Michael Vick? No. Well then WHO?

I remember a song that played on the radio seemingly for 3 or 4 years. I was a kid then about 12 or so, and I never could understand why adults would love this song soooooo much. It was on every adults phonograph that I knew. You remember that stack of 45's on top of each other, ready for the automatic reject. Basement and garage parties were DJ'ed in that matter. A vast improvement over the previous RCA "with the dog" single play turntables. The next step was two turntables and a mixer.

On everyone's stack of records were the Temptations, Supremes, James Brown (hit after hit...), Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, Sam Cooke, Rufus Thomas, Shorty Long....to name a few 'must haves'. These were artists that had several dance hits to party to, or a finger-snapper at the card and dominoe tables. Then there was this song that raised not only made you snap your fingers or made you dance, but this song also made the adult folks laugh, talk, scream, clap hands, hoot and holler, and uniformly have the loud mouths saying "YEAH BABA" or "There it is" or "Time to Party now! OK, enough with the teasing. The song was by Johnny Taylor titled: "It's cheaper to keep her".

The song is lyrically targetted to married husbands with children. Verses speaks of the husband messing up in the marriage, and also speaks of the wife acting up too. The chorus (hook) though, would quickly get back to the husband with the ultimate moral of the story summed up as: "No matter what bad things happens in this marriage, the husband has to realize that -- It's Cheaper to Keep Her.

Now look at the picture above. That is a picture of a beautiful house with lots of land. But you may notice other homes in the picture as well. Well, these other homes are all part of the same property. Guest homes is what the rich call them. Look closely and you'll see that one of the guest homes has a swimming pool, while another has a half-court basketball court. And yes, the main home has a tennis court, full court basketball court, and a putting green. Five homes in one and a river surrounding the main grounds. Just give me the guest house with the pool :o). If these "collective properties" sold, I am sure that one may estimate the selling price to be about 30-million...more or less. Now that I have already teased you once, I guess you can say that I am teasing you again, not yet giving you the owner of the property. In order to own this property you would have a high paying occupation, or own a business or land, or hit the lottery. You would have to have lots of income even if the above property was already paid for, as property taxes would keep you working to consistently pay that fee.

The owner would probably have also pay for nannies, groundskeepers, and a clean up crew. Let's say the owner is a husband, then the wife may cook and care for the kids herself. Then again maybe the nanny takes the kids to school and a chef cooks three full course meals a day. We can imagine many ways of upkeep for such a large area of properties. The owner again would have to be filthy rich, and I am sure that money would have a staff of trusted folks managing investments, interest, incoming and outgoing money, which is also an expense. Also, you would think that a wife would be glad to live with a husband that provides all that she will ever need, securing the kids future, and generations to come. You would also think that, one of his stature, would have had drawn up a pre-nubtial agreement in case of a divorce, and if not, the husband would be sub-serviant to the wife to make sure that she was as happy as can be. The aforementioned phrase "It's cheaper to keep her". Unfortunately a divorce did occur in this relationship, and unfortunately for the bread winner, there was not a pre-nuptial agreement signed. What then happened in the divorce? Read the below paragraph.

It's ALL hers!! She owns the land, the main house, all four guest houses, the river, the golf course, the tennis court, the basketball court, plus alimony and child support!! Her total settlement is over $150,000,000.00, making this one the LARGEST divorce settlements in history.

Who house is it? Is it Michael Vick's? Since the sports and news world is bashing him to a pulp, maybe his assets and homes are being displayed over the internet. No, it's not Michael Vick, as Vick is not yet married. Who then? The answer is Michael Jordan. Yes, the most celebrated athlete and pitch man in the history of sports. Michael Jordan is the one that that Johnny Taylor song (It's Cheaper to Keep Her) refers to. Richard Pryor, in his many stand-up comedy movies, once spoke of his divorce in his material. Pryor stated: "She gets all of this money, my home, monthly alimony and child support...and she ain't told one joke." Jordan is probably feeling the same way. Jordan would probably say: "She ain't dribbled not one basketball, nor did she pitch n'all product." It is understood that she is an attorney and handled some of Michael Jordan's work, and she was paid in full for her services.

Now to me, this divorce settlement -- and simular divorce settlements -- can and should be viewed as legal robbery. I know the women reading may say: "Well she watched and nurtured the kids, inabling Jordan to make the money. She also was an attorney that handled some of Michael Jordan's dealing". Well ladies, if he would have hired a sitter for road trips, I do not think it would have totalled 150-million dollars for the past 24 years since Michael Jordan was drafted in 1983. He could have paid a nice 50-thousand a year salary to a nanny for 16 years (oldest kid is 16) and that totals 800-Thousand dollars. Now, why is 149.2-million dollars, inclusive of the homes, come in to the picture. He could have paid a nanny a million dollars a year, and that would still be 134 million dollars less than the divorce settlement. Other single travelling men that make just 6-figures are able to handle this task of having a maid, nanny, chef, gardener, lawyer, and still be able keep up with expenses and even buy an occasional toy like a Ferrari or a boat. The point is that today's Divorce and Family Courts are not looking at money matters logically. This reminds me of Religious people that state that the Bible is written by God, and absolutely mean it. Unreasonable thinking with no alternatives, and no view of facts. The bible is not written by God. Chapters in the bible were not written by John, Mark, James, Matthew, Samuel, and the other names interpreted by England's King James. The names of the writters have other names that do not even translate to John or Mary, James not Mark. The well-chronicled story is that followers of Jesus, felt that the Europeans would follow Jesus's teachings if they created like-images and like-names of Europeans. I have even heard, though not confirmed, that face of Jesus and Mary were cousins of the European painter. I will stop there and encourage you to study facts and not fiction.

Back to the matter at hand. The Family Judicial System needs to change. When the bread winner makes a substantial amount of money. The divorced wife should be given a livable settlement. In today's prices in major cities, I think a ten million dollar divorce settlement is the maximum for the person that is not the bread winner should pay. Today's Judicial system rewards the spouce that makes the less money, which is fair. If my wife makes 50 million annually, then if I decided to divorce her, then 10-MILLION dollars is more than enough of a settlement for me to move on with my life. Why take half the money, and further have that the bread winner make monthly payments. After all, the checks are paid to the bread-winner, not someone that lives with the bread-winner. A maximum of 10-million dollars, for a person that has at least 50-million dollars. Someone that has liquid 40-49 million would pay 8-million; 30-39 million would pay 6 million; 20-29 million would pay 4 million; 10-19 million would pay 2-million...and so on.

That' my opinion. What's your opinion?