping with Constraints and Making Opportunities" published by Harvester Wheatsheaf 1991).

The Report makes no mention at this juncture that after bereavement a male spouse gets no state ‘widows’ pension and must continue to work or sign-on as if available for work (despite his domestic and child commitments).

Another criticism I have is in the decision to exclude children attending Boarding School. No distinction is even attempted between termly and weekly Boarders. And worse, they are categorised along with children put into residential care, hostels (Borstal, remand and prisons too, I shouldn't wonder). This not only builds in a bias but could be construed as bigotry and class prejudice of the very worst kind. Not perhaps the open mind one would have hoped for in such a survey.

Perhaps in excluding children at boarding school the research team presumed they were from intact family groups, or that parents who send their children away couldn't love them very much. The truth is children at boarding school come from both divorced and intact families.

In addition, I would have thought it obvious that Non-Resident Fathers have a great deal in common with the parents (fathers) of children at Boarding School in so much as they only see them at set times and for both parents and children the occasion is charged with anticipation. Brief re-unions are well remembered and the time spent together is regarded as precious, even priceless.

Invariably, it's the father that make the commitment and foots the bill to make boarding school possible. He alone makes the financial sacrifice to make it happen. That fatherly financial commitment cannot and should not be disdained, especially when one considers that female head of households (regardless of income) appear not to rate such educational expenditure as essential. In my many years associated with boarding schools I have never come across a mother making the same personal financial sacrifice.

What is also frequently neglected is that many of those who do attend boarding school do so on grants, bursaries etc that match parental contribution. Eton, for example, has a phenomenally high percentage of places paid for by its own foundation, and until recently Assisted Places helped many others on the borderline.

The Paper admits disappointment with the size of sample due to budgetary constraints and the response from those it was able to identify and enlist. If only FNF, ManKind Initiative or other Men’s' groups had been contacted the sample could have been much bigger than the final 590 interviews of Non-Resident Fathers. Any concern, from a purely statistical view point, that FNF or ManKind members may have presented a skewed basis could have been controlled for and, failing that, deployed as a very useful control group to validate results.

On page 3 the paper declares "There are men who don't wish to admit to paternity". The examples cited are those where paternity is doubted by the man, where the mother is confused as to whom she was sleeping with at the time, where the father knows the child lives in another/new household or where the mother is a married women and her husband is not the father.

In the above circumstances I should have thought it very natural, even understandable for men not to make waves.

Only later do we realise this paragraph relates to a mere 8% and 16% of men in survey results. But by then the damage has been done, the innuendo has done its work. Yes, there must always be (for the above reasons) a tiny minority of men who play down their paternity role. I'm sure the authors didn't intend to infer such a slight but the unfortunate wording ought to have carried a caution or prefix. But by the same token it is estimated that women give birth to between 20% and 40% children who are not fathered by their husband/partner. Suggestions that fathers should conduct a DNA paternity test to ensure wifely fidelity, and paternity, have been greeted in the media with howls of anger.

It may be minor point, but the reader is left confused as to whether the children in the other households relate to already married women, someone else's cohabitee, a girlfriend (who has now married someone else) or some other permutation of the above social arrangements.

Response levels from the different social groups within the Non-Resident Father category are eloquent in their betrayal. Single unmarried fathers were far more likely to refuse to participate in the survey in stark contrast to formerly cohabiting and married men who were most likely to co-operate (ref.: Patricia Morgan, The Warrior Class).

And as if to endorse matters, in Occupation Class terms the manual social class were also less likely to co-operate. This gives us a tantalising glimpse at what could be a mirror image of the female incidence of lone parenthood and the probability of such mothers successfully receiving, or not, regular CSA payments.

Elsewhere in the paper married fathers again demonstrate a greater interest in their offspring when compared with fathers from cohabiting relationships with single and unmarried fathers bottom of the heap at being the least likely to participate in paternal involvement.

On page 4 of the report some of the main characteristics of Non-Resident Fathers are itemised. These include a greater propensity to leave school at an earlier age, to be in the manual working social classes, be living in "social" housing, not to own a car, be unemployed (inactive) and have a low income. This applies to all fathers, regardless of martial status, who were contacted for the sample - irrespective of whether they subsequently took part in the survey or not.

These alarmingly mimic the traits found in children of lone mothers and one is left wondering if, by accident, the majority of the survey were composed of such children (see Profs. Halsey, N. Dennis and Patricia Morgan).

We know that children raised in Single Mother Households (SMH) distinctively tend to: leave school early; have poor or few academic attainments; have a lower social/occupation class than their father; be unemployed; be living in rented accommodation; be or have been in trouble with the law; for girls to be strong willed and boys weaker willed; and for girls to be more likely repeat their mothers social custom of birthing before or outside of marriage. All of which cries out for correlations to be made with existing survey results emanating from research into single mothers households.

In general terms the trends seen are those we have come to expect in the urban ghettos of America.

Social aberrations of repeating social behaviour, for so long measured on the female side of the social divide, appear to also add up from the other direction. In fact, one questions whether the word aberration is entirely appropriate here. Is it a function of a man's social class, i.e. his illegitimacy, his maturity, loss of identity and sense of purpose (see Norman Dennis) or simply a function of crude economics bludgeoning into a fragile social fabric ?

Do middle class white males yearn to be involved but find the price tag too high, whereas working class men simply don't bother or feel they've nothing really to contribute and so don't exhaust themselves emotionally ?

Is there an obvious, or only an instinctive and illusory, correlation here ?

When surveys again and again show children of single lone mothers disadvantaged whenever their father is shut out of their formative years could the reverse be true ? Namely that children become over-achievers when brought up by a single father and when contact or visitation rights are awarded to the ex-wife ? Is there research to support this hypothesis ?

The caveat, however, to all this must be that "contact", either by amount or intensity, is predetermined in large measure by background forces - and as such must surely rate the very highest priority by the generation after us.

Although the paper reports that "only a minority of fathers apart have children under school age" the tables reveal that the minority is in fact 21% (0-4 year olds). With 45% and 35% representing the 5-10 and 11-18 age groups respectively. Comparisons with the age/incidence of divorce is inevitable.

In asking, "why some fathers stay in contact with their children" the report, from our viewpoint, poses the wrong question. From a father's perspective the question should be "How is it that so many men remain in contact despite all the grief and obstacles thrown our way". One could very easily take issue with the assertion that it was Non-Resident Fathers who had to "overcome" certain practical and emotional barriers to see their children. To then add the phrase if he is "to function co-operatively as a parent with his ex ¬partner" simply serves to underline the prosaic disconnection of authors and public.

Is it all down to men ? Do women play no part in the proceedings ? Are they merely passive spectators to the problems men haphardously appear to inflict on themselves ?

From the sample it is evident that fathers biggest grievance (bigger even than the CSA) is the difficulty in trying to see their children. Contact was made in 47% of cases with only 21% of Non-Resident Father not seeing their children within the last year.

This alone must suffocate the cries from the pro-CSA lobby, stifle the pro-unmarried mothers’ brigade of Anna Coote, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt - not forgetting the motley crew of prejudiced politicians in "sensible shoes".

Intriguingly, this is reported as a much higher incidence of contact than recorded by previous surveys. In fact the discrepancy sent the researchers scurrying off to see where and why the differences could have arisen. Of particular concern was the oft-quoted Bradshaw & Millar (1991) which found that lone mothers reported that only 25% of lone fathers had contact once a week, and 31% had not had contact for over a year, 40% of fathers had "lost contact" (as if it were a misplaced door key) with their children within 2 years of separation or birth of their child.

The switched-on and up-to-speed amongst you have probably guessed by now how the anomaly arose. Yes, Bradshaw & Millar's data was culled from single mothers only and a female perspective ! Even after the York researchers statistically tweaked for variables such as marital status at child birth and length of lone parenthood considerable differences still remained that can, I believe, only be reconciled by ascribing them to attitudes.

Such discrepancies have since been found in other major US studies underscoring yet again the ability of lone mothers to skew data regardless of the consequences.

Indeed, in a subsequent letter the University of York concludes (and therefore not in my first draft) "that it is difficult to reconcile the figures" regarding the amount of fatherly contact and "that someone must be being economical with the truth". (Addendum :: Absent Fathers ?, Bradshaw, J., Stimson, C., Skinner, C. and Williams, J. (1999) , Routledge, London).

The radical differences found by the University of York's report concerning fatherly contact with their children is shown in T3.

Clearly, not only do mothers of a particular kind want fathers out of the picture but are determined to keep him out by duping researchers with exaggerations that appear to make fatherly disinterest "official".

One can't help feeling touched by the pathos of it all. On the one hand mothers are prepared to use fair means or foul to keep their children’s father at bay while on the other, almost desperate fathers cherish each contact no matter how trivial or fleeting.

Fathers find the world blind and deaf to their needs. No wonder they find themselves literally and metaphorically buried under a relentless avalanche of feminist and official dismissiveness. The contact they so cherish is constantly demeaned as having no meaning or consequence to the child.

A glance at the summary on page 12 (see below) shows the tragedy that is the deal dealt to Dads and what they must live with. Suspend belief for a moment and reverse the genders. Can anyone imagine the heartache if the same time allotments applied to mothers, year in, year out ?

Comparative data outcomes in post divorce scenarios can be made by referencing "The Emperors New Clothes" (1997) a study undertaken by the Cheltenham Group.

Children, it would appear, are used yet again as weapons to gain superior advantage. In the divorce process they become unwitting economic weapons in the blitzkrieg for assets. In the post-divorce scenario they are elevated to traitor status should they show feelings toward their father.

This paper does not attempt to discuss the emotive subject of psychological blackmail or emotional abuse known to many of us as PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome).

The researchers then postulate what could be the barriers to contact and without itemising them but go on to discuss the work of Seltzer (1991) in the US who suggests a link between contact and maintenance. In Australia Sutton (1996) has also shown a positive link between access and income but suggests a further connection after that of relationship with one's ex-partner and the sense of loss of control (presumably for the man). The York survey bore out Seltzer and Sutton findings but found when comparing different types of fathers (single, married, cohabiting) it is the simplest of factors that influence outcomes, e.g. whether the father lives less than 3 miles or more than 25 miles away from his children, whether he was married at the time of birth, his age and if employed.

The York report confirms these earlier findings in their sample but perhaps rather incongruously, also found that Non-Resident Fathers who have good weekly contact or relations with their own families, e.g. seeing his own mother, positively affected outcomes. This could perhaps be correlated with observations already made concerning social background (see page 2 of the Report).

These findings parallel in part a survey conducted by the Cheltenham Group (The Emperors Clothes) which surveyed attitudes of men after exposure to the divorce regime.

In the US, the Bureau of the Census records the compliance rate of US fathers paying child support as ordered by the courts as follows:

In other words, American fathers with joint custody (shared parenting) were paying maintenance in 90.2% of cases. The compliance rate dropped the less the father was allowed to see his children until right at the bottom fathers with no rights whatsoever paid maintenance in only 45% of cases.

It can be argued that much of the emotional turmoil and administrative costs (CSA) could be slashed if custody and Access were linked to payments. It is truly remarkable that even in the worse case scenario, i.e. 45%, the tenacious bond that binds fathers with their children is still so apparent. Maintenance payments and contact with their children are inextricably linked because of all the fathers who failed to pay the ordered maintenance payments 86% came from those who had no visitation rights.

In the UK no father has the automatic or enforceable right to see his children after divorce. Few people are aware especially politicians (upon whom we all depend) that a father may apply for it and it may be granted - but he has no statutory protection or privilege.

It would be wrong and perhaps crude to attempt a comparison but using the data from Summary 12 the situation in the UK and the US appears to be thus:-

Then, as if pursuing a Pulitzer prize, the report states, "One question these findings raise is whether this level of involvement with children is any less than a resident father would have !" (their exclamation mark, not mine). And then goes on to adds insult to injury by declaring in the same paragraph, "The contact of the Non-Resident Father may not be as regular but the time spent with the child may be longer and the quality may be better". The “comfort factor” for a child to sleep in a home knowing their fathers presence offers them total reassurance is completely overlooked.

For those of you who aren't yet reeling from this teenage logic let me explain by way of an analogy; When you're being chased by a ravenous grizzly bear you're grateful to find a sturdy log cabin and lock yourself in. But when someone pushes you into a cell, locks the door and throws away the key you're a prisoner.

In the alternative: If this contact is as good, if not better than resident fathers get then all fathers should be granted custody and only mothers should be awarded the privilege of this superior quality time. By allowing only visits on prescribed days their contact will be of better quality than spending all day with them. After all, both they and the children (not to mention the economy, women's rights and employment) will be all the better for it - and Harriet Harman will have proved a point.

PART 2.

Rather surprisingly the report sample found that only 43% of fathers had been contacted by the CSA. Of those assessed only 39% had experienced an increase in payments whilst 27% had a lower figure agreed (base of 107). However, and for 4 pages, the Report strongly condemns the CSA as being "counter-productive", "appalling" and ill-conceived". It rounds on the manner of introduction "with hardly any research having been undertaken into the circumstances of Non-Resident Fathers".

It describes its administration as "chaotic" and defying all definitions of fairness. The CSA it continues is based on the principal that "biological father’s absolute and unreserved responsibility" toward their children. In fact the last part of this report is a "must" for students, devotees and campaigners against the CSA.

The average weekly maintenance per child was found to be £26.00 (£16.00 if the father was unemployed). The majority of NRF (Non-Resident Fathers) gave informal monetary help and gave more if they were not paying maintenance regularly. This would perhaps reflect the constraining confines they themselves operated within. However, 28% of NRF had for one reason or another never paid maintenance. This finding is in keeping with historical trends and of the court system page 9 immediately prior to the introduction of the CSA. Of the sample, 59% had handed over their house and were found to be less likely to be paying maintenance than the remainder (who had settled with cash, insurance and pensions).

NRF who are either currently married or cohabiting are some 150% more likely to be paying family maintenance than unmarried NRF.

If the NRF was over 24 years of age when he first became a father he will be 478% more likely to pay maintenance than if he were under 20 and not married.

Where the NRF has 2 or more children he is 163% more likely to have contact with his children.

Overall NRF are 300% more likely to have continuing contact with their children than no contact at all.

There was wholesale (62%) dissatisfaction with the CSA and "the formula" used for calculating paternal contributions.

(1) This is systematic of the system. It would be especially true of Interim Assessments where a typical assessment would be £85 per week/per child only at Finally Assessment for it to be reduced to the national average of around say £35 per week /per child).

(2) Re-marriage can be undertaken as advocated and prescribed in the 1969 Act but second wives live out their lives in relative poverty, if not penury.

(3) Couples who had made satisfactory arrangements found their settlements overturned by a ruling which compelled husbands to pay maintenance in addition to the settlement.

These findings are in line with a survey conducted by the Cheltenham Group (The Emperors Clothes) which went on to detail the scale of asset transfer and psychological impact on men of fatherlessness and the divorce process.

All the above are very interesting and, with time, could be worked up into an alternative cost saving strategy. Items 1 to 5 reflect deeply embedded cultural beliefs pre-dating our century. The equivalent in the 18th and 19th century was bereavement when re-partnering meant the acceptance by the new partner of any and all baggage from the previous union. If it was possible then what has changed, men or the fiscal and taxation regimes ?

Items 6 to 10 are perhaps indicative of reactions to events outside the control of Non-Resident Father calling for reassessments. Biting the bullet and limiting any maintenance payments to say only 3 years is an approach that could make good the promises of the original 1969 Reform Act, which intended that divorcing couples should be capable of remarriage but never delivered.

In an age of equality where women make up 50% of the current labour market it is perhaps anachronistic to insist that "biological fathers have an absolute and unreserved responsibility" to financially support children.

This belittles the role and ability of women and is yet another example of treating women as children. It takes away their power of decision. It insulates them from culpability, responsibility and accountability. It emphatically implies that they have no choice, no input and no control over their circumstances - in this case, when and with whom they become pregnant. Women are now in control of their bodies and we must adjust to a new situation.

Is it not more symptomatic of the real situation for men to be told some weeks later (and too late) that the woman has decided to be a mother and that henceforth he is to be a father. The rights to abort or negotiate the decision are out of the man's hands. After all, wasn't it trumpeted by the activists that the Abortion Act would, at last, give women real control over their bodies ?

An egalitarian society must come to terms with the inversion of the dogma. If it is applicable to fathers, then which of the following propositions apply to wives and partners ?

a). "That no biological mother shall ever have the absolute and unreserved responsibility for their children".

b). "That all biological mothers shall always have absolute and unreserved responsibility for their children".

Could it be that society's defence mechanism has been turned in on itself and that by default women can now exercise capricious control over men ?

Or could it be that the old magical incantation of blaming and burdening men for everything has outlived its usefulness and that a new mantra is required ?

The game has gorgeous looking character designs by Shuji Sogae, Senko no Ronde's designer. A pretty damn good voice cast, highlighted by Mai Kadowaki, Yu Kobayashi, and motherfucking Jun Fukuyama (he's in everything these days), with other seiyuu that I wouldn't scoff at. The best part is that it has animation by a real professional animation studio, Tokyo Kids. We'll be getting mind-shatteringly good animation for a doujin fighter here, if it pans out correctly.

I wonder how they have such a massive budget for Million Knights Vermillion, but I'm not complaining. With how much everything else is stacked, I hope the gameplay does suffer as it did in NRF's BBB. That'll be a real shame.

This year is going to be absolutely obscene for fighters in Japan. It's like the mid-90s all over again. Come to think of it, maybe it'll be better for MKV to be released in 2009, so it doesn't get overshadowed by the big arcade releases, unless NRF's (ill-advised) plan is to go head-on with Capcom, SNK, Arc, French Bread, and the rest.

One of the articles, found here, intrigued me. It talks about how Borders and Lulu are putting together a package that will allow fledgling writers and authors (not unlike myself) to self-publish their work and have it stocked in Borders' stores. Not only that, depending on the package you purchase, you will get additional services such as in-store readings and signings, etc.

I posted this article on the Silverthought forum, of which I am a participant and staff member, and it was met with the usual cadre of supporters, detractors, and pundits. The discussion waned quickly and I let the concept slip my mind.  After all, I have nothing that I'm about to self-publish, so it's not pertinent to me (yet).

THEN...I see this little article in the NY Times. It appears that Borders may be up for sale (more on that in a later post...).  Having worked for Borders in the past (and loving it, and hating it), the first thing that popped into my head was how this development made me a little sad, especially considering where it once was (at one point I had stock options I was able to sell at approximately $36.) and how far the company seems to have fallen. 

But the very next thing I thought of was this partnership between Border and Lulu. And I couldn't help wondering if this concept of the package and marketing of self-published authors was going to stay, or if it was about to die and quick and noiseless death...?

mogelijk gemaakt door het nationaal realisties dagblad

zaal 1: THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145]8e week 

zaal 2: NEW WORLD ORDER

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3280828063975945650]premiere

zaal 3: ANDREAS VON BULOW (former secretary of state, minister)

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2774518161360848517] premiere

zaal 4: HOW THE END BEGAN

deel 2/12

zaal 5: THE SECRET RULERS OF THE WORLD - king of the kings

Z Kraju:
1.03.2008 - Wszedł w życie Dekret Sułtański nr 13A/2008 "o funkcjonowaniu Dworu Sułtańskiego i kompetencjach Marszałka Dworu Sułtańskiego". Dekret określa wytyczne m.in. dotyczące audiencji na których Jej Wysokość Sułtan Aisahah Ramzani al-Ekonoglu I
będzie podejmowała głowy innych v-państw.
2-03.2008 - Pierwsze w tym roku dwudniowe posiedzenie Narodowej Rady Fatwy [NRF] najwyższego organu religijnego Yslamu Rajńskiego zdecydowało o powołaniu u Komisji ds. Wiary Yslamu Rajńskiego, która zajmie się spisaniem Księgi Mądrości Yslamu Rajńskiego
"Koranu Rajńskiego". 3-go marca w tej sprawie ukazał się Dekret Wielkiego Mułły Ajatullaha Osamy bin Ramzaniego.
4.03.2008 - Pani Premier Catrina an Rosse zdymisjonowała z funkcji Ministra Nauki Kultury i Sportu [MNKiS] Pana Ahmeda Fathy.
Do czasu powołania nowego Ministra resortem NKiS pokieruje sama Pani Premier Rosse.
6.03.2008 - Prezes Sądu Najwyższego Sędzia Ayman an Zentawi poinformował, że do dnia dzisiejszego do sądu wpłynęły 3 pozwy
przeciwko obywatelowi Waltherowi von Brauchitschowi.

Świat:
1.03.2008 - [Tyrencja i Luminat]: W całym kraju obchodzone jest święto Dzień Symboli Narodowych.
4.03.2008 - [Surmenia]: Senat Królestwa Surmenii udzielił wotum zaufania Dworowi Królewskiemu JKV Tomasza de Zepp.
4.03.2008 - [Sarmacja]: Obie Izby Połączone sarmackiego parlamentu rozpoczęły pierwsze czytanie nad poprawkami do Konstytucji KS zaproponowanymi przez JKM Piotra Mikołaja I. Najważniejsza z poprawek zakłada odrestaurowanie w Księstwie sądownictwa konstytucyjnego i powołanie do życia Sądu Najwyższego.
6.03.2008 - [Udzielne Księstwo]: JKM Fryderyk Wilhelm I Bourbon na mocy dekretu usynowił Pana Nur ad-Dinę, który od tej pory
jest oficjalnym następcą tronu UKZT.
7.03.2008 - [Sarmacja]: W Księstwie rozpoczęło się dwu dniowe referendum ogólnopaństwowe ws. godła państwowego w którym obywatele KS mają się wypowiedzieć czy godłem państwowym nadal będzie Orzeł czy zastąpi go Kukuł Inkaski.

Nauka-Kultura-Sztuka:
3.03.2008 - [Nowal]: Weszła w życie Ustawa o szkolnictwie - Nowalski System Edukacyjny, która podzieliła na dwa etapy podstawowy [Akademie] oraz wyższy [Uniwersytety] edukację w Królestwie.

Sport:
4.03.2008 - [Sułtanat Al Rajn]: Na kolejkę przed zakończeniem pierwszego sezonu II ligii awans do ekstraklasy wywalczył dwie drużyny: Arabic Devils Awa oraz Scorpio Sitr.
4.03.2008 - [Scholandia]: Drużyna Alexiopolis United pod wodzą trenera A.Wittle wywalczyła tytuł mistrzowski w rozgrywkach Scholandzkiej Ligii Piłki Nożnej (SLPN). Drużyna z Alexiopolis w 20 rozegranych meczach zdobyła 42 punkty a sezon piłkarski zakończyła z dość dobrym bilansem bramkowym 59-30.

Różne:
8.03.2008 - [v-Świat]: Z okazji przypadającego w dniu dzisiejszym Święta Kobiet męska część kolegium redakcyjnego "Dar Al-Hayat"
składa najlepsze życzenia wszystkim Paniom z całego v-świata z okazji ich święta.

Redaktor Naczelny /-/

WASHINGTON--The National Retail Federation today welcomed the introduction of landmark antitrust legislation that would address hidden MasterCard and Visa fees that cost merchants and their customers more than $40 billion a year.

“This legislation would use the nation’s antitrust laws to rein in the greed of the credit card companies,” NRF Senior Vice President Mallory Duncan said. “With the rapidly increasing use of plastic, credit card companies and their banks are seeing a windfall that is costing U.S. consumers tens of billions of dollars each year. These are fees that most consumers don’t even know they’re paying because Visa, MasterCard have tried to keep them secret. The introduction of this legislation marks the beginning of the end of credit card company rip-offs.”

“Rather than allowing these fees to continue to be set in secret and imposed on a take it or leave it basis, this legislation would require negotiations and allow retailers to seek fair terms and conditions that will ultimately mean a better deal for consumers,” Duncan said. “Consumers are already angry at the way they’ve been treated by credit card companies, and this bill is an important step toward making credit card companies treat both merchants and their customers with respect.”

The Credit Card Fair Fee Act was introduced today by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. The bill is the first attempt by Congress to address credit card interchange fees, and is the outcome of a hearing held in July 2007 where Duncan, testifying on behalf of NRF and the Merchants Payments Coalition, argued that interchange practices violate federal antitrust law.

Averaging close to 2 percent, interchange is a fee Visa and MasterCard banks charge merchants every time a credit card or signature debit card is used to pay for a transaction. Visa and MasterCard collected an estimated $42 billion in interchange fees in 2007, an increase of 17 percent over the previous year and 150 percent since 2001.

Interchange is largely unknown to most consumers because Visa and MasterCard don’t disclose the fee on monthly statements and effectively keep merchants from disclosing it on receipts. But Visa and MasterCard effectively require merchants to pass the fees on to consumers by requiring them to be included in the advertised price of items and making cash discounts difficult. The fees amount to about $350 per household each year.

The Conyers bill would require credit card systems possessing “substantial market power” to negotiate with merchants to reach a voluntary agreement on credit card terms and conditions. If an agreement cannot be reached, both sides would be required to submit to binding arbitration by a three-judge panel appointed by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.

The arbitration proceedings would take place with a limited 60-day discovery period and other statutory deadlines, and the judges would be required to apply a market standard reflecting a perfectly competitive system where neither side had market power. Terms and conditions set by the panel would be in effect for three years, at which time the process would repeat itself. Both sides would receive limited immunity from antitrust laws in order to participate in the process.

The legislation requires that terms and conditions set under the process be available to any merchant regardless of size, industry or location. Individual merchants or groups of merchants would remain free to negotiate voluntary arrangements with credit card companies and their banks.

NRF is leading retailers’ fight against soaring interchange costs. During last summer’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Task Force, Duncan explained to lawmakers how Visa and its member banks come together to set interchange rates that all banks agree to charge regardless of which bank’s name is on a card. MasterCard follows a different procedure that also results in all its banks agreeing to charge the same. In either case, the two card associations each operate as illegal price-fixing cartels in violation of antitrust law, he said. With Visa and MasterCard together controlling at more than 80 percent of credit card purchase volume, retailers cannot afford to refuse the cards, he said.

The National Retail Federation is the world's largest retail trade association, with membership that comprises all retail formats and channels of distribution including department, specialty, discount, catalog, Internet, independent stores, chain restaurants, drug stores and grocery stores as well as the industry's key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.6 million U.S. retail companies, more than 25 million employees - about one in five American workers - and 2007 sales of $4.5 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents over 100 state, national and international retail associations. www.nrf.com

• (a demotion) The American Red Cross is NO LONGER a primary agency for mass care.
• This responsibility has been given to DHS/FEMA.

I've also looked up S3721 the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 2006.  Some of the issues present should have been grandfathered in in order to assist, however, it appears that S3721 takes effect January 1, 2007.   I'm happy to read that it gives the appearance of assisting victims in the future whereas eviction and divorce are concerned, but it basically does nothing for Hurricane Katrina victims.

I appreciate the removal of the American Red Cross as a Primary Agency, due to certain FAILURES of the AGENCY.

• Scale of the problem - They were seeing thousands of chargebacks, many of which were too small to invest time in individually.
• Complexity of the problem - Every retail customer has a different set of deductions.
• Rate of change - Across their customer base they see multiple changes a week to routing guides, edi specs, and vendor manuals.
• Organizational coordination - Internal efforts to "fix the chargeback problem" were too challenging to manage, because so many groups (A/R, logistics, IT, B2B, sales, and others) have to be involved.
• Lack of executive "actionability" - Of the vendor executives with whom I spoke, their was a common refrain. The chargeback problem was amorphous. There was no clear problem to target and put time, resources, and dollars behind to have an impact.

I felt their pain. In response, I wanted to provide five strategies that can be applied as a retail vendor to successfully reduce and eliminate your chargeback issues.

Strategy 1: Know your retailer's requirements

While it may sound simple, with the rate of change to retailer requirements being what they are, it is critical you keep up do date on the latest changes flowing out of your customers vendor mangement and logistics groups. Monitor every vendor website weekly. Note the changes that get made. Formally assess the impact of each change on your operations (you may find they you already comply or that the change does not apply to you). If it is a data or process related change, test historical data against the new requirements to figure out whether this is a large problem for you or a small problem. Once you decide to implement the change, track the progress of the rollout across the departments that must be involved in implementing it. Be sure you are tracking the effective date of the change, so you can prioritize resources and manage to the date your customer will start charging you for non compliance.

Strategy 2: Establish a formal Chargeback Lifecycle

Figure out how you handle each type of chargeback you commonly receive. Understand the steps you must go through to determine whether you will pay without question, research, accept or dispute. Figure out the individuals and groups that will have to collaborate with you. Start tracking how long it takes, on average, for each of them to provide you the information or action you need to move the chargeback resolution process forward. Make sure you are aware of how long you have to dispute each deduction. Track each chargeback through this process so the organization becomes trained to support chargeback avoidance activities.

Strategy 3: Build out your "reactive" defenses

A late ASN or an ASN that isn't usable by your customer's WMS system are easy problems to avoid, but make up a huge chunk of a typical vendor's chargebacks. Put in place tools to alert you when a critical route by date or PO cancel date is approaching, but where an ASN has not yet been sent to your customer. You can go a step farther by putting in place a quarantine zone, where data that fails some or all of your retailer requirements are held for a short period of time, allowing you to look at the potential issue and make a judgement about whether to release or replace the bad data. You can also build a "rapid research" system, where customer support can quickly research customer questions and provide the information needed to show that a chargeback wasn't your fault. Got a missing ASN deduction? Query your rapid response system to find the ASN and the receipt acknowledgement your customer sent to you.

Strategy 4: Build out your "proactive" defenses

Get ahead of the daily firefighting by figuring out where your performance is weak for a specific customer or where you are at particular risk of future chargebacks. The easiest way to accomplish this is to score card yourself. measure your key customer kpis that will influence your chargeback rates and vendor scorecard performance... on time delivery, order fill rate, usable ASN rate, etc. This will tell you where you need to invest your time to get better, and give you a heads up on how your next vendor meeting will go. Remember, your customer has this data already. You might also do well to measure your chargeback exposure. What would happen if your customer went to 100% audits tomorrow? For what percentage of potential chargebacks is your customer actually charging you back? Understanding your risk is important to avoiding a huge...and unexpected revenue shortfall.

Strategy 5: Remediate!

The most important thing you can do to minimize chargebacks is to leverage what you learn to fix the root cause of problems. If you manage your chargeback lifecycle, aggregate your chargebacks, and scorecard yourself, you will quickly get a holistic picture of your chargeback health. You can start to understand this issues that are costing your organization the most money. Start at the top and invest your limited resources in solving the problems that can save you the most. You'll find that because you can quantify the business impact, executive support and the associated resources required is easier to get.

All of these strategies can be implemented without partners or products. They will all provide you with excellent value. Of course, Inovis has a full suite of chargeback avoidance applications for the smallest vendor to the largest.

Learn More about Chargeback Avoidance>>

"European authorities say MasterCard is double dipping in Europe, and that's exactly what we think both MasterCard and Visa are doing here in the U.S.," NRF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mallory Duncan said. "Visa and MasterCard are charging billions of dollars directly to consumers for all the fees that show up on their monthly statements, then they turn around and charge billions more from the hidden credit card fees they force merchants to include in the price of merchandise."

"These fees drive up the cost of merchandise for shoppers while delivering little if any benefit commensurate with the billions charged," Duncan said. "It's time for this to stop, and authorities here in the United States should take the European ruling as a signal that it's time to bring the same relief to U.S. consumers."

The European Commission ruled today that so-called "interchange" fees charged by MasterCard and its banks violate EC Treaty rules on restrictive business practices and "inflated the cost of card acceptance by retailers without leading to proven efficiencies." The commission ordered MasterCard to withdraw the fees within six months or face fines equivalent to 3.5 percent of global revenues.

The commission said the fees are "not illegal as such" and stopped short of saying MasterCard could not charge any interchange fee at all. But any replacement system of fees, even if lower, would be allowed under EC rules only if MasterCard could show that it "contributes to technical and economic progress and benefits consumers."

EC Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said the fees drive up costs for consumers as well as retailers.

"Consumers foot the bill as they risk paying twice for payment cards: once through annual fees to their bank and a second time through inflated retail prices," Kroes said in releasing the ruling. "The commission will accept these fees only where they are clearly fostering innovation to the benefit of all users."

Averaging close to 2 percent in the United States, interchange is a fee Visa and MasterCard banks charge merchants every time a credit card or signature debit card is used to pay for a transaction. Visa and MasterCard collected more than $36 billion in interchange fees last year, up 17 percent from 2005 and 117 percent since 2001. This year, the amount is expected to top $40 billion, or about $350 per household. Interchange is largely unknown to most consumers because Visa and MasterCard don't disclose the fee on monthly statements and prohibit merchants from disclosing it on receipts.

MasterCard interchange rates for cross-border transactions in Europe currently range from 0.8 percent to 1.2 percent of each transaction. Visa was not addressed in today's ruling but reached an agreement with the EC in 2002 that restricts its fees - previously averaging 1.1 percent - to a maximum of 0.7 percent. That agreement ends at the end of 2007, and the EC said today that beginning in 2008 Visa will be "responsible to ensure that its system is in full compliance with EU competition rules."

NRF is leading retailers' fight against soaring interchange costs in the United States, and Duncan testified before the House Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Task Force in July that collusion between banks when setting the fees has violated U.S. antitrust law. The hearing was the second time Congress has looked at interchange practices in the past two years following a Senate Judiciary hearing on possible antitrust violations in July 2006. In addition, approximately 50 federal antitrust lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and their member banks have been consolidated in U.S. District Court in New York and are awaiting action.

The National Retail Federation is the world's largest retail trade association, with membership that comprises all retail formats and channels of distribution including department, specialty, discount, catalog, Internet, independent stores, chain restaurants, drug stores and grocery stores as well as the industry's key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.6 million U.S. retail establishments, more than 24 million employees - about one in five American workers - and 2006 sales of $4.7 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents more than 100 state, national and international retail associations. www.nrf.com

Abstract:

What's more frustrating, experts claim, has been the inability to get straight answers from credit card companies such as MasterCard and Visa about how such fees are structured.

According to Jeffrey Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores, approximately 70 percent of all gas purchases were made with a credit or debit card last year.

Lenard cited NACS data, which indicates profits for gas stations and convenience stores in 2006 totaled $4.8 billion.   Credit card companies made more at gas stations and convenient stores than the stores did themselves," Lenard said.

"The reason for interchange fees, we're told, is to pay for the technology infrastructure and fraud protection. The U.S. is arguably the best in the world in both these categories. To say that interchange pays for those things is unfathomable to me."

The amount credit card companies made processing those transactions: $6.6 billion.

The real "high tech heist" is perpetrated by Visa, MasterCard and its thousands of member banks who are charging $40 billion dollar each year in hidden fees.  The card associations will challenge our argument by explaining their fees are transparent. But, they are wrong. 

How wrong? 

Click on the links for Visa and MasterCard below and see if you can figure out what merchants are charged by Visa USA and MasterCard from their website's fee schedules, but make sure you have lots of coffee and time...

The National Retail Federation was also interviewed for this "60 Minutes" segment.