A news story I found today on AOL was about a former professional baseball player who owes upwards of $725,000 in back child support. The story goes on to explain that this person (I refuse to call him a man) bought a South Pacific island and lived there for 8 years with his current wife to avoid paying child support. He was finally returned to the US when his passport expired. This story is bad enough. A person doesn't want to pay $5000 a month in child support, which seems like a lot of money until you find out he purchased an island and a 21-room resort. But in the comments after the story, you find this:

dominguezfiv 12:28:26 PM Dec 14 2008

Think,think,think! Regardless of what the father made monetarily, it was temporary.The amount of $5000 per month, which the chidren would have never spent, would surely make the wife ample in funds to spend on herself. I am sure the $5000 was court mandated. The result of which was his leaving. If the court had, with his agreement, found an amount which he agrred was reasonable, his children would have seen his father all along, and he would not have been cornered. Additionally, the children, would have prefered to have a father all along and some support, say $1000 per month, than to have neither. Some court decisions, cause more damage than benefits to the children that are beign protected. What is needed is to improve situations and not worsen them. I am sure the mother was very happy at the court decision. Could she forsee the final results? They both lost. Not to mention the children.

I, on many occasions, have found numerous people I disagree with in the comments section of AOL. However, I never thought there would be even one person who thought this guy wasn't a bastard, and then that. The man bought an island and hid from his kids to avoid paying $5000 a month in child support. And this is the courts' and mother's fault? This guy's post is the very reason so many people don't have personal responsibility. Regardless of whether he agreed or disagreed with the amount, a MAN would have stayed behind and supported his children. A MAN would have wanted to be near his children, no amount of money would have changed that. Instead he ran off and left his kids high and dry. Regardless of whether you think a child is worth $5000 a month has nothing to do with it. If he truly couldn't afford the payments, he could have gone back to court a year later and proven that. Instead he is a coward, low-life, dead-beat dad, who has been living a life of luxury. He deserves every punishment he gets. He and the commenter are why the world is full of fatherless children. They make excuses for dead-beat dads so they feel justified in their actions.

Gee Mr. Journalist, Why Does Jennifer Aniston Keep Talking About Her Ex?

Recently Jennifer Aniston has been featured prominently on the cover of 2 major magazines, GQ & Vogue. Prior to both of these articles, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt had made comments about falling in love on the set of Mr. & Mrs. Smith, thus admitting to an affair during Pitt's marriage to Aniston. Of course, this is going to prompt questions from the journalists of the Aniston articles to ask her how she feels or thinks about these comments. In both situations the responses by Aniston are pretty short. In response to the articles on Aniston, the sentiment has been, 'just get over it already, stop bringing it up'.

Perhaps, if you would truly like for her to "get over it", 2 things should happen. One, Pitt and Jolie could manage to stop publicly stating they had an affair while Pitt was still married. An allegation that up until a few months ago, both vehemently denied. For whatever reason, they are now owning up to it. I guess Aniston is to have no response to the fact that she was lied to by her then-husband.

The second course of action, I think the most important, is STOP ASKING HER ABOUT IT. I don't know if everyone thinks that she walks into her interviews and says "What Angelina Jolie said, that was really uncool", but last I checked interviews are conducted by the writer of the story and they tend to ask questions. She could simply refuse to answer, but as history has shown, that can cause more gossip than a simple response. In my humble opinion, Jennifer Aniston has been nothing but courteous and respectful throughout the entire ordeal. The bottom line is, this woman's husband cheated on her, then lied to her about it and at the time she choose to believe him. Now, 4 years later he and the new woman are admitting that they did, in fact, have an affair. For any woman this would come as a blow, but for Aniston, she has to read about it splashed across every entertainment rag magazine and be constantly questioned about it during interviews that are supposed to be about her new movie. And on top of all of that, she is now being told to "get over it". How about all of you get over it and leave her alone?

On HSN they feature a gentleman named John Edward who purports to sell spiritual items. But really how spiritual can they be if he's hocking them on HSN so he can turn a profit? I put him on the same level as televangelists. I can help you find salvation, for 3 easy payments of $39.95.

Growing up, my parents always tithed to our church, even when we had no money. That same church, however, kept us clothed and feed on several occasions when we had no money. Tithing to your community church helps the people of that church and community. They are truly doing God's work. But these televangilists and authors of multi-million dollar christian books are nothing but self-serving opportunists. Using the faith people have in God to drain them of their bank accounts. Now, normally in these situations, I would say of the people being taken advantage of, oh well, they should use common sense. However, the victims of these schemes are usually older folks, confined to their homes and no longer able to attend their local churches. They turn to these farces on TV to give them spiritual guidance and in turn "tithe" to those "churches". Unlike their local church, however, they will never see this money again. Not unless they become a business associate of the "preacher". Those funds line the pockets of men who are out for themselves, they are not out to do God's work.

There are so many debates about religion and spirituality, none of which I want to get into. But I think we can all agree on one thing: you don't have to hock merchandise on HSN to get closer to God. You will only be getting closer to the poor house.

Update on Black Friday Stampede

In the news today, was a story about the family of the Wal-Mart worker who was trampled to death and that they are suing. While I half expected this, I'm very surprised at the number of people they have decided to sue. In addition to suing Wal-Mart, they are suing the strip mall where Wal-Mart is located, the security company Wal-Mart hired, Nassau County, and the Nassau County PD. The claims against Wal-Mart, I get. I've always felt Wal-Mart needed to better control these types of events. Stampedes have happened before. How exactly are the rest of these entities responsible? The strip mall has absolutely no control over the sales Wal-Mart offers, they are not responsible for Wal-Mart's security. The security company was doing as instructed by their employers, Wal-Mart, and they are not liable unless an egregious mistake was made on their part. The most incredilous of all of these is the County and the PD. How in the world could they have possibly foreseen this type of thing happening, or where for that matter, and been on scene to prevent it? The police can only do so much.

This is a horrible, horrible thing. Not only because a person lost their life, but also because it shows the lack of humanity left in this world. But the bottom line is, suing everyone under the sun will do nothing but make a lot of lawyers very happy. Should Wal-Mart be investigated to ensure they did everything within their power to keep their employees safe? Absolutely. If they are found negligent, then by all means they should pay. But the rest of this lawsuit is frivilous. The very inclusion of these other parties diminshes the substance of this lawsuit.