RIP Steve Jobs

[bearishgurl]

[quote=svelte]Are we talking about the Steve Jobs who got his high school girlfriend pregnant and then denied this beautiful child was his, claiming in court documents that he was sterile? And not taking responsibility until testing had advanced and the court ordered him tested?

Is this the man that is being lionized?[/quote]

svelte, we don’t know the backstory surrounding Brennan’s pregnancy and her daughter’s birth: i.e. what Brennan told her daughter about her father, who Brennan told her friends and relatives the father was; whether or not Jobs and Brennan had an open relationship (and Jobs suspected the father might be someone else); whether Brennan and Jobs were still “together” during her pregnancy, whether Brennan told Jobs he was the father during her pregnancy, whether Brennan allowed Jobs to see his daughter after she was born, whether Brennan moved away from Jobs and initially kept the birth a secret (until she learned Jobs “made it big” and she wanted some of the action?) which, ironically, was just about the same time as the advent of “DNA testing.”

In Jobs’ day, mothers had all the cards and they played them close to the vest, often to take advantage of available public assistance without having to name a father.

see: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/15/244.html

(at p. 251)

In CA, mothers applying for public assistance of any kind were not required to name the father(s) of their children to receive benefits until the passage of the (1996) Welfare Reform Act. They could simply tell their caseworker that they “didn’t know.”

see: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_297TMRB.pdf

In CA, unwed fathers in Jobs’ era had no rights to any decisions about an unborn child unless the mother allowed them to pay for their maternity care and develop a relationship with the infant by “bringing it into their homes” and family fold and very few unwed mothers consented to that, especially during the child’s infancy. The mothers of that era could even get married and their *new* husbands’ would have more rights to their child than the “natural” father because they were the “presumed” father by law (even if not married to the mother at the time of the child’s birth). Hence, these husbands-after-the-fact could adopt the child without the consent of the “natural” father.

Adoption of Alexander M. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 430, 436
…Family Code section 7631 is best understood in the context of its statutory framework. In 1975, the Legislature enacted the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) as former Civil Code sections 7000-7021 (now Fam. Code, §§ 7600-7730). Although the UPA was intended to “provide a comprehensive scheme for judicial determination of paternity” (Michael M. v. Giovanna F. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1278 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 460]), the Legislature perceived a loophole in the law, which it remedied in 1979 by enacting Senate Bill No. 540. This bill added subdivision (d) of former Civil Code section 7006 (now Fam. Code, § 7631) and amended former Civil Code section 7017 (now Fam. Code, §§ 7660-7666). (Stats. 1979, ch. 752, §§ 1-2, pp. 2607-2610.)
[2a] The UPA “creates three classes of parents: mothers, fathers who are presumed fathers, and fathers who are not presumed fathers.” (Adoption of Michael H. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1043 at p. 1051.) A man is rebuttably presumed to be the natural father of a child if (1) the child is born during his actual or attempted marriage to the mother or within 300 days after its termination; (2) he marries the mother after the child’s birth and is either named on the birth certificate or agrees to support the child; or (3) “[h]e receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.” (Fam. Code, § 7611, subd. (d); former Civ. Code, § 7004, subd. (a).) A biological father may or may not qualify as a presumed father. “[T]o become a presumed father, a man who has neither married nor attempted to marry his child’s biological mother must not only openly and publicly admit paternity, but must also physically bring the child into his home.” (Adoption of Michael H., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1051.)
In 1979, before Senate Bill No. 540 was enacted, only presumed fathers could block an adoption. If a child had a presumed father, his consent was required. (Former Civ. Code, § 7017, subd. (a).) If a child did not have a presumed father, all possible fathers were entitled to notice of pending adoption proceedings, but only those who could qualify as presumed fathers after a court hearing were entitled to block the adoption. (Former Civ. Code, § 7017, subdivision (d).) fn. 4 Although the statute provided that an alleged natural father of a child without a presumed father could bring an action “to determine the existence of the father and child relationship” (former Civ. Code, § 7006, subd. (c)), fn. 5 this had no effect on a pending adoption unless he could also qualify as a presumed father.
The case of Adoption of Marie R. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 624 [145 Cal.Rptr. 122] provided the impetus for Senate Bill No. 540. There, the baby was conceived while the mother was engaged to be married to Charles K. The mother broke off the engagement, and although Charles wanted to keep the baby, she decided to place the child for adoption. Charles offered to pay for the mother’s prenatal support and expenses of birth, but she refused. She also refused to allow him to receive the baby into his home. Three days before the baby’s birth, the mother married Scott R.; when the baby was two days old, the mother placed her with prospective adoptive parents…

I discussed this issue here: http://piggington.com/ignore_ron_paul_are_the_new_marching_orders?page=1

(begin pg 2)

[quote=bearishgurl]…Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.[/quote]

CA Family Code section 7600 et. seq. (pertinent sections 7630-7633) was enacted January 1, 1994, (repealing former CA Civil Code section 230 et. seq.) in the wake of Kelsey and other notable cases did away with the “doctrine” of “illegitimacy.”

see: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal4th/1/816.html

The outcome of Kelsey was the precursor to Family Code sections 7630-7633, which, among other provisions requires the mother to notify the natural father of her born or unborn child (enabling him to establish paternity if he wishes) at the signing of a contract for adoption and before the adoption proceedings go to court.

We can’t judge Jobs or any “natural father” of that era who was likely legally between a “rock and a hard space” or kept completely ignorant of the birth of his child by the mother.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]one interesting find I came across is Jobs is the son of a Syrian foreign exchange student. Much like Obama.

in the 60’s and 70’s, the cream of the crop of many 3rd world countries were selected to come to this country to study at our top universities. with the understanding that they can then go back to make their perspective countries better…[/quote]

Yes, ocrenter, in the 70’s, I went to college with MANY “foreign exchange students” from the middle east. However, Jobs was born in 1955. I don’t know if there were as many foreign exchange students attending US colleges back at that time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=svelte][quote=sdduuuude]
And haven’t you heard it is impolite to speak ill of the dead? I am not that much of a Steve Jobs fan, but he’s interesting and you know what – he’s dead so show some respect. I’ve lost alot of it for several of you.[/quote]

A dead jerk is still a jerk.

Sorry, I can’t sit idly by while people worship a man who showed the worst trait possible. I can forgive a lot of things, but walking out on a child – and thereby having her and her mother live on welfare while he raked in the bucks – is not something I’m willing to forgive.

You can go back six generations in my family and the males have all become fathers by 21. I’m one of them. But we all did the right thing and did not turn our back on our responsibilities.

If you fire the gun, you’re responsible for where the bullet goes. To do otherwise makes you a jerk unworthy of worship.[/quote]

svelte, if you don’t mind my asking, is the child you’re speaking of here currently over the age of 30? If so, did your “girlfriend-at-the-time” allow you to pay her maternity bills and visit your child regularly from infancy? Did you know she was pregnant immediately after she found out? Did the mom consent to marry you while pregnant or soon after having your child?

If you can answer “yes” to any or all of the above questions, then count yourself among the “very fortunate” of your era, who had the backing and consent of the mom so YOU could be a dad.

It wasn’t like that back then for a GREAT MANY “natural fathers.”

[svelte]

[quote=bearishgurl]
We can’t judge Jobs or any “natural father” of that era who was likely legally between a “rock and a hard space” or kept completely ignorant of the birth of his child by the mother.[/quote]

I can certainly judge Mr. Jobs and so can you.

This man claimed to be sterile!!! Not only that, he has now fathered a total of 4 children!

I find it ludicrous, bg, for you to defend a man who waited until a court ordered test to find out whether he was a father. Absolutely ludicrous. It’s an insult to all the upstanding fathers in this world.

I submit to you it was like an earlier poster claimed, Steve did not want to share his money.

This trait continued to come out in him until his death.

Mr. Jobs was worth $6.5 billion dollars. That’s billion with a B! Or as you’re so found of doing $6.5 BILLION.

Yet when Mr. Gates approached him about donating some of it to charity, Steve Jobs said no.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=svelte][quote=bearishgurl]
We can’t judge Jobs or any “natural father” of that era who was likely legally between a “rock and a hard space” or kept completely ignorant of the birth of his child by the mother.[/quote]

I can certainly judge Mr. Jobs and so can you.

This man claimed to be sterile!!! Not only that, he has now fathered a total of 4 children!

I find it ludicrous, bg, for you to defend a man who waited until a court ordered test to find out whether he was a father. Absolutely ludicrous. It’s an insult to all the upstanding fathers in this world.[/quote]

svelte, no one is condoning “deadbeat dad” behavior around here. You still haven’t answered those all-important questions that could shed light on the difference between your situation in that era vs. Jobs’ situation. Have you read Jobs’ court papers … his response to Paternity and Child Support? Do you actually know how it all went down?

How many prominent “politicians, celebrities and millionaires/billionaires” have we heard of in our lifetimes who had “biological children” come out of the woodwork only AFTER they became famous and/or very successful??

If you were Jobs and slapped with a paternity suit 14-16 years after your alleged child’s birth, how would you respond to it??

[quote=svelte]I submit to you it was like an earlier poster claimed, Steve did not want to share his money.

This trait continued to come out in him until his death.

Mr. Jobs was worth $6.5 billion dollars. That’s billion with a B! Or as you’re so found of doing $6.5 BILLION.

Yet when Mr. Gates approached him about donating some of it to charity, Steve Jobs said no.[/quote]

…Bono, U2’s lead singer and a noted activist, quickly responded to the Times piece, writing that “Apple’s contribution to our fight against AIDS in Africa has been invaluable.”

The company had given “tens of millions of dollars that have transformed the lives of more than two million Africans through H.I.V. testing, treatment and counseling. This is serious and significant. And Apple’s involvement has encouraged other companies to step up,” Bono wrote. “Just because he’s been extremely busy, that doesn’t mean that he and his wife, Laurene, have not been thinking about these things.”

Jobs’s supporters say it also may be impossible to know from public records what he gave away because he could have requested anonymity. Indeed, his plans for the rest of his wealth may not be known until well after his death.

The fact that he doesn’t appear on lists of public giving “doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s not giving generously,” said Adriene Davis of Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy, which tracks such gifts.

What may partly explain Jobs’s absence from the donor rolls is that he was so busy with his company.

Jobs’s most direct effort at philanthropy was when he set up the Steven P. Jobs Foundation, shortly after he was forced out of Apple in 1985. To run that effort, he hired Mark Vermilion, who first spent time at Humanitas International, a charity founded by Joan Baez, and then headed Apple’s community efforts, which began when Vermilion proposed the company give away computers to nonprofits.

Jobs wanted his foundation to focus on nutrition and vegetarianism. Vermilion favored programs that promoted social entre­pre­neur­ship. But then Jobs got tied up building another company called NeXT and the foundation shut down.

“I said, ‘You really need to spend some time on this’ and he said ‘I can’t right now,’ ” Vermilion said. “I really don’t blame Steve. I think I could have done a better job on selling him on my idea or I should have done his idea.”

Had Jobs, who died at 56, lived longer, he might have gotten around to more public charities, Vermilion said, but because he was a perfectionist, he would have needed to devote a lot of his scarce time to it.

“He’s gotten a lot of criticism for not giving away tons of money,” Vermilion said. “But I think it’s a bum rap. There’s only so many hours in a week, and he created so many incredible products. He really contributed to culture and society.”

(emphasis added)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/record-thin-on-steve-jobss-philanthropy/2011/10/06/gIQA3YKKRL_story.html

How do you know Jobs’ heirs won’t set up a foundation? Do you think they need that much money to “live on??”

[bearishgurl]

I just located Jobs’ obit in the LA Times:

. . . Wozniak had created a computer circuit board he was showing off to a group of Silicon Valley computer hobbyists. Jobs saw the device’s potential for broad appeal and persuaded Wozniak to leave his engineering job so they could design computers themselves.

In April 1976, the two launched Apple Computer out of Jobs’ parents’ garage, reproducing Wozniak’s circuit board as their first product.
They called it the Apple I and set the price at $666.66 because Wozniak liked repeating digits. In the following year came the Apple II, which carried a then-novel keyboard and color monitor and became the first popular home computer. When the company went public in 1980, the 25-year-old Jobs made an estimated $217 million…

At Apple, Jobs spearheaded the creation of a computer he called Lisa (also the name of his daughter born to a former girlfriend). The cocky, headstrong Jobs tangled with Lisa engineers over the direction of the computer, and Apple executives curtailed his role in the project. “It hurt a lot,” Jobs told a Playboy interviewer.

[img_assist|nid=15424|title=Apple “Lisa” (circa 1983)|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=280|height=311]

Jobs turned his attention to a small research effort called Macintosh, producing what he described as “the most insanely great computer in the world,” with a graphics-rich interface and a mouse that allowed users to navigate much more easily than they could with keyboard commands.

In 1984, Apple promoted the Macintosh with a television spot that aired during the Super Bowl. The minute-long commercial portrayed a sledgehammer-hurling runner heroically smashing the image of a sinister Big Brother figure, who was preaching to an assembly of gray drones . . .

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-steve-jobs-obit-20111006,0,7210103.story?page=1&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20MostEmailed%20%28L.A.%20Times%20-%20Most%20E-mailed%20Stories%29&utm_source=feedburner

see the very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs

It appears from the timeline given here that Brennan may have waited until Jobs “made it big” and her daughter was as old as 4+ yrs old to file for determination of paternity and child support.

[bearishgurl]

I want to add here that the first Apple computer I ever worked on was a MAC SE where I ran a bookkeeping program for a retail biz (2nd job). It was small with a B/W monitor attached to the computer.

My OWN first personal computer (still in the “bulletin board” era) was a Mac Quadra 610 – DOS compatible, running at a 68K clock-speed with a Motorola processor running on “System 7.1” and eventually “System 8” with an Apple (Sony Trinitron) Display.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Quadra_610

It had a “superdrive” which could read DOS-formatted floppies and SUPERIOR photo editing capabilities which we used CONSTANTLY (Adobe Photoshop). With an ultra-wide SCSI card, we hooked up an external Apple 2x CD player and a 2 gig “LaCie” internal HD, among other “goodies” and maxed it out in both system memory and video memory. At that time, we had about $3300 in it. It NEVER crashed and was VERY fun to use until the advent of JAVA when web pages took a l-o-o-ong time to load on it, lol (abt 2001-2002). It was built like a tank. Someday, I will get an “updated” MAC. They are the most reliable and innovative computers ever invented :=)

[Zeitgeist]

“Stay hungry, stay foolish.”[img_assist|nid=15427|title=RIP|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=201|height=168]

[paramount]

Only time will tell with regard to Steve Job’s legacy.

Here’s a picture of an Apple Chinese worker. Remind you of anything?

[img_assist|nid=15432|title=Apple worker at Chinese Factory – Bars installed to prevent Suicide|desc=Apple worker at Chinese Factory – Bars installed to prevent Suicide|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=244]

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl].org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs

It appears from the timeline given here that Brennan may have waited until Jobs “made it big” and her daughter was as old as 4+ yrs old to file for determination of paternity and child support.[/quote]

Why should the child’s age matter? It was still his daughter, and he should have stepped up to the plate. It doesn’t matter what his relationship to the mother was like. He had a responsibility, and it’s a known fact that he tried to weasel his way out of it by lying about being sterile.

[scaredyclassic]

I thought I was sterile till I had three kids. The semen just looked kind of lifeless.

[Veritas]

paramount makes a good point: “But a great man’s reputation can withstand a full accounting. And, truth be told, Jobs could be terrible to people, and his impact on the world was not uniformly positive.”

http://gawker.com/5847344/what-everyone-is-too-polite-to-say-about-steve-jobs

[paramount]

[quote=Veritas]
http://gawker.com/5847344/what-everyone-is-too-polite-to-say-about-steve-jobs%5B/quote%5D

Excellent article.

“Apple’s success has been built literally on the backs of Chinese workers, many of them children and all of them enduring long shifts and the specter of brutal penalties for mistakes. And, for all his talk of enabling individual expression, Jobs imposed paranoid rules that centralized control of who could say what on his devices and in his company.”

[Anonymous]

I find all the Steve Jobs worship to be a sad example of just how shallow our civilization can be.

[scaredyclassic]

Qe live in wacky times. There is no credibility anymore without fame.

Paraphrased from the greatest movie ever sold by Morgan spurlock of supersizeme.

[Author]

Posts