Marriage: an institutionalised incentive to gold-digging

Marriage: an institutionalised incentive to gold-digging | Lionel Shriver | Comment is free | The Guardian

Pre-nups aren't pretty, but they protect us from a law that says because you love someone they have a claim on everything you own

Before they married in 1998, the German heiress Katrin Radmacher and her then-fiance, Nicolas Granatino, drew up a legal document promising that, if they divorced, neither would go after the other's money. Yet, when the couple separated in 2006, Granatino did just that. The supreme court decision to uphold their original contract may herald a new era, in which prenuptial agreements are finally accorded standing in British courts.

Alas, this week's ruling awards poor Granatino only £1m in lieu of maintenance for the couple's two daughters, a London residence that will be returned to Radmacher when the younger of their two daughters reaches the age of 22, and another property in France for the same period, while Radmacher has already paid off his £700,000 in debts. His lawyers claim this pittance leaves Granatino facing "bankruptcy, financial ruin, and destitution", although these attorneys might invest in a dictionary, the better to clarify what "bankruptcy", "ruin", and "destitution" actually mean.

Family lawyers are warning that this decision may bring on a torrent of so-called pre-nups now that the contracts are no longer treated like toilet roll in British jurisprudence. But would that be so terrible?

Formal declarations of mistrust, pre-nups are emotionally unfortunate. They overtly plan for failure, and thus involve a jarring cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, couples are vowing to be true till death parts them; on the other, they're already hammering out the details of their divorce. But when nearly half of British marriages do end in divorce, practicality may get the better of romance, especially for those who bring considerable assets to the relationship.

Thus couples that can bear the contamination of an otherwise joyful celebration should have their agreements honoured. For British courts to have hitherto invalidated pre-nups has been high-handed, like British marital law in general. In the UK, divorcing couples don't have assets divided 50-50. It's worse than that. The courts can do whatever they want.

However unattractive, pre-nups are at least a way round a law that dictates simply because you love someone and share their bed, that person has a claim on everything you own. In a time when women had little or no ability to support themselves, a husband's monies being legally regarded as joint assets helped to protect the wife. But these days both sexes have access to the workplace, and the protection that women like Katrin Radmacher require isn't from helpless penury, but from rapacity – the greed of ex-husbands who violate what should be legally binding contracts to turn divorce into a nice little earner.

A just, fully contemporary divorce law would obviate pre-nups altogether by recognising the morally obvious. Yes, all households incur joint running costs; but, when my husband earns £500, that is his money, not mine. If "we" buy a house but I pay the deposit and the mortgage, that house is mine. If my husband owned £10,000 in shares before we married, I do not deserve to remove any of those shares from his possession if we split. Western workers do not toil for collective farms called families; they are paid as individuals. Whether they wish to pool assets with a partner is their business, not the state's.

When one spouse has raised children while the other works, the division of spoils in divorce is more complex. Yet the law is fully capable of quantifying the value of childcare and lost earnings without blindly handing over to a stay-at-home spouse an untold proportion of what the working spouse has accrued.

As it is, little wonder marriage has plummeted in popularity. "I do" forfeits all control over your earnings, possessions and finances. You can't be sure that if you buy a house you can keep it, even if the title is in your name. Should you divorce, there's no guarantee that the courts will distinguish between your earnings of £150,000 per annum and your spouse's salary of £12,500. Under the present system – an institutionalised incentive to gold-digging – a pre-nup codifies the fairness that the law does not. For British courts to finally accord these contracts legitimacy provides people a measure of protection from the caprices of the courts themselves.

In the perfect world no one would need pre-nups. But all too often a misty-eyed romancer at the altar transforms into a vengeful, avaricious fiscal predator when the marriage goes south. A pre-nup is an insurance policy or, in brokerage terms, a short hedge – meant to mitigate a high-risk investment. It safeguards the love-struck from their own poor judgment of character.

Don't believe in God? Read This

| Fred Edwords | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Washington DC nontheist, atheist bus shelter advert The Coalition of Reason bus shelter advertisement, in Washington, DC. Photograph: CoR


New advertisements on Washington DC bus stop shelters ask a simple question: "Don't believe in God?" After that gets your attention, they answer it: "Join the club."

More than a figure of speech, this rejoinder is a direct invitation to join one of the dozen local non-theistic groups that have come together as Washington CoR – the Washington DC area Coalition of Reason.

Believers in traditional religion are often shocked at such ads. Since 2008, this message and others like it have been placed on billboards, buses, subway trains and at subway stations in cities across the United States. But the ads don't actually address believers. They address non-believers, in an effort to get them "out of the closet", or at least, to let them know they aren't alone. The goal is to end a conspiracy of silence of sorts, where quietness is next to godlessness, and begin the process of giving non-theistic Americans their place at the table.

But why is this happening now? Well, it actually began in 2004 with the emergence of what the media quickly dubbed the "new atheism". In the wake of that, godless Americans suddenly found themselves in a sweet spot. They were no longer so controversial as to be beyond the pale, yet just controversial enough to be endlessly interesting.

Other groups have gone through a similar phase. Remember when being interracially married would get you air time? Or being transsexual? These controversies have passed, of course. And this phase will pass for non-theists, too. But not yet. And so, in city after city where these ads are put up, reaction follows. Sometimes in the form of a backlash – which only multiplies their power.

So, the United Coalition of Reason has been striking while the iron is hot, stoking the flames of public interest in secularism, anti-clericalism and religious diversity to bring the growing number of godless groups together into local coalitions. Thus organised, they pool their efforts in a common website that links to all the groups, creating a sort of online one-stop-shopping for the religiously disaffected and spiritually uninterested. That website is then publicised through the ads; and via the media attention and internet buzz the ads generate, more people emerge as interested non-theists and coallesce into the groups. The size of the freethought and humanist community thereby expands.

In the United States, evangelical Christianity dominates the field of religious advertising. Which only makes atheist messages stand out more. Further, because freedom of speech and freedom of the press are enshrined in the US constitution, transit companies that allow religious advertising can't ban non-theistic alternatives. So the ads must be allowed to run.

And when they do – over and over and across the land – people start getting used to them. This increases public tolerance of dissenting views and gives more people permission either to be open about their unbelief or even to begin questioning their faith.

So, in the end, everybody wins because society becomes more open, inclusive and free.

ANTARA News: KPK: Pensiun PNS Berpotensi Bebani Uang Negara

akarta (ANTARA News) - Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) menyatakan bahwa alokasi dana pensiun bagi pegawai negeri dan penyelenggara negara berpotensi membebani keuangan negara.

"Uang pensiun itu diberikan sampai yang bersangkutan meninggal dunia," kata Wakil Ketua KPK M Jasin di Jakarta, Kamis, yang menambahkan bahwa KPK memberi perhatian terhadap alokasi dana pensiun itu.

Meski belum memiliki perhitungan rinci, Jasin menegaskan, beban alokasi dana pensiun bagi pegawai negeri dan penyelenggara negara sangat besar.

Jasin mencontohkan, seorang pegawai negeri akan pensiun pada usia 56 tahun. Jika dia hidup sampai usia 65 tahun, maka negara akan menanggung dana pensiun yang bersangkutan selama sembilan tahun.

"Padahal, sejumlah orang memiliki usia harapan hidup lebih dari itu," kata Jasin.

Menurut dia, jumlah alokasi dana pensiun itu akan membengkak jika dikali dengan jumlah seluruh pegawai negeri dan penyelenggara negara di Indonesia.

Di sisi lain, pemberian dana pensiun itu kadang tidak sesuai dengan rasa keadilan masyarakat. Hal itu antara lain terlihat di beberapa instansi seperti Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR), baik di pusat maupun di daerah.

"Misalnya terkait pergantian antar waktu," kata Jasin.

Mekanisme pergantian antar waktu adalah mekanisme bagi politisi untuk menduduki kursi DPR dalam periode waktu tertentu.

Jasin berpendapat, pemberian uang pensiun kepada mereka yang hanya beberapa bulan atau beberapa tahun menjabat tidak sesuai dengan gagasan tata kelola pemerintahan yang baik.

Model KPK

Jasin berharap instansi pemerintah mencontoh mekanisme yang ditempuh KPK. KPK tidak membebankan dana hari tua karyawan pada keuangan negara.

Menurut Jasin, tunjangan hari tua karyawan KPK diambil dari gaji mereka masing-masing.

"Gaji setiap pegawai KPK dipotong untuk tunjangan hari tua," katanya.

Jasin menjelaskan, gaji setiap pegawai, termasuk pimpinan KPK, dipotong sekira satu persen sampai dua persen. Dana hari tua itu kemudian dititipkan kepada pihak ketiga, yaitu perbankan.

Setiap pegawai yang sudah tidak bertugas di KPK, bisa mengambil dana tersimpan itu sesuai jatah yang harus dia terima.

KPK menerapkan sistem bagi hasil dengan pihak bank atas simpanan dana tunjangan hari tua itu.

Hal itu berarti setiap pegawai KPK berhak atas jatah yang dia simpan ditambah dengan bunga hasil simpanan itu. Sedangkan pihak bank bisa menggunakan keuntungan akibat penempatan dana itu untuk pengembangan usaha.

Jasin menegaskan, upaya KPK itu bertujuan untuk tidak membebani negara dengan alokasi tambahan untuk dana pensiun. Dengan begitu, keuangan negara bisa digunakan secara optimal untuk pembangunan dan kesejahteraan rakyat.

"Jangan sampai uang negara habis hanya untuk membayar pensiun," kata Jasin.

Spain reclaims Siesta

Spain defends nap with siesta championship | News.com.au

WHAT is being billed as Spain's first national siesta championship is under way in Madrid to find the best napper and help revive the tradition of taking a snooze after lunch.

Participants are monitored as they lie on bright blue sofas in the middle of a shopping centre for a 20-minute nap.
Some wear pyjamas; others sport eye masks or cover their faces with their jackets.

They have pulse monitors attached to their bodies and the maximum of 20,000 points is awarded to those who sleep for the full 20 minutes.

Sleeping fewer minutes means fewer points but judges also award marks for original sleeping positions, the loudest snore and the most eye-catching outfits.

The competition, organised by the National Association of Friends of the Siesta, began on October 14 and will wrap up on Saturday, with the winner awarded a prize of 1000 euros ($1420).


"The mission of the championship is to spread the idea that the nap is something of ours that must be defended and practised, because it is healthy and good for everyone," the association says on its website.

"Being able to do it in public requires having a spirit of a champion and to be a great siesta taker."

Eight rounds of the competition are held daily, with each involving five participants on sofas lined up in parallel lanes like those at a track and field meet.

"We were afraid that people would be afraid of making fools of themselves, but on average about 50 people have taken part each day," the association's spokesman, Alvaro Vidal, said.

Given the success of the siesta contest, the association is planning to repeat the event in future and hold editions outside of Spain, he said.

''For all this time, we have never felt calm, never peace. Why? "

I get this from smh.com.au

(the video u can download here https://www.fpcn-global.org/films/mo...0x240_H264.mov)
A graphic and disturbing video shows a Papuan man being poked in the genitals with a fiery stick as he is interrogated by a group of men who appear to be members of Indonesia's security services.

The video has come to light as the Indonesian government faces continuing criticism about abuses by its security forces in Papua, scene of a long simmering separatist struggle.

The Papuan man, stripped naked, bound and with one of the interrogators placing his foot on his chest, is being asked about the location of a cache of weapons. After he tells his interrogators it has been hidden in a pigpen, one of them screams at him: ''You cheat, you cheat.''
Advertisement: Story continues below
‘‘Get a fire’’ ... video posted on YouTube shows two Papuan men being tortured by apparent members of the Indonesian security services. One has a smouldering stick applied to his genitals.

‘‘Get a fire’’ ... video posted on YouTube shows two Papuan men being tortured by apparent members of the Indonesian security services. One has a smouldering stick applied to his genitals.

Another interrogator then yells ''get a fire, get a fire'' before a colleague administers the torture with a stick that has been burnt in a fire and is smouldering. The man screams in agony, and does so again when the treatment is repeated.

The video appears to have been taken with a mobile phone by one of the interrogators, who speak Indonesian with Javanese and Ambonese accents and wear plain clothes.

While it is common for Indonesian police and military personnel to wear civilian clothing, it is impossible to verify those in the video are members of the security services.

But the nature of the interrogation suggests professionals are at work, as does a later incident shown on the 10-minute video when an M-16 rifle is pointed at the man's mouth.

''So you want me to shoot your mouth? So your mouth breaks?'' the interrogator shouts.

The emergence of the video - it was posted on YouTube three days ago by someone using the moniker papualiberationarmy and obtained independently by the Herald - will do nothing to lessen criticism of abuses by security forces in Papua.

''We have been living under Indonesia for almost 48 years,'' said Victor Kogoya, a member of the central committee of the Aliansi Mahasiswa Papua, a Papuan student group. ''For all this time, we have never felt calm, never peace. Why? Because ever since the security state has been chasing us, arresting us, killing, terror and intimidation.''

Although Jakarta made an autonomy deal with the province almost 10 years ago, its indigenous Melanesian people remain the country's poorest while migrants flood into the resource-rich area and dominate business and paid employment, further marginalising the Papuans.

There have been repeated reports of abuses by the military and police, but foreign journalists are banned from entering Papua without special permission, while non-government groups, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, have been told to leave in the past year.

Two Papuan victims are recorded in the video - one naked and being burned, while the other is clothed and has a large knife placed under his nose as he is being questioned by the men. At one point, one of the interrogators says: ''I'll cut your throat.''

The footage is graphic, with the men hit and threatened throughout the interrogation.

The victims speak in the Papuan dialect Lani, strongly suggesting the video was filmed in Puncak Jaya, a regency in Papua's highlands where a unit of the armed Free Papua Movement commanded by Goliath Tabuni has been staging sporadic attacks on Indonesian police and military posts for the past two years.

Numerous weapons have been stolen in the raids and at least four soldiers and police have been killed in the past two years.

Jakarta has sent members of the national police's mobile brigade and anti-terrorism unit, Detachment 88, to the region. Both units have been accused of using excessive force.

There have been repeated allegations of security forces making violent sweeps through villages in Puncak Jaya, a region characterised by soaring mountains covered in thick jungle. The military, including its controversial special forces unit Kopassus, also has a strong presence.

Papua, which was formerly known as Dutch New Guinea, was not incorporated into Indonesia when it became a state in 1949. It was held by the Dutch until 1962 when, following Indonesian military incursions into the area, an agreement brokered through the Untied Nations gave Indonesia administrative control of the region pending a referendum.

That ''referendum'' involved just 1025 handpicked tribal leaders who unanimously agreed to join Indonesia. The so-called ''Act of Free Choice'' has been labelled fraudulent and remains a source of great anger for many indigenous Papuans.

While separatist sentiment remains strong, it has little international support. Australia recognises Indonesia's sovereignty over the region. The Herald was unable to obtain a response from the Indonesian military or police late yesterday.

via ScribeFire