Rant #21: Who Supports Those Who Pay Child Support?

Finally, after checking with Albany, the capital of New York State, for the umpteenth time, my child support notice came into my workplace, so I am officially finished with my child support payments. After more than 18 years of having this money taken out of my earnings, my paycheck will finally reflect my salary, not less what I pay for this support each week.

To get this done in as timely a manner as possible--it has been two weeks since my daughter turned 21--I had to use my own checks and balances system to make sure that Albany was doing what it should have been doing--and no, they weren't.

I discovered this early on, when one of their representatives gave me a very hard time, lied to me about sending out the notice, and was completely unruly on the phone. The second representative I got when I called a few days later was nice, but basically paid me lip service, and did not send out the notice (I don't know if the notice we did receive came from her or from the next person I spoke to).

Finally, I called a third time, and whether it was through him or the previous person, the notice came to my work today. I am ecstatic ...

Well, almost 100 percent ecstatic.

Let me explain. Several years ago, when my payments started to go through Albany (ordered by the court as a way to put a buffer between myself and my ex-wife, as I had been actually handing her a check each week), I was told that it would be in my best interests to set up an account with the state, so if, for some reason, payment from my employer came late to them, they could use the money in the account to make a seamless payment to my daughter through my ex-wife. This actually happened a few times for whatever reason. Once money was taken out, it would be replenished.

The account was interest bearing, meaning that whatever money was in there would accrue interest for the length of time I had the account. Since I have had the account for more than a decade, the interest might provide a tidy sum at the end of my responsibility.

Well, the end is now, and I checked up on this. I found out that the state is only obligated to pay me whatever overpayment I made for child support (one week) and the principle in the account. Whatever interest accrued goes to--

The custodial parent with physical custody (I have joint custody, but not physical custody), which is my ex-wife!

I questioned this and I was told that a reimbursement such as this will never include interest.

Now remember, I have been paying taxes on my child support since day one, have not been able to declare my daughter as a dependent, and have not had a clue about how my child support was being used for my daughter's upkeep. When I was briefly out of work in the mid 1990s, the state took two-thirds of whatever money I had coming in for support, and I had to pay back what I "owed" when I became employed (no, I am not a wealthy person, by the way).

Now, they hit me with this nonsense, which I can tall you was never explained to me when I set up the account.

Yes, Albany loves to stick the knife in and turn it counterclockwise.

When I was on the phone and found this out, I decided right then and there not to ask about exactly how much interest had accrued. I didn't want to aggravate myself even more than I was.

I guess the main thing is that this nightmare is finally over--although, obviously, the financial support I provide for my daughter continues.

But you know what? It's better to want to help out than be forced to pay out as a form of punishment for a marriage that failed. I always felt like I was being blamed for this failure, rather than both of us bearing this responsibility.

So be it. I am done!

(By the way, the poster that I have included in this rant has nothing to do with me--I just put it in to show that guys like this--and any gals out there who pull this crap--should be locked up for failure to pay their support. However, when you use support as a punishment tool, you are going to have people running away from their obligation. Laws should be changed so such payments are not punitive.

Anybody who says they aren't the way things stand now is an idiot, just plain ignorant, or both, plain and simple.)

Rant #20: I Hate Spammers

At one time, during the pre-Internet days, spammers were people who liked to eat Spam. I never understood the fascination with this processed food, but so be it, they weren't bothering anyone.

In this day and age, the term "spammers" has taken on a brand new meaning. Spammers are people who spread negative email about subjects that no one wants to read about. Some spammers also spread pornography and computer viruses, malware, trojans, and the like.

I don't understand the philosophy behind what spammers do. Why do they do it? What do they get out of it? What pleasure do they get in doing this, and more importantly, where do they find the time?

Most email programs now have some sort of spam protection, but the spam still manages to slip through from time to time. As the owner of two blogs and several other music-oriented sites, I can tell you that while spamming is down probably 90 percent of what it once was, it still exists.

Again, I don't have the slightest idea what drives these people to do what they do.

And now, about people who like Spam ...

Rant #19: I Have Gas

Have you noticed how the price of gas has gone up and down during the past few months?

I don't truly understand why there is such fluctuation, but it is something that affects our pocketbooks, so it is something that I wanted to comment about.

Remember when gas, at least on the East Coast, was approaching $5 a gallon? The oil companies recorded record profits, while the rest of us swooned with misery every time we had to gas up. Some people were spending upwards of $100 per fill up.

Then gas nose-dived. I remember just about six months ago, you could get regular unleaded gas for $1.70 here on the East Coast, and while traveling, I noticed that in Georgia, gas plummeted at some stations to the $1.50 range.

Now, as the summer season begins, I notice that gas is getting closer to $3 a gallon.

Do you notice a pattern here?

Notwithstanding the official explanations (which personally I don't believe a word of) from the oil companies, I would say that the price jumps during the heavier driving summer, and it falls during the lesser driving winter.

I know that is simplistic, but based on the past several months, it seems to be true.

I don't blame the oil companies for trying to make a buck (more like several billion bucks). But why can't they tell us the real reason why gas goes up and down like an out of control yo-yo? Don't tell us about barrel prices, wars in distant lands, or cutbacks or rollouts--just tell us that you are getting us when we need the gas, and letting us off when we don't need the gas as much.

I think the American public would have slightly more understanding of these fluctuations if the oil companies were straighter with us.

Rant #18: I Speak, But No One Responds

This was brought up by one of the people that responds to my posts--the only person to consistently make comments about what I am saying via this blog.

Yes, I guess I am venting a lot of steam in my blog. Sure, it is personal, but I do talk about general subjects that have probably touched everybody at one time or another.

However, the feedback has been minimal at best.

I have tried to expand the reach of the blog, but so far, to no avail. Maybe through you, the regular visitors to the site, you can electronically spread the word that this site is up and running and ready for comments.

Please, let me know what you think about the blog. What you like about it, what can be improved.

I have worked pretty hard on this site. I am trying to do something both fun and stimulating. But I haven't heard from enough of you to know if what I am doing is beneficial in any way.

I know that people from around the world are visiting the site. The counter tells me that the site has been visited several hundred times, and that is with minimum promotion.

So praise me, raise me, dump on me--but please let me know your opinions.

And again, thanks to those who visit on a regular basis.

Rant #17: Don't Sell Me On Cell Phones

I know that we are in the high-tech age, where information is virtually at our fingertips.

I know that it is nice--and oftentimes a necessity--to be in touch with friends and loved ones.

However, I really can't stand cell phones and what they have done to society.

It would please me to say that most people are responsible with their cell phones, but alas, I really don't think I can ever make that statement. Most people that I know (and see around me) completely misuse this privilege. They use the phone during the most inopportune times, such as when they are driving, when they are at work, when they are food shopping, and when they are attending a movie or concert.

I have a cell phone, but it is an antique. I bought it a few years ago, and it really doesn't do anything but make phone calls. It doesn't take pictures, doesn't fold into my pocket, and doesn't do the myriad other things that today's cell phones do. And I like it like that.

I rarely use the phone. It has helped me out of a couple of scrapes, especially when my old car broke down. Other than that, I pay per use, so every three months I pay a flat fee and add x amount of time onto the phone. I have more than 700 extra minutes on the phone, and I will never use this time up.

I see people not paying attention to the road or anyone around them when they are on these things. Even though in New York it is illegal to talk on these phones (and text message) when you drive, I see countless people each day on the phone when they are behind the wheel. I have also nearly had a number of accidents because people can't talk and drive at the same time.

Not only that, but people use their phones in a rude way. The other day, I witnessed a woman having an argument with someone on the phone. I mean, does anybody need to hear someone else's personal business?

What did we do without cell phones? We made calls when they were necessary, mainly at home, but if necessary, at a pay phone. We did not yak about nothing in the supermarket or while driving.

I think the phone has become the new adult toy, but people act like babies when using these things.

I wish driving penalties, in particular, were increased for those caught using these things while driving. Since the cops are basically turning their backs on those using these phones, let's make the penalties stiffer, which would certainly give them more incentive to pull someone over when they are using the phone while driving. Let's make it a $1,000 fine for using the phone while behind the wheel, and the phone gets taken away, and has to be picked up at the local precinct the cop works out of.

I don't know if that would deter people from using these phones unsafely, but I know that it would scare the heck out of me.

Rant #16: No YES on Dish Network

As I have mentioned previously, I am a huge Yankees fan. One of my great pastimes is to watch the games on television, as I will do tonight as the game versus the Texas Rangers is on a local, non-pay channel in New York.

My problem is that as a Dish Network subscriber, I can't get the Yankees' YES channel.

For whatever reason, Dish Network does not carry the YES channel, has no intention to do so, and has stated so since the channel was created several years ago. When the channel was first made available, and it became apparent that Dish Network was not going to carry the channel, I voiced my disapproval to the satellite provider. By the way, Dish Network does carry the Mets' SNY channel, but will not carry the Yankees' station.

They claim that it would cost subscribers too much, because they would have to offer it as a regular sports channel as opposed to one that people would simply order if they wanted it. Supposedly, that is how it has been offered to Dish Network, and the satellite provider has balked at such a deal.

I enjoy Dish Network. The price is less than Direct TV, and at least with the package I have, you do get a lot of channels (of course, most of them you don't need, but anyway ...).

Well, another season, another washout with Dish Network and YES.

They have never explained to me or anyone else why they would not offer the channel as an add-on, one that subscribers could pay for if they wanted it. Heck, the offer Playboy Channel that way, and if one wants it, one pays extra. Why not for YES?

I have a sneaking suspicion it has to do with Direct TV's supposed "satellite exclusive" on certain channels and events. Dish Network simply does not feel the need to challenge this exclusive, which I find perplexing. Among other channels, we can't get the MLB channel either, probably for the same reason. There are also various football packages that are exclusive to Direct TV.

Of course, I could switch to Direct TV, but I would rather fight than switch, even if I am punching a bag that doesn't exist.

I would think that Direct TV's monopoly on certain channels would be illegal. A few years back, I even contacted then New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's office about this, to no avail (I don't know where Spitzer was at the time, perhaps watching the Yes channel with one of his friends).

So, another year, another year without the Yankees. I just don't think this is fair, especially since I am more than willing to pay for the channel as an add-on.

Funny, I can get Chicago Cubs games, but as a New Yorker, I can't get Yankees games. It just does not make any sense.

Rant #15: Have It Their Way At Burger King

This is a phenomena that I have experienced at numerous Burger Kings from New York to Florida, and I can't explain it.

Why when you ask for extra pickles on your Burger King sandwich do they not put any extra on?

I have eaten at hundreds of Burger King restaurants over several decades. I am the type of person who does not eat tomatoes, and I always ask for them to be left off my sandwich (certainly, Burger King likes this, because the cost of tomatoes has risen dramatically over the years).

When I order my Whopper, I always say, "No tomato, extra pickle." They abide by my wishes of leaving the tomato out of the sandwich, but when I open up the sandwich to check for extra pickle, I usually see a single pickle.

I experienced this same thing for the umpteenth time this past Saturday at a Burger King right around the corner from where I live. I know it is no big deal to ask again for the extra pickle--which I did--but why should I have to do this anyway?

Burger King supposedly prides itself as the fast food chain of choice for those who want to have their sandwiches their way, but when I ask for extra pickle, I have it their way, not mine.

I would say, if I didn't know better, that this was an isolated incident, but I have been at too many Burger King restaurants up and down the Eastern Seaboard to know that it isn't. I don't know what happens out West and overseas, but on the East Coast of the United States, this is what happens.

I want to know why? Why can't I have it my way?