The Shotgun Blog
« I'm with EclectEcon | Main | Communist China's latest export: poisoned wheat »
Monday, March 26, 2007
One Large Pizza & a Side Order of Child Support
An Ohio pizza company is putting the names and pictures of delinquent parents on its delivery boxes.
It is very important to fight crime, but should parents failing to pay child support be a top priority in public campaigns?
Posted by Jonathan Goldfarb on March 26, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8352605d969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference One Large Pizza & a Side Order of Child Support:
Comments
Jonathan Goldfarb wrote: It is very important to fight crime, but should parents failing to pay child support be a top priority in public campaigns?
Since the county is responsible for looking after children that don’t get child support it would be in their interest. It isn’t costing the county anything but any money it saves could be put to other crime fighting uses.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2007-03-26 10:34:21 AM
So, what gives a pizza seller the right to defame anyone regardless of what they have done. I would boycott that pizza company.
What's next? Who cares anyway? How do you know the other spouse isn't a lying cheating piece of crap who denies the other parent access to children and on it goes.
Pizza companies are not in the family law business, neither should be act as judge and jury.
This is just stupid.
Posted by: John | 2007-03-26 11:15:09 AM
John~
The women who deny their spouses access to their children are pictured on boxes that have anchovies added to the regular order. (sarcasm)
This is obviously a plan to increase the female customer base - one that should backfire by the boycott of this business by real men - not metrosexuals.
Posted by: obc | 2007-03-26 11:50:31 AM
This is out of line and I agree that one should simply boycott the place. The belief that they received the names from the authorities does not improve the situation. I have personally known too many cases where the father's visitation rights were ignored by the ex-wife and yet the courts turned a blind eye to the fact while demanding "child support" beyond the financial means of the father. I have also known of cases where the woman obtained "child support" payments from both the biological father along with "child support" payments from a different common law spouse after that break-up. Go figure.
The point is that there are too many unknown factors for one to take at face value that it is automatically a case of dead-beat dads.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-03-26 12:16:29 PM
So... freedom of speech is ok except when it's not your kind of freedom of speech. Gotcha.
Posted by: Bushido | 2007-03-26 1:08:35 PM
This is not a freedom of speech issue. No one is arguing that the owners be jailed or fined for their action. Merely, that the customers might react with a boycott - which is their version of freedom of speech on this matter.
Posted by: obc | 2007-03-26 2:14:38 PM
What is with this "Bushido" guy? Freedom of Speech should not include public harrasement. Why not be done with it and put people in stocks in the public square? Geez.....
Posted by: Hoser | 2007-03-26 3:41:45 PM
Political cartoons are 'public harassment', but what's the WS' position on those? Oh wait. I know.
In any event the guys skipping on payment are already being publicly harassed by wanted posters and fliers online & included with utility bills in Ohio where this is all happening.
http://www.butlercountycsea.org/pdf/wanted.pdf
Posted by: bushido | 2007-03-26 4:12:44 PM
Bushido
So, if others are indulging in that sort of shit, it makes it O.K. for the pizza shop? Where are the "public interest" lawyers who could sue a bunch of asses to put a stop to this public harassment? Oh, I forgot - no deep pockets of a nasty big corporation to dip into here.
If the good people of Ohio want to go really 17th century, they might try branding the non-payers with DB on the forehead.
And no, I don't have a personal axe to grind. I raised two kids as the custodial parent with no help from my ex-wife.
Posted by: Zog | 2007-03-26 5:29:39 PM
Bushido said
"But this little tribe here is all about shovelling the bullshit 24/7."
Posted by: Bushido | 23-Mar-07 12:51:22 PM
Then he said
"So... freedom of speech is ok except when it's not your kind of freedom of speech. Gotcha."
Again, he excels at shovelling strawmen. Several people here have used their freedom of speech to criticize how the pizza company was using its freedom of speech. What is your problem with that?
Oh wait. Using his example, "freedom of speech is ok except when it's not" his "kind of freedom of speech. Gotcha. "
Bushido,
Criticizing is not the same as denying or advocating the denial of someone else's freedom of speech.
I wonder how it would go over if this company decided to broadcast a failure to pay a parking ticket, or property taxes, or ...
We could get really creative here.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-26 6:02:43 PM
I do not believe the issue of collecting child support should be mixed up in other issues, such as visitation. The two are completely different.
Sure, there are a few women out there who deny the fathers of their children visitation rights. Mind you, I would not invite those women into my house, let alone their ex-spouses.
Having stated this much, no matter how indelectable they are, the responsibility of both parents, to support their children, is a matter that runs close to the heart of most Canadians. Or at least the pocket book.
Now, I have no problem ensuring all children have food, a bed, some clothes, schools and whatever else they need. Not everyone is economically gifted. And some parents are not so lucky, and have children with medical problems. Some resolve, some don't. Those of us who are better off should feel some pride in ensuring that people who are beset with issues, can have a leg up.
Once they have a leg up though, they have a duty and responsibility to ensure they get off the public purse, and contribute back. Given the nature of poverty, that many people only visit and do not remain, I believe that most people do go to work and contribute back to what they benefitted from.
What I object to are the lazy s.o.b's who can, and yet fail, in spite of all the opportunities they are provided. And that goes for b.o.b's as well. They refuse to listen while they are kids, fail to listen as young adults, do drugs, produce meth-addicted babies, who are permanently damaged, and then do more drugs, live off the streets, never choose work when they can collect welfare, never learn anything, and spread diseases as often as possible, ensuring the next generation of sick dependents, who cost those of us who choose the straight and narrow, billions every year.
Sure, everyone has heard of someone who has had a bad situation with regards to supporting their children. But no one forced them to get married and have sex in the first place. Perhaps it is something that they should have considered, when they could have put a sock on it. Or, if they just wanted to pass on their seed, there are sperm and egg banks.
On the other hand, people do choose bad mates. No one, should ever marry anyone they would not want to be divorced from. But that is besides the point. Once children are born, there are costs. And those costs are real. And they are tax deductible.
Most men's standard of living actually goes up by 70% after divorce, whereas the women's situation usually goes down. And it is not always the women who are the main custodial parent. Sometimes it is the woman who has to pay-up. And, the same applies to them.
No one said being a parent was easy. And thank the almighty, there are enough good parents out there, who make up for the bad ones.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-03-26 6:06:05 PM
I'll be impressed when I see the courts make ANY effort to punish vindictive ex-wives who selfishly abuse their children by denying their father's visitation rights.
Todays politically correct culture doesn't give a sh*t about that half of the contract....does it?
All the talk about a child's best interest is pure bullsh*t.The woman gets almost all the consideration in today's family law courtrooms.
Of course...none of this excuses a capable man of refusing to help support his own children.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-03-26 6:28:52 PM
So if the courts order some guy to pay twice his salry which has happened, then they want to berate him if he doesn't pay up.
Sorry until the courts are straigthtened out i will not have sympathy for people who think men should just be sperm donors and enslaved financially forever.
Posted by: ghollingshead | 2007-03-26 10:36:59 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.