Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for July 2010

Worn Out with the Way of the Warrior- Let’s talk about this

with one comment

When Restorative Justices (circles) meets a need to draw some lines (Women leaving violence) — what’s next.

NO WORD FOR ‘PRISON’ from TheDefendersOnline:

January 20, 2010

By Eisa Nefertari Ulen

What does a woman do after coming-of -age in Birmingham in the 1950s, after losing two friends in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing that killed four little girls in the 1960s, after helping free her very high-profile sister from the clutches of the FBI’s Most Wanted List during the height of Black Power in the 1970s? What does she do after advocating for the end to Apartheid in the 1980s, after working as a Civil Rights trial lawyer through the 1990s?

Fania Davis

Fania Davis

For Fania Davis, the answer is simple: Continue the fight by helping to increase the peace.

An Oakland, California-based lawyer and professor with a Ph.D. in indigenous studies, Davis is co-founder and Executive Director of Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY). RJOY’s mission is to “to fundamentally shift the way we respond to wrongdoing” by giving young people the tools they need to resolve conflict in holistic ways.

Davis’ sister is Civil Rights icon Angela Y. Davis, and her daughter, Eisa Davis, is a Pulitzer Prize-nominated playwright and Obie Award-winning actress. Fania Davis helped establish RJOY in 2004 after apprenticing with traditional healers around the world, particularly in Africa.

By bringing young people who are in conflict into a circle that implements restorative justice, RJOY has reduced suspension rates by 75 percent and helped eliminate violent fighting and expulsions at one low-income Oakland middle school,.

According to Davis, in most traditional languages there is no word for prison. Meanwhile, our land of the free has the highest incarceration rates in the world. If current trends do not change, one out of every three black men born today can expect to spend some time in prison. RJOY’s mission can help free our young people. Davis and I discussed old and new ways of thinking about conflict, retribution, and personal liberation.


RJOY makes a whole lot more sense to me than Wade Horn conversing with Ronald Mincy, Ph.D., Ron Haskins, and multiple others in remote academic institutions and collaborative (with each other) institutes, talking about their prime target subject matter, young underemployed black men, Fragile Families, Fathering Courts and a lot more theory, without exactly genuinely seeking outside input. In fact, it’s discouraged. I had to hunt these things down in an attempt to heal my own soul after being ravaged by the cognitive dissonance of the “family court” realm, in which theory is treated as if fact, and fact is treated as a psychological problem in the messenger relating the facts.

I don’t think that justice can be rebalanced by the same population that has no word for “mother,” which I have blogged on, also. The word I want is JUSTICE and HONESTY, too.

Here’s a sample of THAT dialogue — good grief:

Five Questions for Karin Martinson

Karin Martinson

Karin Martinson and Demetra Nightingale, coauthors of “Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives,” reviewed studies of several programs for low-income fathers who don’t have custody of their kids. The programs are designed to help these fathers become more financially and emotionally connected to their children. Martinson answers five questions about the study and the lessons drawn from this early generation of programs.

RJOY works in a metropolitan area that is predominantly African American, Latino, and Asian. Restorative juvenile justice holds great promise not only in lowering overall rates of incarceration and recidivism but also in helping to eliminate unequal treatment of African Americans and Latinos…

…The process of bringing people together in face-to-face encounters also inherently reduces the “otherizing/demonizing” of young people of color that our adversarial criminal justice system tends to foster

It’s not the half of the adversarial systems that otherize and demonize young people of color. This can be done underhandedly and is done in social science cirlcles. I have started to become a “fly on the wall” (via internet) on some of the discussions, and they are unbelievably condescending. And the participants to say, “that’s ridiculous! ~ ~ you’re not SERIOUS, are you?” are not invited. Intentionally. And although the words may not be intended at face value, what they ARE serious about is continuing the programs.

Q: What led you to this program? Why are criminal and social justice so important to you?

A: Looking back, I see my life as sort of a quest for social transformation. [This was said in the introduction ] I come from a lineage of activism. My mother was involved in the Scottsboro Brothers case, the unemployed councils of the 1930’s, the Southern Negro Youth Congress and other progressive movements of her time. The Ku Klux Klan murdered two of my close childhood friends in the Sunday School bombing in 1963. This horrific event crystallized within me a passionate commitment to social justice, and for the next decades, I was active in the civil rights, black students’, women’s, prisoners’, peace and anti-hate violence and anti-apartheid movements.

I also helped lead the international movement to free my sister Angela who, based upon her radical activism, was falsely accused of murder and conspiracy to murder in 1970. Witnessing the remarkable lawyers on her defense team led me to the decision to pursue a legal career. After receiving my law degree from UC Berkeley, I practiced in the Bay Area as a civil rights trial lawyer specializing in employment discrimination.

However, by the mid-1990’s, after a lifetime of following the way of the warrior, I began to feel out of balance. I yearned for more healing, spiritual, and feminine energies to counterbalance the hyperrational, hypermasculinist and bellicose qualities I’d been compelled to cultivate as trial lawyer and activist. Serendipitously, I entered a Ph.D. program in Recovery of Indigenous Mind at the California Institute of Integral Studies and apprenticed with traditional healers around the globe, particularly in Africa. Not long after returning, I learned about the field of restorative justice. This was an epiphany. This new approach to justice—rooted in ancient indigenous processes—allowed integration of the healer and warrior and the spiritualist and activist within me.

Q: In what ways do traditional constructions of criminal and social justice differ from our Western approach to law and order?

A: Traditional and modernist constructions of justice differ in a number of ways. First, a communal and participatory ethos pervades indigenous justice approaches. Indigenous justice proceedings tend to involve an expansive range of participants. All affected persons are actively engaged—each of the parties in conflict, their extended families, traditional elders, and community members at large. The process tends to be consensus-based and more egalitarian than hierarchical.

On the other hand, in modern justice proceedings, the range of participants is quite restricted, typically limited to the two sides in conflict, along with a group of justice professionals who dominate the proceedings. Crime is impersonally viewed as an offense against the state rather than as an injury to a person or to relationships. The victim is usually excluded, except as a witness to support the “state’s” case. Offender-focused, modern justice asks: What law was broken, who broke it, and what punishment is deserved?

Ancient justice—and this applies to restorative justice too—is inherently more democratic and inclusive, actively engaging everyone affected by the wrong doing. It shifts the locus of the justice project from courtroom to community. It is balanced and wholistic, giving equal attention to victims’ needs, community interests, and offender accountability and growth. It asks: Who was harmed, what are the needs and responsibilities arising from the harm, and how do all affected collaboratively figure out how to repair it and prevent recurrence?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~




Our U.S. culture overall is warrior, and angular, because that has been considered the Manhood Way, but I am beginning to think it is the (not so) Great White Way, in which until the last definition has been settled and funded from remote superior powers (networked through all agencies available) the superficial version of the INCLUSIVE AND INTERACTIVE CIRCLE will become a mere tool of the BOXED UP WORLD VIEW.

In the name of FIXING the world, this society is creating boxes, which creates eventually creates gangs, and that I can document.

I believe, and have blogged that there really is a ruling elite that intends to structure the rest of the world — without exaggeration — according to their image of it. They have inclusive circles, but most people are not in them. How come that’s not called a “gang”?

I am very moved by this remarkable site, and also disturbed because while this woman was being transformed and eventually came to establish a nonprofit that had a more natural and Indigenous way, addressing issues unique to the population and the civil rights climate, I was, as a white woman who’d found her communities outside the family that wasn’t there, for many years, including in and around many of thes epopulations (and through the arts), I found myself boxed in by the definition of this very CIRCLE view — of a single, unique household, Christian variety, Head/Doormat. This was apparently satisfying my white male spouse’s need to find HIS warrior side, having also had less than I of what one might call “family.”

The result was a lot of destructions, and physical injury, chaos, and constant competition. To get out, I had to DRAW THE LINE and find my warrior side, defining these behaviors as crimes, which they were, and were experienced as too.

Lo and behold, and there was a universal push, in the courts, that women exiting the situation be forced back in, under the “conciliation” and “whatsa matta with you, can’t you reconcile your differences?” No, I cannot reconcile my differences with violence, domination, and subjugation as a continuing directive in my life, and particularly not for my children’s. DEFINING TERMS and SETTING BOUNDARIES post separation allowed me to become a better mother to my daughters by — with a safety zone, now, though a virtual one on a piece of paper issued by a civil judge — engage in precisely that creative, in-person, rebuilding, networking and participating in the local community — as a woman, as a person, as a member of the world, which I could not do being treated as an alien within the marriage.

Given how much healing this world really does need, and the gaping hole in many successful people’s souls, I do know, I have only recently become willing to reconsider my own Christian religion. I am still considering whether it was just co-opted by some absolutely insane personalities (ruling ones), ignoring the transformative message of Jesus Christ, or whether the narrating of the world as ONE GOD is of itself the problem. See my “Defining the World” post.

Balanced people can negotiate with others; they EXIST as a person, and don’t need to win every encounter, as their definition has integrity, leaving time to actually see what another is doing.

We need our circles and our freedom.

However, we live in this world, this time, this country, this century, with this history, and our individual personal, family, and ethnic, racial, cultural histories also. I know.

But on another level, books such as The Chalice and the Blade, or Crone, or others re-introducing feminine spirituality are sometimes as forced and artificial as the masculine variety is, demonizing the symbol of the serpent (from former cultures, and associated with feminine gods), and women as a whole, sometimes works out in practice. Scratch that — DOES work out in process.

I have always felt that the place where dialogues can happen has to involve the arts. It has to involve our bodies, whether in dance, singing, painting, aikido, capoeira, and preferably in a place of total engagement. Maybe, outside, where this is snow, wind, breeze.

Somehow, plans drawn up in conference rooms with whiteboards, I just don’t know about that . . . .

If more of these are not released and allowed to permeate through our society, we are going to see more and more of alienated WHITE men trying to find their way back to life in unacceptable ways, like the more extreme, the married Phillip Garrido, who had in his backyard and a ramshackle set of tents, for 18 years a kidnapped woman, fathered two kids by her, utilized her innate administrative ability to help support his print business, and eulogized on-line about God and transformation with The Man Who Spoke with his Mind.

There’s a post on here about being Boxed In — a (kidnapped by a couple) woman literally kep in a coffin-sized box under a bed, when she was not out being used for sex, and tortured, for some YEARS. That was not a low-income man of color.

While these make headlines, what frightens me MORE (unless I do my season of life as Warrior Woman. . .. ) is the less overt, and under-reported sessions of men trying to fill up their blank souls, and regain their Warrior sides in male-only retreats (Robert Bly, New Warrior Training, The Mankind Project, etc.) and, having been thus transformed and restored to their “right” side, come back and pound on their women. PromiseKeepers has a side of this as well.

There’s a group out of Virginia, reportedly called “The Family.” A reporter, Jeff Sharlett, has managed to write on them. He also in 2005 got

Jesus killed Mohammed:

By Jeff Sharlet

Gol-dang suicide by stupdity, assuming the  article is true. . ..

. . .

The Bradley seemed to draw fire from every doorway. There couldn’t be that many insurgents in Samarra, Humphrey thought. Was this a city of terrorists? Humphrey heard Lieutenant DeGiulio reporting in from the Bradley’s cabin, opening up on all doorways that popped off a round, responding to rifle fire—each Iraqi household is allowed one gun—with 25mm shells powerful enough to smash straight through the front of a house and out the back wall.

Humphrey was stunned. He’d been blown off a tower in Kosovo and seen action in the drug war, but he’d never witnessed a maneuver so fundamentally stupid.

The men on the roof thought otherwise. They thought the lieutenant was a hero, a kamikaze on a suicide mission to bring Iraqis the American news:


jesus killed mohammed.

When Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office in January, he inherited a military not just drained by a two-front war overseas but fighting a third battle on the home front, a subtle civil war over its own soul. On one side are the majority of military personnel, professionals who regardless of their faith or lack thereof simply want to get their jobs done; on the other is a small but powerful movement of Christian soldiers concentrated in the officer corps.

And, 2006, from “Soldiers for Christ: Inside America’s Greatest Megachurcha description of the family as WAR, at the marriage of Ted Haggard’s son:

The morning service on the second Sunday of 2005 was devoted to the marriage of Pastor Ted’s eldest son, Pastor Marcus. It began with worship, just like an ordinary service, but the light show was a royal purple-and-gold, the hymns more formal, the dancing more ecstatic. I sat with Linda Burton in the front row; she curtsied and bowed, over and over, her right hand sweeping the carpeted floor.

Pastor Ted wore a black suit and a red tie. Earlier in the week, at a staff meeting, he had announced that he would use the wedding as an illustration, and to that end he delivered a lengthy prenuptial presentation with slides, in which he laid out a fractal-like repeating pattern of relations, shrinking and expanding: that of God to man, reflected in that of man to wife, which is in turn a model for a godly society. Just as we conform ourselves to God’s will, so, said Ted, must “the Woman.” The Woman must take on her man’s calling, her man’s desire.

“Mmm-hmmm,” murmured Linda, eyes closed.

In return, Pastor Ted continued, the Woman gets the Man’s love; authority just wants to serve. “Total surrender!” he called. “True or false?”

“TRUE!” answered the 8,000 assembled.

The Man is the Christ; the Woman is the Body. He is coming; she is the church; she must open her doors. United, they are the Kingdom, ready for battle. “The Christian home,” preached Pastor Ted, “is to be in a constant state of war.” This made many so happy they put their hands in the air, antennae for spirit transmissions. “Massive warfare!” Ted cried out.

The language of the Christian right was, I realized, hardening, collapsing. “Spiritual war,” a metaphor as old as the Gospels, has been invoked for the sake of power before—the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas—but for most of Christian history it has been no more bellicose than “jihad,” a term that once referred primarily to internal struggle. But the imagination of the Christian right has failed, and its language has become all-encompassing, mapped across not just theology but also emotions; across not just the Church but the entire world.

Perhaps the structures themselves were not conducive for personal interaction, unmediated unsaturated by collective identity. THis was in Colorado Springs. I hate to pollute the image of HOPE of DIALOGUE within this post, but I wish to remind us of some nice, neat, midwest sanitized reality ready to take on the world. This is an urban flight brave new world, forget history, forget your roots, sideline your intellectualism in favor of the cause brand of something entirely new, shiny, and artificial, in the genuine sense of humanity any circle of any healing might have. BUT, this reality too, exists. Look at the setting and the structure:

(from the same article):

Crime, of course, looms over this story. Not the actual facts of it—the burglary rate in and around Colorado Springs exceeds that in New York City and Los Angeles—but the idea of crime: a faith in the absence of it. And of politics, too: Colorado Springs’ evangelicals believe they live without it, in a carved-out space for civility and for like-minded dedication to common-sense principles. Even pollution plays a part: Christian conservatives there believe that they breathe cleaner air, live on ground untainted by the satanic fires of nineteenth-century industry— despite the smog that collects against the foothills of the Rockies and the cyanide, from a century of mining, that is leaching into the aquifers and mountain streams.

But those are facts, and Colorado Springs is a city of faith. A shining city at the foot of a hill. No one there believes it is perfect. And no one is so self-centered as to claim the perfection of Colorado Springs as his or her ambition. The shared vision is more modest, and more grandiose. It is a city of people who have fled the cities, people who have fought a spiritual war for the ground they are on, for an interior frontier on which they have built new temples to the Lord. From these temples they will retake their forsaken promised lands, remake them in the likeness of a dream. They call the dream “Christian,” but in its particulars it is “American.” Not literally but as in a story, one populated by cowboys and Indians, monsters and prayer warriors to slay them, and ladies to reward the warriors with chaste kisses. Colorado Springs is a city of moral fabulousness. It is a city of fables.

The city’s mightiest megachurch crests silver and blue atop a gentle slope of pale yellow prairie grass on the outskirts of town. Silver and blue, as it happens, are Air Force colors. New Life Church was built far north of town in part so it would be visible from the Air Force Academy. New Life wanted that kind of character in its congregation.

“Church” is insufficient to describe the complex. There is a permanent structure called the Tent, which regularly fills with hundreds or thousands of teens and twentysomethings for New Life’s various youth gatherings. Next to the Tent stands the old sanctuary, a gray box capable of seating 1,500; this juts out into the new sanctuary, capacity 7,500, already too small. At the complex’s western edge is the World Prayer Center, which looks like a great iron wedge driven into the plains. The true architectural wonder of New Life, however, is the pyramid of authority into which it orders its 11,000 members. At the base are 1,300 cell groups, whose leaders answer to section leaders, who answer to zone, who answer to district, who answer to Pastor Ted Haggard, New Life’s founder.

Pastor Ted, who talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday, is a handsome forty-eight-year-old Indianan, most comfortable in denim. He likes to say that his only disagreement with the President is automotive; Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas Pastor Ted loves his Chevy. In addition to New Life, Pastor Ted presides over the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), whose 45,000 churches and 30 million believers make up the nation’s most powerful religious lobbying group, and also over a smaller network of his own creation, the Association of Life-Giving Churches, 300 or so congregations modeled on New Life’s “free market” approach to the divine. Pastor Ted will serve as NAE president for as long as the movement is pleased with him, and as long as Pastor Ted is its president the NAE will make its headquarters in Colorado Springs.

We have got to deal with this mental model also — it’s REAL, and it’s affecting a different set of communities. The mentality is immune to the worldly considerations of, say, laws, including laws against violence against women. And if this mentality is conscious of a discrepancy, a cognitive dissonance between the “she really wanted it, to be dominated forcefully and disappear into her man’s shadow” and “assault and battery is a misdemeanor or felony, STOP it or we will arrest you, religion or no religion” – – GUESS WHICH HALF is likely to prevail.

Only a little later, this godlike leader, crusader for Christ, was in need of some grace, but the authoritative structure didn’t quite have room for publicized sexual immorality; after all what would happen to the antihomosexual agenda and the redemption of the warrior masculinity in the populations of this world?

Disgraced Minister Fired From Church In Colorado

Associated Press
Sunday, November 5, 2006

COLORADO SPRINGS, Nov. 4 — The Rev. Ted Haggard was dismissed Saturday as leader of the megachurch he founded after a board determined the influential evangelist had committed “sexually immoral conduct,” the church said Saturday.

Haggard resigned Thursday as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, where he held sway in Washington and condemned homosexuality, after a Denver man claimed to have had drug-fueled trysts with him.

He also had placed himself on administrative leave from the New Life Church, but its Overseer Board took the stronger action Saturday.

“Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct,” the independent board said in a statement.

Haggard was “informed of this decision,” the statement said, and he “agreed as well that he should be dismissed.”

Haggard, 50, acknowledged on Friday paying the man for a massage and for methamphetamine, but said he did not have sex with him and did not take the drug.

[[This is yesterday’s news, but the inherent message goes on . . .. ]]]

I think we do have a culture unable to face its own sins and in need of Restorative Justice, not just in the young men of color parts, but perhaps a LARGE SWATH of these populations also war-torn and tired of the effort of keeping up the mask and mental myth of “America” will admit:  This theology, and the segmented society model is bringing out the worst in our men.p; they are killing themselves and their framilies, because they don’t know how to lose, to be an underdog in this society.

And we are going to talk about it, TOGETHER, us, and the Harvard Yale MIT Columbia Princetons along with the Libertarians who still don’t “get” what women have been angry about, along with the Patrick Henry colleges and the Baylor Universities, along with the unbelievably patronizing architects of

“Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood Parenting Education Parental Alienation Access Visitation High-Conflict is a Crime” (but racketeering is not) language that has labeled every thing that moves, until it cannot move or sometimes even work without that label.

(sometimes I just keep talking until an appropriate string of analogies comes along.  Sometimes they don’t come along.  But when you see that serpentine string (I’m female, deal with it!), know that gushing prose is in FELT response to the expanse of the issue.  The gushing represents movement; the problem itself is frozen people.)

I expect there would be a fight.  And in a sense, yes, it IS about spirit.  What has happened to ours?

Speaking of movement, I need to.  There is much more on THEDEFENDERSONLINE.com that relates to this blog; for example, and another essay on fatherhood correctly identifies that it was a white man’s movement, and not having a father doesn’t automatically equal having a psychic wound.

Similarly, the Internet sometimes fails as a place of dialogue.  “talk to you later….”

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 24, 2010 at 7:02 pm

Read my page “READ THIS FIRST” — Really!

leave a comment »

I just published a page to look at ROOTS and FRUIT
of a large, and widely spreading tree, the Family Law system, not to mention some of the birds that come to roost there, and how it eliminates other native vegetation,

crowding out sunlight and choking other growth near it, permanently altering previous eco-(nomic) systems and the balance of relationships that once were possible, but now no longer are.

How could this be, and who planted it? All destructive ~ or creative ~ ideas originate somewhere. (I heard) “There’s nothing [qualitatively] new under the sun,” so what is this tree’s genealogy?

SO . . . .

To understand why this blog, read the page “READ THIS FIRST” — first.

Do not pass Go, start there, scroll down and scroll down and reflect on, “how’s come it’s a madhouse in the family law system, and more and more criminal behavior seems to surround it?”

That’s an important question, and not a hard one to answer. It’s just hard to get people to accept it, and act accordingly. It gets more press to complain, report, comment, and in the process

develop another market niche. PR Professionals are great at this. I’m not a PR professional,

but a “family law vet” — that means, have taken the hits — and have developed some survival skills. The FIRST survival skill is understanding the landscape and how the natives act, and have been acting. I even have a post somewhere on here relating to S.U.R.V.I.V.A.L. training.

WELL, READ THAT PAGE FIRST, even if you’re a family law attorney or social worker, or any other AFCC member.

My PAGES, currently, can be found with a little scrolling.

A look at “Feedjit” to the right shows that, formatting and failure to proofread apart, this blog may have some information worth looking at. It’s wide-ranging, but I analyze from a less traditional angle. I try to combine my academic ~ OK, and natural temperament ~ longsuits crossing different genres to make sense of research. And I do this with varying degrees of PTSD generated by over a decade of dealing with abuse and legal abuse afterwards. {{By the way, there’s a body of literature on comparing the battering relationship to stalking through the courts. I will say, it feels the same, and the same principles are at work. It also is akin to P.O.W., although a different war. You can hear BOTH men and women talk about this feeling; it’s a matter of perspective. My personal “take” on the issue is that these courts were designed (upfront) as a place for batterers [or, spouses, specifically men, who fear abandonment, to get even. They are, of themselves, in many was, a cult. Biderman’s chart of coercion describes tactics.“Dependency, Debility & Dread.”}}

I sort through themes, and follow the hot leads, and try to avoid the dead ends. The sarcastic commentary on the ridiculous propositions & assumptions found are incidental, and don’t cost extra. Like many (mothers who became noncustodial mothers through family law after leaving violent relationships) by blogging, I in general find some redemption in what has been the longest nightmare (and fastest learning curve) I’ve known to date.

BUT, I also know, certain themes are unique and underreported, and my angle, which began when I reviewed http://nacfj.net after losing it “all” (there’s always more which can be lost, I’ve learned, but I refer to expectation of justice in this system, and any hope to restore what was formerly a reasonable life or any innocence attached to it. This system “slimes” you — you come out different. Yeech!)

The people attracted to family law are, variously:

  • naively hoping to fix families, reconcile people who don’t want to be reconciled, and shouldn’t (that, my READ THIS FIRST page talks about),
  • distressed (and so, vulnerable),
  • ambulance-chasers, particularly where money and [power over] distressed CHILDREn are potentially available,
  • too impatient for the accident to happen and so setting the brakes on off, the steering wheel crooked, or hiring (or schmoozing with) others to jump in front of the speeding (away from dangerous relationships) cars, then blame the cars for running into the lampposts or other pedestrians, and stick taxpayers, and the car’s driver that couldn’t avoid the “accident,” with the bill, both in the form of lost income, actual fees, and — which is what I most object to — lost freedoms…..[I warned you I was rather jaundiced, or at least sarcastic. But this IS narrative characterizations, the parallels I believe apply!]
  • mercenary soldiers in search of a cause….
  • and there are also megalomaniacs, whose behavior (not always PUBLIC behavior) indicates they believe in an archaic religion and the divine right of kings — and NOT the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, separation of powers, anything implicit or explicit in the Declaration of Independence, or other things involving, say, humility.

Speaking of which, the divine right of kings, . . . . .

Here’s a picture of a world-renowned “monarch.” Surely this must be a joke, right?

Look closely at the banner in the photo, bottom line . . . . This was in a U.S. Senate Building, in 2004

Are we a monarchy? Well, that depends on how you look at it, and how many more years of this goes on.


Arizona legislator/Unification Church member’s peculiar mix of religion/politics


Arizona State Representitive Mark Anderson, a Republican from Mesa, has a long history of loyal and devoted service to Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed “messiah” (photo below right) and leader of the Unification Church.

Rev. Moon teaches his disciples that singles should not expect a happy hereafter and that marriage is a requirement for salvation and entering heaven.

Matrimony also plays a pivotal role in Moon’s theology. He calls himself the “Lord of the Second Advent” who provides a “physical salvation,” which Jesus was unable to accomplish, because he was executed and didn’t marry.

It is largely because of these beliefs that Moon has presided over mass weddings, often marrying thousands of his followers simultaneously.

Mark Anderson appears to be dutifully following Moon’s dogma as a state legislator.

In the Spring of 2000 he sponsored a bill that successfully passed and created a “Marriage and Communication Skills Commission.”

Funded by Arizona’s taxpayers, the purpose of the Commission is to recognize “the importance of marriage.”

Beyond this the Commission also doles out funding for “workshops” and “programs,” which are provided through contractors.

And guess who is co-chairman of the Arizona marriage commission?

(etc.) . . . .

Enter Pastor Leo Godzich, President of the “National Association of Marriage Enhancement” (NAME), a close associate and long-time friend of Mark Anderson.

NAME has been and continues to be the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars in state contracts.

Actually, make that a million, so far (to 2009). Enter another tool from this site: “http://Taggs.hhs.gov”

Results 1 to 4 of 4 matches.
Excel Icon
Page 1 of 1
Fiscal Year OPDIV Grantee Name Award Title Sum of Actions

Actually, for those who stay up late, unable to sleep over some of these serious issues, the term “marriage enhancement” might convey a late-night TV ad to help “inspire” some overworked couples to have better, er, relations. Where some see simple problems, others see a GREAT market niche, whether the above version, or the late-night TV ad version.

To grasp the scope of this movement — in just one program code alone – 93086, Healthy Marriage, Responsible Fatherhood — I picked Colorado. I notice the database has changed, and only shows back to 2006 (it actually goes back to mid-1990s). This is just a tip of the iceberg (that’s about to sink the Titanic ship of state, if we don’t divert, stop, or reverse engines)(and don’t count on any Unification church legislators to do this!):

TAGGS Advanced Search Results

Results 1 to 36 of 36 matches.
Excel Icon
Page 1 of 1
Fiscal Year Grantee Name State County Award Title CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
Results 1 to 36 of 36 matches.
Excel Icon
Page 1 of 1

Of note are the words “Demonstration” (DEMONSTRATIONS ON PEOPLE?) Discretionary, New, and (not shown), kind of grant application often reads “Non-Competing.” What about “informed consent”? Is this information posted, in the self-help section of the local courthouse, or the child support agencies, or any welfare office? Not exactly. Nor will one find there, say, information about who is “AFCC” (see my READ THIS FIRST page for more on them), although they do publish most of the pamphlets on display in the local counties I have access to. AFCC is very closely linked to “who IS this family law system, anyhow?”

Also, who is getting the highest funding? Hmm . . . .

Dept. of Human Services, Commission on Higher Education (it takes academics to run some kinds of human demonstration projects nationwide. Specialized language is involved, and some of it I’ve read, and wouldn’t be acceptable in circles not trained (yet) to take words like “fatherhood practitioner” (does that mean, a Dad? ??) seriously. This has to be inculcated. Also, as million$$ are involved, a university setting does lend more credibility, as well as other resources, like graduate student assistants and institutes of various sorts). And WAIT Training.

What’s that — like muscle-building, kick-boxing, or aerobics?

No, not per who its executive director is (see chart):

Medical Institute for Sexual Health (www.medinstitute.org)- your online source for medically accurate, up to date information about sexual health.


Joneen Krauth-Mackenzie is a graduate of the University of Texas School of Nursing, a former Air Force ICU nurse and is currently applying to be reactivated in the United States Air Force Reserves. She is the Executive Director of the Abstinence and Relationship Training Center and is the author of the national and international curriculum, WAIT Training, Teaching Teens How to Have the BEST sex…by waiting until marriage. Joneen is a national speaker speaking to thousands of teens over the past 10 years. She is also contracted as a teacher trainer, training over 6000 teachers and youth serving professionals nationally and internationally.

Mrs. Mackenzie serves on the Title V Abstinence Education Steering Committee at the Colorado State Health Department. She is currently the president of the Colorado Coalition for Abstinence and Relationship Education.

“WAIT” stands for “Why Am I Tempted” – i.e., some nice abstinence education training. (how NOT to have sex, yet…) and besides the $1,000,000+ in 2006 (for starters) it sells for only $299.

Joneen McKenzie

Learning to have the BEST sex by waiting until, and in preparation for, marriage.
Not sex education, it’s love education and includes: Character and Relationship Education,
Positive Youth Developments and Assets, Marriage Preparation Education; Life Skills,
Refusal Skills and Conflict Resolution (Teen PREP) Skills. It’s positive, fun and interactive
and gives teen reasons, skills and support to delay sex and learn about the value of marriage.
Available in Spanish. Target audience: middle and high school students. Two-day training
and certification with materials: $299.


Presenting at the annual Smart Marriages Conference.

Joneen Krauth-Mackenzie, RN, BSN

Abstinence Education, at least as it affects the practice of increasing Abstinence (i.e., reducing sex outside marriage) is probably a lost cause. If it WERE to be directed somewhere, I believe a more appropriate target might be several of the U.S. Presidents, Governors, or Senators. Starting with Former President Bill Clinton, who actually signed the infamous (to me!) Executive Order of 1995 regarding Fatherhood. He should know about it, and/or preventing it outside marriage:

Washington Post / Paula Jones Bill’s Escapes will sink Hillary (2007)

On the other hand, even the Gores finally separated:

Throughout the 1990s, as Bill and Hillary Clinton became the most dysfunctional couple in American politics, Al and Tipper Gore served as the counterbalance. The Gores played the ever-wholesome Mike and Carol Brady of the “Brady Bunch” to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Homer and Marge Simpson—a battling, mismatched duo who nevertheless stayed together. During the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, the Gores appeared ever more self-righteous and stable as the Clintons appeared ever more estranged. Al Gore even chose to telegraph to the American people that he was a passionate politician by giving Tipper a famously long smooch after his nomination.

The Gores’ obvious distaste for Bill Clinton’s extramarital escapades strained relations among the four. During the 2000 campaign, Vice President Gore distanced himself so much from President Clinton that many observers believed he sacrificed his shot at the White House on the altar of his marital morality.

How about Ted Kennedy, other Kennedys?

  1. Reckless Sex and Power III: The Top Seven Kennedy Sex Scandals

    May 21, 2008 Serving in the Senate since 1962, Ted Kennedy has been one of our most Both President Jack Kennedy – whose sexual escapades were
Governors, Assemblymen, Presidents, can’t keep it Zipped (except for their wives) AFTER marriage, why are they taxing US, especially teens, to lecture US, especially teens, on keeping it zipped ?:
Former Orange County Assemblyman Michael Duvall, who resigned after inadvertently broadcasting explicit remarks about his sexual conquests over an open microphone, this morning said that his resignation was not an admission that he had an affair.

Rather, what we need to “keep zipped” is our wallets!, which are funding legislator’s salaries who can neither keep their acts together, and who continue to vote for programming like this Marriage/Fatherhood/Abstinence and almost any other function of life that can be named, demonstrated upon, evaluated, and studied (remotely, of course). These programs are not about fixing things, or promoting behaviors, but they are about channeling grants to cronies (too often) . . . . and installing systems to manage the population.

As described, in some detail, in RIPOFF REPORT,

Besides the misappropriation of funds by Why Am I Tempted training coordinator (above), it also appears that her own marriage wasn’t successful. Many people’s aren’t. WHen it comes to this issue, I find that people who have NOT divorced or been through breakups, find some things hard to understand, and those who have, generally lack partiality. If you toss a coin, chances are, someone who is a stepfather, stepmother, father having wages garnished for child support, MOTHER having wages garnished for child support, domestic violence survivor or in jail and having issues contacting offspring, which is where the fatherhood programs go get them out and back with their kids.

While going through the LEGAL aspects of courts, and custody, it’s good to remember that many of the major influences don’t go near a courtroom; they are in conference rooms and in Senate Buildings. While not all participate in crowning a “Moonie” leader, some of the behaviors have an uncomfortable resemblance to the same behaviors.

FYI, PTSD or not (some days are better than others), I try to get some information out. I felt that the grants connection is consistently overlooked, and the Unification Church one is recently very disturbing, but definite.

The overall picture is of a more and more managed economy and society. My advice regarding family law is, stay away from it. However, if one must enter, attempt to avoid the child support system, which promises more than it can deliver, and becomes a third party that could turn the case, easily.

It’s challenging to experience, narrate, analyze, network , and simply survive this system while still in it. I add a research background, a scent like a bloodhound on the money trail, which is driving this system (not “law” in case you were interested), and gets its funding from Joe Bloe and Jane Doe taxpayers who thought someone else should be handling these problems — hence, taxes, right?

Oh yes, and major foundations, many of them conservative. And latest trail shows a VERY uncomfortable connection with the Unification Church (can you spell Rev. Sun Myun Moon — avowed

2nd Messiah and major contributor to the ultra-conservative right-wingers. The political / legislative/religious/economic ramifications are truly frightening, almost more so than any “lethality assessment” from a domestic violence situation might indicate, or than the breakup of the nuclear family — or (conversely) “same-sex marriage.”

Suppose we all DID survive, and then this is to what world?

Kind gives another flavor to the word “Healthy Marriage” when one considers a coronation of this billionaire in a U.S. Senate building, of a man who claims to have heard from deceased Presidents and the news is, theocracy is in, republic is out. And/or, he and his wife are the true parents to the world.

I’m not kidding, I was just looking at Phoenix, Arizona, National Association of Marriage Enhancement, the Godzich family, and the GOP/Unification Church/Assembly of God churches/ Christian Dominionism/Anti-gay political contributions, and the Uganda connection.

One thing you won’t be on this blog (I hope) is

(a) bored or

(b) less informed than when you began looking or, most importantly

(c) noncommital on this institution as a sinkhole of money and corruption, that isn’t getting to those who need it much more than some food aid consistently gets to the hungry people in the Southern hemisphere, or

(d) underestimating the contribution of your local faith-based institution not to solving, but rather, helping create, the major social problems we are experiencing. (FYI, I identify as Christian, but not possible to go through this system and come out the same kind of one!). (Did I mention domestic violence, and women as inferior, at least after saying “I do,” yet?)

For PARENTS, the timeframe is VERY short — about a generation.

For professionals, it’s the curve of the career, after which they can easily publish and conference on their prior experience.

The litigants in the family law system usually include one side more powerful than the others, and, to be frank, often one side with possibly some criminal behavior, if not a record. The metaphor here that applies is the myth of Procrustes — the innkeeper whose bed fit “everyone.” However, Secretly, Procrustes had two beds. If a short person came in, out came the long bed, and the customer was stretched to fit. If a tall person came in, out came the short bed, and I won’t describe that process.

Finally some hero came and applied some of this medicine to the innkeeper. I think it’s about time to do that, however, firmly, and without violence. The only way I know to do that is to cut off the supply line:

Families — warn each other to stay away.

General public — research where your money is going, and demand an accounting of what good it’s doing. Since thats a lot harder than actually giving the government less to waste, both of which will require creativity, insight, information, and possibly make us better people.

Homogenizing America: Milk Wars, Part 2 — (cooked) Milk Sucks, Depending on your Ethnicity

leave a comment »

Well, I promised Part 2 on the MILK Wars, so here’s some more material for rumination.

NOTE: Not for filing under “the author of Let’sGetHonest is an earth mother health nut.”

Well, the “nut” maybe, about health, plus some: subtract the earth, though

But I hope you file this under “the Pedigree of Ideas” and ask, what other nutty thinking fell off the same tree.

First of all, we saw how vicious the retaliation against small, self-sustaining and health-producing farms (and cows) who didn’t leave a large footprint, require cow food to be imported, or cows to be fed ground up parts of almost any refuse while stacked on top of each other, and use up more fossil fuel in the process of bringing their food in, and their output out, after which they could be abused some more shortly before slaughtering.

There MUST be some reasoning behind this. It’s clear some thought process went into trying to eliminate the small organic dairy farmers, and preventing people from choosing their own foods which don’t make them sick. Hmm…. It takes coordination to pull off a raid of a dairy farm, right?

veggies.jpg (6769 bytes)

THIS has a Business History, yes it does:

Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S. Dairy Industry
By Ché Green

The dairy industry has spent billions of dollars convincing us that milk is healthy, all the while pumping chemicals into cows and the milk itself that makes it deadly.

Milk, they say, is an important source of calcium that helps kids grow up big and strong. Milk is said to contain vital nutrients and to help prevent osteoporosis. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its food dietary guidelines, says that everyone should get 2-3 servings of dairy every day. Milk is advocated by various agencies of the U.S. government, legions of physicians, and the $180 million annual advertising budget of the dairy industry itself. Britney Spears, Carson Daly, Neve Campbell, Spike Lee, and other fine celebrities have endorsed milk, decorating thousands of billboards with their mustachioed mugs.

And, indeed, America has a love affair with milk. The average person living in the United States consumes over 600 pounds of dairy products every year, including about 420 pounds of fluid milk and cream, 70 pounds of various milk-based fats and oils, 30 pounds of cheese, and 17 pounds of ice cream. In aggregate, U.S. dairy farmers produce 163 billion pounds of milk and milk products a year.

But what if Britney and Spike were lying to us? What if milk doesn’t do a body good? Instead, what if milk is a major contributor to breast cancer, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, and more? What if the U.S. government and the dairy industry are colluding to hide the ill effects of dairy consumption?

According to Amy Lanou, Ph.D., the nutrition director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), “Besides prostate cancer, milk has been linked to asthma, anemia, allergies, juvenile-onset diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and ovarian and breast cancer.”

Why then, is milk still widely regarded as wholesome?

The USDA’s Food Pyramid Scheme

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to its mission statement, is charged with “enhancing the quality of life for the American people by supporting the production of agriculture.” Created by the pro-business Lincoln administration in 1862, today’s USDA has the dual responsibility of assisting dairy farmers while promoting healthy dietary choices for Americans. Not surprisingly, this creates a conflict of interest that puts at risk the objectivity of government farm policy and the health of all dairy-consuming Americans.

In December 1999, the PCRM filed suit against the USDA, claiming the department unfairly promotes the special interests of the meat and dairy industries through its official dietary guidelines and the Food Pyramid. Six of the eleven members assigned to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee were demonstrated to have financial ties to meat, dairy, and egg interests. Prior to the suit, which the PCRM won in December 2000, the USDA had refused to disclose such conflicts of interest to the general public.

I’m not done yet, not with this site. Because we have to look at that school system, and which populations are probably LEAST likely to be able to get out from under it.

Government Cheese

With the recent passage of the Farm Bill on May 13, 2002, dairy farmers and processors will receive $2 billion more in subsidies over the next three and a half years, largely realized through price supports that inflate costs for consumers. Dairy subsidies are a carryover from the Depression era, when survival of small dairy farmers was considered essential to maintaining a national food supply.

Today, a large chunk of that additional $2 billion in subsidies is going to large dairy farms in twelve northeastern states. Further, as consolidation continues to occur in the dairy industry, federal subsidies are going to an increasingly small number of highly concentrated dairy operations, hanging small farmers out to dry and encouraging the demise of family farms. This increase in large industrial farms bodes ill for both cows and humans.

Lactose Intolerance and Ethnic Discrimination

Another assertion of the suit brought by the PCRM against the USDA is that the status of milk as a staple in school lunch programs unfairly discriminates against non-whites who have a high incidence of lactose intolerance. In total, there are an estimated 50 million lactose intolerant adults in the U.S., including 15 percent of the white population, 70 percent of the black population, and 80 to 97 percent of Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Jews of European descent. These 50 million people suffer from a variety of digestive symptoms that result from consuming milk and other dairy products, including gas, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, and indigestion.

Currently, the USDA requires that every public school in the country serve milk. There’s even a push by Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) to offer financial incentives to schools that install milk vending machines (after California, New York is the second largest dairy-producing state). Further, students cannot get free or subsidized alternatives to milk, such as juice or soy milk, without a note from their physician, so for 70 percent of black kids in public schools, a negative response to lactose intake is practically mandated by the U.S. Government. Same goes for 90 percent of Asian American students and 74 percent of Native American students.

The PCRM asserts that huge dairy subsidies and broad-based promotion of milk by the government’s school lunch program is a form of economic racism that isolates minorities and encourages them to consume something they’re disproportionately intolerant of or allergic to.

rBGH and the Damage Done

Girls in the U.S. are beginning to menstruate at younger and younger ages. According to the Cancer Prevention Coalition, some girls are now experiencing the effects of puberty as young as three years of age. Fifty years ago the incidence of breast cancer risk among U.S. women was one in twenty, a percentage that has grown to one in eight women as of 2001.

Here’s a big part of the reason why: Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) is a naturally occurring hormone produced by milk cows. Closely resembling the natural growth hormones in human children, the presence of BGH in milk has been shown to significantly elevate hormone levels in people, creating a host of growth problems.

That’s not even accounting for the use of artificial hormones. Recombinant BGH (rBGH) is an unnaturally occurring, genetically engineered hormone produced by Monsanto Company, a giant in the agrichemical industry, which has also made such other fine ecological and humanitarian contributions as Agent Orange and PCBs. Through a series of research cover-ups and a network of conflicting interests with government policymakers [see sidebar], Monsanto in 1994 managed to get approval for Posilac, the company’s commercial form of rBGH, which increases cows’ milk production by an estimated 15-25 percent.

According to Monsanto, over a quarter of U.S. milk cows are now in herds supplemented with Posilac. The vast majority of the country’s 1,500 dairy companies mix rBGH milk with non-rBGH milk during processing to such an extent that an estimated 80-90 percent of the U.S. dairy supply is contaminated.

What Monsanto doesn’t tell consumers is that supplementing the American diet with additional growth hormones is causing secondary sex characteristics to appear earlier in young children, particularly girls. Monsanto also won’t tell the public that rBGH-injected cows produce milk with exceedingly high levels of Insulin Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), a cancer promoter that occurs naturally in the human bloodstream at levels that generally do not result in tumors. Monsanto and the FDA refuse to acknowledge recent research directly linking elevated levels of IGF-1 to increased risk of breast and prostate cancer. Going even further, Monsanto and the FDA colluded in 1993 and ’94 to block labeling requirements for rBGH milk. Consequently, the average dairy consumer has no idea if they’re increasing their own risk of getting cancer.

Since 1994, every industrialized country in the world except the U.S. — including Canada, Japan, and all fifteen nations of the European Union — has banned rBGH milk. The United Nations Food Standards Body refuses to certify that rBGH is safe. Even the WTO, or more specifically its food standards body, the Codex Alimentarius, has refused to endorse Monsanto’s claim that rBGH is safe for use in the dairy supply. In the face of facts and the majority opinion of the global political and scientific community, Monsanto and the United States continue to endorse rBGH milk for general consumption, at the same time scratching their heads about increases in breast cancer deaths and the continually declining age of puberty for girls.

What about the Cash Cows?

Okay, so milk is bad for people. Really bad, in fact. But what of the effect on cows producing that milk? The life expectancy of the average cow in natural conditions is about 25-30 years; on the typical factory farm, where well over half of U.S. milk cows reside, they live only four to five years.

The increased milk production spurred by dosing cows with Monsanto’s Posilac causes them to suffer from mastitis, a bacterial infection of the udder, and widespread occurrences of cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus. In addition to harming the cows, these conditions may produce discharges that are passed to consumers along with the milk.

It turns out that keeping dairy cows constantly pregnant — the only way they will produce milk — creates (surprise!) baby calves. The veal industry was created because the dairy industry didn’t know what to do with male calves that otherwise had no economic value to dairy farmers (female calves are the future milk producers). The process is cruel from start to finish: the cows are artificially impregnated by being bound to what the industry terms a “rape rack,”

{{Good grief — see my blog under “the Pit of Despair” and experiments, conducted by a man of course, on monkeys, i.e., Maternal Deprivation results in craziness such that they couldn’t have sex as adults. No problem, this dude came up with a “rape rack,” thereby probably starting the movement against cruelty to animals in laboratories. I kid you not — rape racks?? At what point in time does the process migrate to human beings, who are being treated like lab rats through this system and for $$, to start with? ???}}

then injected with a series of bull semen, hormones, and antibiotics; veal calves are then immobilized in small wooden crates so that they can’t move around, therefore ensuring the tenderness of their flesh when slaughtered. Over a million veal calves were slaughtered in the U.S. in 2001.

In the end, it boils down to a familiar story: Big business and the U.S. government joining forces to dupe the American consumer. The USDA tells us to drink more milk while subsidizing large dairy farms and federally mandating dairy consumption for schoolchildren. The government spends billions to buy unused milk and dairy products, one of the biggest forms of subsidies, while the industry spends almost $200 million every year promoting dairy consumption. Meanwhile, The FDA and Monsanto conspire to pollute the already unhealthful dairy supply with a genetically engineered hormone banned virtually everywhere else in the world.

So while the American public might fairly answer the dairy industry’s ubiquitous question of whether it “Got Milk?” with a resounding, mustachioed “Yes,” the better question might be whether people have gotten screwed in the process.

~ ~ ~ ~

Ché Green is the founder and director of The ARMEDIA Institute, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization focusing on farm animal issues in the United States. http://www.alternet.org/story/13557/

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

(ME TOO, obviously). ..



Read it please. Towards the bottom, is a phrase about “incestuous relationships between Industry and the U.S. Government. . . . advisory boards (FDA) made by scientists and executives from the meat and dairy industries, with a few university executives thrown in for good measure.”

NOW do you see why I’m blogging this?

Of course, in social science, a lot more university academics can be brought in, BUT the funding often comes from some major foundations. Their wealth didn’t come from being middle class employees, typically (maybe originally), but you can be sure that the recommendations for fixing society will recommend the employee route, not the acquiring assets that will spin off some wealth (whether sales, investments, or owning businesses that have profits and almost run themselves) which might leave certain ethnicities time to think about WHY their kids are ending up in prisons, or in school systems which not only underperform, but push food that they might have some innate intolerance to, producing further health problems.

Or become themselves part of the ACADEMIC and CORPORATE food chain, namely the subject matter of experimentation IN social science field and behavioral management fields.

FORCES intent on centralization and eliminating competition MUST be nationalized.

For example, look at the school system.  THIS  is from today:

  1. Many States Adopt National Standards for Their Schools – NYTimes.com

    Jul 21, 2010 Many States Adopt National Standards for Their Schools The common core standards, two years in the making and first released in draft

I am not an Arne Duncan fan.

Below here is more data about MILK questioning WHY we Got’s to have it . . . .

But I think the Monsanto article kinda nailed the situation.   Anyone remember a  reference  to babies and cow’s  milk from the garden of eden?

veggies.jpg (6769 bytes)

KINDA makes me think of CRONE, and the migrations and evolutionary change from agricultural societies to nomadic.

MOST things can be measured more clearly by the profit motive than a psychological diagnosis.  Whatever the excuse for certain economies to work, there have to be forcible consumers.  More and more low-wage workers equals higher profits for the employers.

IF LOS ANGELES ALONE can keep a taxpayer’s rights group tied up in the courts for over a decade, and about a mere $30 million, how would such a mentality with more scope and reach act given authority over an entire nation?

Don’t blame just a President — none of them operates in a vacuum  (although you’ll pick up I am no Obama fan.  I noticed prior to election the Messiah-like claims; Clinton was no different (I voted Obama, incidentally).   Perhaps generations of dumbing us down has taught even the most academic to let their opinions be formed elsewhere.   They study and someone else pays the bills ….)


FIRST OF ALL, in NATURE, who, generally speaking, sucks milk from Mama?

I could be wrong, but generally speaking in Mammals, YOUNG mammals.

Therefore, to fix this, young Mamas should always nurse and not do cow’s milk, right?

Well, not necessarily; it depends on what drugs they are on (none, let’s hope)>

Well, if they don’t abuse drugs, or alcohol, then it’s cool, right?

Not necessarily: as the first article points out, what she eats counts, too. And if she eats cows fed some of the stuff we read about in the last article, or other indirect forms of pesticides and growth hormones, well, maybe not.

And if she’s in a very abusive situation, it’s possible some of the stress hormones (which can really get out of whack) may affect her milk too.

Some of the articles below might make us go “Huh?” and question, along with the concept of eliminating mothers and introducing instead child care workers, as well as the consequences of the dairy industry sucking up to the captive audiences in the school systems, and then we wonder what’s with the behavioral problems, obesity and other things associated with this — and consider which ethnicities in particular, are going to be stuck in the public school systems, we might want to reconsider a thing or two.

After a few articles, I’ll just put up some links — it’s been a long day …. I’LL DO THE LINKING AND YOU CAN DO THE THINKING, if you want to, including how come the nation’s banks and all ages’ of health needs so much regulating that the ship is SINKING.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

FIRST, a little Common Sense from Dr. Kradkjian, whoever he is (I used search function to locate articles on the topic):

Robert M. Kradjian, MD
Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,
Seton Medical Centre #302 – 1800 Sullivan Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015 USA

Text Only

"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a
nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question
it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated
their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is
surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was
our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our
mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the
only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's
milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or
water buffalo milk.

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.
Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.
We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and
add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
butter, and yogurt.

. . .

I believe that there are three reliable sources of
information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of
nature. The second is to study the history of our own
species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific
literature on the subject of milk.

Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk
recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of
theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is
no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles
that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly
less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors
spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to
believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal
irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions
in infants and children as well as infections such as
salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as
concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by
blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of
chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among
children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic
and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed
centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,
sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
lymphoma and cancer.

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration
of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living
mammals and what happens with human groups living in close
to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and
interesting group to study. Here we are limited to
speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains
available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt
whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel
that these people are not important for us to study,
consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in
almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.


Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term
nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar
example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for
just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and
teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature
only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not
possible for animals living in a natural state to continue
with the drinking of milk after weaning.


Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have
settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,
and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems
'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our
customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of
another species of mammal?

Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk
of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps
the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly
some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is
for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for
calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,
this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good
judgement on this one.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal
is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of
that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in
protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has
five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is
markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to
human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as
much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
(Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It
simply is not designed for humans


GOT MILK? What else comes with it:

  • Are you Lactose-Intolerant or Lactase Persistent?

It may depend on “Who’s Your Daddy?


Written by James Heiser
Tuesday, 01 September 2009 15:15

glass of milkDoes the dairy industry tagline “Got Milk?” leave you a little queasy? You’re not alone. A newly published study estimates that 60 percent of adults are lactose intolerant, and the problem is not a food allergy: it’s in your genes.

A USA Today article on the study (“Sixty percent of adults can’t digest milk”) explains the phenomena that is at work: “First off, most people who have bad reactions to milk aren’t actually allergic to it, in that it’s not their immune system that’s reponding [sic] to the milk. Instead, people who are lactose intolerant can’t digest the main sugar — lactose — found in milk. In normal humans, the enzyme that does so — lactase — stops being produced when the person is between two and five years old. The undigested sugars end up in the colon, where they begin to ferment, producing gas that can cause cramping, bloating, nausea, flatulence and diarrhea.”

Retaining the ability to digest lactose is genetically heritable and is found primarily in particular ethnic groups. Thus, in the estimation of the USA Today: “It’s not normal. Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans. Sweden has one of the world’s highest percentages of lactase tolerant people. Being able to digest milk is so strange that scientists say we shouldn’t really call lactose intolerance a disease, because that presumes it’s abnormal. Instead, they call it lactase persistence, indicating what’s really weird is the ability to continue to drink milk.”

Presumably, it is the high correlation between Northern European ancestry and the ability of an adult to digest lactose that permits USA Today to label the phenomena as “not normal,” “strange,” and “really weird” — such reckless abandonment of the usual politically correct hand-ringing associated with using such pejorative language in a discussion of any genetic phenomena which correlates to particular ethnicities is almost refreshing.

According to the published study, “Lactase persistence (LP) is common among people of European ancestry, but with the exception of some African, Middle Eastern and southern Asian groups, is rare or absent elsewhere in the world…. It is unlikely that LP would provide a selective advantage without a supply of fresh milk, and this has lead to a gene-culture coevolutionary model where lactase persistence is only favoured in cultures practicing dairying, and dairying is more favoured in lactase persistent populations.”

Essentially, what this means is that a latent capacity for digesting lactose was already present; conditions in certain areas of the world were favorable to passing along this propensity to the next generation and thus it became more common within certain population groups.

According the USA Today article, “The researchers used a computer to model the spread of lactase persistence, dairy farming, other food gathering practices and genes in Europe. Today, the highest proportion of people with lactase persistence live in Northwest Europe, especially the Netherlands, Ireland and Scandinavia. But the computer model suggests that dairy farmers carrying this gene variant probably originated in central Europe and then spread more widely and rapidly than non-dairying groups…. The European mutation is different from several lactase persistence genes associated with small populations of African peoples who historically have been cattle herders.”

Nevertheless, USA Today was able to identify lactase persistence as one more occasion for American and European ‘insensitivity’: “If you’re American or European it’s hard to realize this, but being able to digest milk as an adult is one weird genetic adaptation.”

Dairy & Milk Allergy PDF Print
Written by Dr Manik G Hiranandani
Dairy products & Milk Allergy

Dr. Manik G. Hiranandani

(Modifed 26th September 2005)

Click here for Dutch Translation

I was 16 years old in 1974, just graduated from school and had returned home after 5 years in a boarding school. I was staying at home and was in my first job, to audit accounts for my uncle. As a child I had always disliked milk as it made me feel sick, and had over the years in boarding school consciously avoided milk and its products. My mother insisted I drink 2 glasses of milk every day. Over the next couple of months while auditing my uncle’s bills I discovered a large fraud which was very stressful as it involved the people I was working with.

After 2 months at this, I woke up one morning with severe pain in my right hip. I thought I may have twisted it accidentally but unfortunately over the next week the pain spread to my ankles, knees, toes, back, wrists, shoulders, and jaws. With this, I also began a fever which persisted between 103-104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees C). I was then taken to hospital, where a tentative diagnosis of Rheumatic fever was made and I was admitted to the intensive care Unit (ICU). Over the next 5 weeks the fever rose to 105 degrees Fahrenheit, the pain increased, in spite of all the investigations, treatment and specialists who saw me. I grew steadily weaker till I could no longer walk and my weight dropped from 61 kgs to 39 kg.

That night I overheard the doctor telling the nurse, that I would not live for more than a few days. I then realized that there was nothing the hospital could do for me, and decided to take charge of my own health. The next morning I requested the consultant in charge, to transfer me to a room as I could not sleep in the ICU with the light on. He kindly agreed to do so & I was transferred to a room with two other patients. After 3 days in the room I requested the consultant to discharge me home as all I was doing was eating tablets & my blood was being examined every morning which I could also have done as an outpatient. He kindly agreed to this, gave me a diagnosis of “Stills Disease” or Juvenile Rheumatoid arthritis and as I left, told me that I could take aspirin to ease the pain. Over the next few weeks under his supervision I gradually increased my intake of aspirin to a total of 40 to 50 tablets a day taken 6-8 at a time at intervals of 3 to 4 hours and finally the pain was bearable.

I told my mother that since I didn’t have long to live anyway, I would not have milk and would eat my favourite foods. Over the next few weeks I ate my favourite foods, most of them spicy snacks, and I gradually began to recover my strength and weight. After a few months, I had largely recovered. I moved to Bombay to attend college and stay with my uncle. My aunt with her good intentions to help me recover insisted I restart milk. I did, and within a week was back in agonizing pain and high fever in spite of over 50 aspirins a day. It took me a month to recover and was clinching proof for me that indeed my arthritis was the result of a milk allergy. Over the next 2 years I gradually recovered and tapered off the aspirin. As I recovered I found a great improvement in my physical performance and mental abilities. I concluded that my illness had been a combined result of high stress and the milk allergy.

Over the next 20 years I stayed off milk and its products and enjoyed good health and great clarity of mind. In 1995, I was being entertained by many friends and took a lot of milk products. Soon the pain & fever returned. Fortunately it passed off in a week and was a warning to me that I could never risk taking milk products again!

Dr. Frank Oski, the late Director of Paediatrics, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, wrote a book titled “Don’t drink your milk!” This pioneering book written more than 25 years ago, described in detail, the diseases caused by taking cow’s milk. These included leukemias, ear infections, nephritis, skin problems, diabetes, atherosclerosis, breast cancer, and auto immune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis and scleroderma. He also found that cow’s milk caused gastrointestinal bleeding in babies leading to iron deficiency anaemia. Allergy to cow’s milk is increasingly seen both in adults and children, due to the presence of pesticides and due to the widespread administration of antibiotics, animal residues, growth additives and hormones in the cow’s feed. In contrast people who drink cow’s milk and take milk products, taken from cows which graze naturally on grass in fields, have a much lower incidence of allergy to cow’s milk. With safe inputs to the cow the output (milk) will also be safe. In India, milk allergy is common in big cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Madras & Bangalore where imported milk powder from the European community is used to provide reconstituted milk. Milk allergy in India used to affect less than 5% of the general population in 1990. In my estimation over 50% of people who live in the metropolitan cities of India suffer from health problems caused or aggravated by milk and milk products, beef & gelatin (commonly used to make capsules). Capsules made from gelatin are used commonly to administer antibiotics and vitamins. Many vegetarians are unable to digest this animal protein, and suffer from nausea & diarrhoea because of the capsule. This side effect is wrongly ascribed as a side effect to the use of the antibiotic, and disappears when the same medication is given as a tablet! In the same cities those people who consumed cow’s milk from their local dairy continued to have a low incidence of allergy (less than 5%). With the increasing promotion of commercial fodder, enriched with animal wastes, fish meal, hormones and antibiotics as well as the use by various cooperative milk producing societies, the incidence of milk allergy is rising in other parts of India. This allergy to cow’s milk is normally unsuspected and undiagnosed, and is a common cause of many health problems including stomach pain, peptic ulcers, hyperacidity, hiatus hernia, chronic diarrhoea, Ulcerative colitis, Type1 (childhood onset) diabetes, asthma, eczema, depression, hyperactive or aggressive behaviour, backaches, infertility, endometriosis., ovarian cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis and flatulence.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 21, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Flat-lining Language = Homogenizing America (Part 1: Raw Milk Wars)

leave a comment »


It may not be obvious that I’m talking about the fatherhood initiatives in the family law system, and the concepts that we are just to all get along, and not FIGHT in certain circumstances.  But I am.

Flat-lining is eliminating the depth perspective by commandeering the communication lines (technology, distribution), and restricting the language.  Ideally this is all enough to keep a society (like a machine) in good working order.

But AMERICA is large geographically, and ethnically and culturally kinda diverse.  More effort needs to be put into the training mechanism(s) and to engage  people in monitoring themselves automatically and adopting a common speech with reduced terminology = Ideas Reduction

(think I’m kidding?  Research the background of Dr. Seuss!).

Upstarts that refuse to think properly, or keep getting out of their assigned seats in this virtual classroom, asking impertinent questions, relying on independent feedback to judge themselves, or in general refuse to assimilate, can be sabotaged, or if necessary disciplined — preferably in private.

When this becomes public, further actions will be taken to make an example of them.

This is for society’s good.

One LONG post ahead of you.  Use the scroll button and have fun.  If you want to skip 1/3 of it for later, go to RAW MILK WARS – 1 and RAW MILK WARS – 2 and understand what business government is in.  The middle 3rd will simply flesh out the detail, talking about Water Wars in Los Angeles.

“Few discoveries are more irritating

than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.(1)”

(1) Lord Action, quoted in pg. 57 of Introduction to “The Road to Serfdom,” quoting from “Review Sir Erskine May’s Democracy in Europe [1878] reprinted in The History of Freedom and other Essays,? etc. This Road to Serfdom is edited by Bruce Caldwell, and written by F.A. Hayek , this Definitive Edition co. 2007, the estate of the author (Hayek).

Hayek lived and published this starting between World Wars I and II, being an Austrian immigrant and economist, aware of German ideas of centralized planning, and who (in the London School of Economics) felt that his British compatriots (himself being naturalized) were missing some key points about the concept of a PLANNED ECONOMY, in the war against facism and communism.

Recently I blogged, asking whether it’s Psychology, Color, Gender, or Just Money? What happens when there’s an overlap? I think the point being missed — now, as then — is that in the war on This (or that, or something else) — (today, for an example, I have the MILK wars, good grief) — it’s the techniques of wartime organization used in peacetime that are problematic.

If some of us don’t start waking up to who is causing wars, constantly, neither gender, nor psychological viewpoint, nor color — nor the US $$ — may even matter. I think the critical issue MORE Americans need to understand is that, the issue IS Money. OUr public education system doesn’t, naturally, tell us even a good definition of what money IS. Or Income, or Wealth. Believe me, the people who designed these institutions have a GOOD concept of what those terms mean. The rest of “us” need to better understand what they are, as technology increases the speed of information and with it, change.

In answer to your question on the quote (say WHAAT??), No I do NOT really know who the above people or publications are, except The Road To Serfdom is as interesting as the Raw Milk Wars for what it has to say about the times I live in TODAY. For example, after enough alive years, one knows whether one is on this road or not, and whether a change of direction is indicated. Which, I wish to inform us, it IS.

For example, I resent an administration’s (CLEAR) intent to homogenize ME, or more specifically, MY — and His -CHILDREN — into the word “fatherless” and then load the word “fatherless” with only a negative value.

When someone was booted out of the family home (but NOT the kids life), their lives were on the road to being VIOLENCE-less, at least “domestic” VIOLENCE-less, not FATHER-less. This was vital because they HAD been on the road (along with me, and probably him too, though one never knows with narcissists and other overentitled or (fill in the blank) people) to becoming LIFE-less.

Their father at this point became, it’s true, “NON-CUSTODIAL,” but when you are married and cohabiting custody is a non-issue unless you are experiencing false imprisonment in the process, which I was at times, with varying degrees of drama or lengths of (figurative) leashes.

LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. There IS a descending order of priority in the list, you know. Some people will say a person who died is free from pain, but I’d prefer to continue tolerating a tolerable amount of pain (life has it, right)? while still breathing

So, whether it’s “homo-phobic” or “homogenized,” I care less than what changing language is contributing to people becoming “home-less.”

Or what’s possibly worse, “Thought-less.” Thinking is work and takes practice.

Note: Thinking (writing) and formatting on-line are mutually exclusive activities, at least for me. I’ve erred in favor of the former, and given up on the Quote function on this blog. Try and figure out who’s talking or (for comparison)

Homogenizing America was never a good idea

I come from a generation old enough to remember ITS generation wanting to blend in and forget their ancestry, i.e., I’m half recent immigrant. The other half (by the way) was all-farmer.

Homogenizing and Pasteurizing Milk has become commonplace, in fact the dairy industry is a hot topic (including its subsidies, and pushing MILK through the public schools, even though it may have adverse effects on some ethnicities.

How do I know that? There was a time when our kids were little I couldn’t always afford milk, and couldn’t breastfeed. I wasn’t enamored of “Enfamil” (i.e., putting corn syrup into an infant), its price OR contents, and so asked around and read around.

Right now, Raw Milk has almost been outlawed as potentially “dangerous.” Yet Raw Milk doesn’t have its enzymes boiled out, and when it was standard, the choice was either clean up the dairies, or boil the crap out. Guess which one became standardized.

TODAY’s POST is ONLY going to deal with the Homogenized vs Raw analogy. As usual, it gets pretty interesting, and the teacher part of me just had to share the details. I expect i may get up to 3 or 4 articles on this topic on-line. But keep in mind, I have not forgotten what this blog is about. I just approach it from a few different landing zones for a 3D picture of the issues.

So this post is just some tools for comparison, and hopefully illuminating.

Related, but not about milk:

I have actually waded through some verbiage (cow/farm muck analogy intended) in some of the fatherhood propaganda that DID make “testimony” submissions on time for H.R. 2979. Prior to that, a while back, I labored, painfully and in small print, through a New York site (which I since lost the link to) multi-page VERY fine-print explanation of how helpful the court-ordered, mandatory (etc.) parenting plans were, and what great strides they were making to improving the state’s parenting. I even went through the footnotes. I noticed, apart from everyone footnoting each other, that when they ran out of ideas, they simply began repeating them. MOreover, half the footnotes were themselves “Ibid”s. To conceal how often the SAME source was cited, occasionaly another source would be sprinkled in, after which a bunch more “Ibids.”

I came to the conclusion that the process of “evaluating” and reporting on it was something similar to patchwork quilting, verbally stitching together a whole lot of used fabric into certain motifs in a communal setting – only with less skill and artistry. The communal setting part, though seemed to apply (i.e. social scientists speak each other’s language and resonate to the same rhythm. That’s fine, if it’s not the ONLY one around. The chief feature being, monotony.

Monotony is important if you are trying to run a drill team. It has its place — LIMITED.

The other conclusion I came to, wading through the footnotes on why parenting plans through the court were a great idea, was that I should’ve been paid at least minimum wage for the effort, and wondering what the authors were getting for the same effort of spouting it off, with footnotes. If outlined, the ideas (absent references, which seemed to lend them some authority), condensed and examined without the fluff, sounded ridiculous.

I realize my posts can get monotonous in tone too, but hopefully the interesting links and anecdotes may compensate, particularly today’s. If you don’t like them, go back to a TV (if your culture or house has one) and turn on TMZ (paparazzi headquarters..)

War on Drugs, Terror, Violence, Poverty?

On the Family? On Democracy?

No, it’s the Raw Milk Wars: (Guns ARE involved)


This one is in DailyFinance, and eventually involves a sheriff’s office, which should tell you that it’s possible to have a war over almost ANY concept. The article takes us back to 1977, so it at least covers the timespan in which the Family Law system (feminism/fatherhood) have come into fruition.

Note the religious war and (battle cry of ) Saving the Children references that start the article!

Wherever the battle cry runs to religious topics, dressed up with saving someone vulnerable, we will quickly see that it’s basically about the profit motive, if not plain old greed dressed up in altruism.

I happen to think that the profit motive isn’t bad, of itself; in fact remove it, and the incentive to work with diligence and intelligence (which are “healthy attitudes”) diminishes. It’s in the best interest of all of us for ALL of us to play a role in restricting the influence of greed, though.

In the holy war over raw milk, the lives of our children are at stake, or so the faithful on either side of the battlefield assert. And, if you had been at the Rawesome food buying club on June 30, [2010] when Los Angeles police officers, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Food & Drug Administration {{that’s, L.A, the FBI, and the FDA in case you weren’t awake}} and at least one Canadian agency** knocked on the door, guns drawn, you might believe the war was more literal than figurative. As one Rawesome member said, “Why do you need guns?” when the enemy is, as far as anyone can tell, millions of microbes too small for the human eye to see, and surely, for the man-made bullet to destroy.

**RAW MILK WARS – (2) below is from Canada [by way of Germany] and should not be missed. It’s unclear who ticked off which country first, but clearly these are related. Keep the cursor on the scroll button and don’t miss the Canadian version, which REALLY makes you go “huh? — what’s wrong with THAT”?

The FDA has long banned interstate sales of raw milk, and many states restrict or prohibit the sale of raw milk entirely. Raw milk drinkers and would-be sellers, who had previously purchased raw dairy products through legal loopholes began fighting back in early 2010, filing suit against the FDA claiming that banning interstate sales is unconstitutional. The FDA responded in late April, insisting that “plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” The case is now pending while the crackdowns continue.

What’s wrong with Raw Milk, you might ask? Isn’t it Healthy?

Aren’t Pasteurized Milk Practitioners utilizing the most recent, evidence-based science?

The Raw Milk Debate

Raw milk is milk that has not been heated to at least 145 degrees, a temperature sufficient to kill the living things present in all mammals’ milk. These enzymes and bacteria have been shown to strengthen the immune system, develop healthy bacteria in the intestines and reduce the chances of everything from respiratory disease to obesity. Anything that yogurt manufacturers say about the “good” bacteria in yogurt is also true of raw milk.

Pasteurization, on the other hand, destroys both the good and the bad bacteria (like E. coli); it, along with homogenization (a process in which the fat globules in cream are broken to such a small size that they remain suspended evenly in the milk), allows milk to be transported over great distances and have a much longer shelf life. The widespread use of pasteurization and homogenization meant that dairies no longer needed to deal directly with consumers, as in the days of the milkman delivering glass bottles to your doorstep.

Meaning, a middleman was going to be involved, which might logically (without outside help) affect the prices.

As the FDA sees it, the most important benefit of pasteurization is the virtual elimination of the dangers of bacterial infections. It was a huge concern in the late nineteenth century, as dairies moved closer to cities to provide nourishment for the newly industrial and urban population. But the concentrated quarters of the cows and a change in diet caused disease to start spreading. Pasteurization, say scientists, greatly reduced its spread.

The FDA officially banned interstate sales of raw milk in 1987, but it wasn’t until 2006 that the so-called “crackdown” began.

As with domestic violence, kidnapping, child-trafficking, other crimes, it is the INTERSTATE nature of it that allows the Federal Level to get involved (i.e., jurisdiction). FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation, and the Food and Drug Administration is FEDERAL in nature.

Agricultural departments in several states, with the help of the FDA, started to stage raids of small dairies and buying clubs that were “replete with undercover agents, sting operations, surprise raids, questionable test-lab results, mysterious illnesses, propaganda blitzes, and grand jury investigations,” writes journalist David Gumpert, who has followed the raw milk war and written a book on the topic.

Here’s more indicators it might be HEALTHY not to kill off those enzymes…

A Movement Takes Shape

As early as the 1970s, proponents of healthy eating and sick people in search of cures began to consume raw milk as a health-giving tonic. At the time, Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz (along with cookbook author Sally Fallon) came to the conclusion that drinking raw milk from cows who are raised on a ruminant’s diet — grass, and clover, and not much else — and treated well could be the basis for the most nutritious possible diet — and a movement was born.

Vonderplanitz says he has been “fighting” the government’s efforts against raw milk since 1977. He started an organization known as the Right To Choose Healthy Food, where he’s taught raw foodists {{i.e., what Adam and Eve used to be?… [ : )]}} how they can sidestep the rules governing commerce, and especially interstate commerce, by organizing into private clubs and leasing animals.

Vonderplanitz’s organization also runs the Rawesome Club in Venice, California, and has chapters throughout the U.S. and “a few” in Canada.. . .

Vonderplanitz continued to “just not collaborate and get along” with the government on telling Raw Foodists what they can and can’t eat. No national coalitions to cooperate grants for him (I refer to NCADV, and statewide domestic violence coalitions taking money, though lots less, from the same HHS agency that funds fatherhood grants– another topic, for another day).

When certain groups just won’t “see the light” of their civil rights not existing, there is always force. Clearly this was a major threat to the populace, because here come the Guns:

Guns and Dairy

Shortly after Rawesome opened on June 30, nearly a dozen officers of the LAPD (with guns drawn), a senior investigator for the L.A. City District Attorney; a L.A. Environmental Health Specialist for the Environmental Health Food and Milk Program Food Inspection Bureau; an investigator for the U.S. FDA, Los Angeles District; a consumer safety officer for the USFDA Import Operations Branch Los Angeles District; and a supervising special investigator for the California State Animal Health and Food Safety Services of California Department of Food and Agriculture; and two other individuals without business cards who identified themselves as being with, respectively, the FBI and the Canada department of agriculture loudly knocked on the door, Rawesome members say. The officers searched the premises and seized 17 large coolers of milk and other dairy products.

The search warrant claims that the property “was used as the means of committing a felony.” The only items listed on the search warrant were dairy products. On the same day, a farmer who provides raw goat milk to Rawesome members was also raided by about 20 government agents. Her computer was seized; her third computer, that is, two previous computers having been seized, and never returned, in 2008 and 2009.

Besides listing the agencies involved, Sandi Gibbons, the public information officer for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, would only say that the case was initiated by the California FDA, and that it was “in connection with a continuing criminal investigation involving state and local investigators.”


WOW. In Googling “Los Angeles County Judges Slush Fund” I had a specific, family-law related issue in mind (the shady origins of the idea of Conciliation Courts, and a group (now international) called “AFCC” which began, some of us think, operating under the L.A. County EIN# — i.e. a private group not paying any taxes and funds being used to help rig cases — until it was exposed later by an audit, some of this detailed under (while we’re on the topic of liquid) “johnnypumphandle.com” site” by a father shocked at what happened in his daughter’s custody battle.

However, when it comes to the City of Angeles, and mis-use of $$, it seems we have a range of issues to choose from. For example, given the crimes against humanity, violence, and all sort of bloodshed in the city,one might think this is a priority. But HERE is an issue of the City trying to quietly dodge a taxpayer group proposing that the $30 MILLION in fees derived from water taxes actually be used for the purpose for which it was collected, and, being alert, caught the Mayor and his City Attorney’s Office trying to transfer the 30 million quietly by filing a suit called — for real! — “Los Angeles v. All Persons” and hoping no one would really notice…

As I read it, . . .

DWP Slush Fund

In Los Angeles vs. All Persons, a tough judge makes Villaraigosa return $30 million

On March 25, L.A. Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman handed down a tentative ruling against the city’s practice of skimming 5 percent off the top of Angelenos’ water bills, and slamming city officials for this sleazy move just when City Hall can least afford to give back any ill-gotten funds.

For years, city leaders propped up the general fund with as much as $30 million in revenue derived from an added tax on water used by residents and firms.

So this isn’t about MILK (raw or otherwise) but WATER. Supposedly. Well, $$OMETHING wa$ flowing in the wrong direction in this case, probably why they call it “$lush.”

In 1996, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association crafted state Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which Californians approved to make sure that “revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.”

Wow. THAT’s a radical concept. And one that relates to the topic of my blog, here..

The City fought this, in the courts, for 10 years. After all, $30 million is a pocketful of funds! HJTA fought back. The WAR was on for taxes to be used for the purpose for which taxes were collected. Good for them. But it WAS a fight. The bureaucrats versus the “businesses and residents.”

Los Angeles city officials began expressly disregarding that law, but the Jarvis group kept losing when it butted heads with the city in appellate courts. That is, until 2006, when California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 218’s requirement that fees paid by the public must provide the related service.

Phew! Now that THAT’s settled, they can get back to REAL crime, like Raw Milk Mongering, and the people & who were being billed extra for their WATER can expect some ROI on their taxes, right?

Wrong. These people are SLICK….:

City Hall wasn’t too keen on the ruling. In 2007, knowing that the practice might be deemed unconstitutional, city attorneys under Rocky Delgadillo tried a slick maneuver: They floated an announcement in the obscure Metropolitan News-Enterprise for three days**, stating that anyone opposed to the 2006-2007 transfer of nearly $30 million from DWP water fees to City Hall coffers — where it was spent on anything Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the council wanted to spend it on — had to quickly file as a defendant if they wanted the practice stopped. If no one stood up, the court would enter a default judgment and the transfer of funds would be validated forever

**3 days on accountability for a debated $30 million affecting an entire City.

For comparison, on the OPPOSITE coast, Washington, D.C. House Ways & Means committee, though somewhat more in public, announced for a whole WEEK that a public comment period could be submitted for testimony on the “Hearings on Responsible Fatherhood,” also affecting the expenditure of $$____ million affecting an entire nation, and in cases, and in some cases immediate life and death prospects (i.e., DV issues). What’s with THAT?

Father’s Day, yearly, is sometimes HELL WEEK for noncustodial mothers who’ve lost children to abusive fathers through help from these programs — the majority of us (I’d say) still don’t “get” (or wish to, because it’s disheartening) that those courts are NOT about “justice” but about Ju$t-u$, and the battle is won before the case gets litigated, if it gets there. They are roped into trying to appeal to a judge’s or attorney’s or evalutor’s sense of reason and decency with things like FACTS, and getting frustrated in the process.

I think we all need a healthy dose of antibiotics by understanding how life works, and articles like these give one a general framework into which we can understand at least something of the nature of the opponents and their tactics.

“The [DWP] knew they were vulnerable so they sued the whole city,” essentially suing all residents of Los Angeles, says the association’s president Kris Vosburgh. “They were hoping no one would notice.”

The sly trick failed. The taxpayers’ association jumped in as a defendant in the city’s tellingly titled lawsuit: The City of Los Angeles vs. All Persons.

Two and a half years later, in late March, Judge Freeman whacked the city’s legal arguments, stating bluntly: “The City argues, without authority, that under Home Rule, Proposition 218, a constitutional provision, must give way to its transfer ordinance. However, a charter city’s regulation remains subject to the state and federal constitutions.” Freeman wrote that the movement of huge sums of cash raised by DWP overcharges, then transferred for the use of the City Council and Villaraigosa, was “unconstitutional and void.”

On April 9, the final day to do so, Delgadillo filed a response to the judge’s tentative ruling. Among a long list of reasons why City Hall is still fighting the return of money overpaid by Los Angeles households and businesses was that DWP “has software dating back to the 1970s.” DWP’s chief information officer, Matthew Lampe, estimates $5 million to $8 million is needed just to hire contractors or pay city workers for the months needed to figure out how to pay back the $30 million in overcharges.

DWP argues that it “would have to lease a separate mainframe computer and completely write or modify six computer programs” to return the ill-gotten funds.

Watchdogs argue that there should already be plenty of money available to update computers, as well as power lines and pipes, but Villaraigosa and the City Council use the DWP as an ATM machine. Last year the DWP transferred $175 million to the general fund. It’s going to hurt, badly, to now have to give back $30 million to DWP. For comparison, that’s more than enough dough to fund — entirely, for a year — the city’s Animal Services department, or the entire Planning department or the mayor’s experimental antigang program.

So, can we spell, ‘VESTED INTERESTS’? And, anyone working for this City in the cause of keeping ill-gotten taxpayer funds IS still on salary, most likely, and that salary itself comes from somewhere, most likely including taxpayer funds.

Which explains to me why, if we (whoever the “we” be) are going to clean up the mis-use of taxpayer funds in the FAMILY LAW system, “we” had better figure out a way to sustain ourselves meanwhile, because it looks to be a long, dragged out fight, if not a siege.


L.A. JUDGES SLUSH FUND, EXAMPLE #2, exhibit from 1999

The TOP part of the article deals with the effect of the slush fund on family court cases. This bottom part relates to, incidentally, for example, the (extortion) habit of forcing plaintiffs to pay lunch & tip for Jury & bailiff (??). Just to get a flavor of the enterprise there:

. . . So while the court in Glendale appears to be keeping the jurors and bailiffs fed in a bizarre act of enforced charity, Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti has run into trouble with the $13 million he has been withholding from child-support payments under exotic circumstances. Insight’s May report on this resulted in a lawsuit filed by Richard Fine in the name of John Silva of Sylmar, Calif., an aggrieved parent who has paid child support since 1984 that records indicate was never forwarded by Garcetti to Silva’s children. Fine has just won the right of discovery against the district attorney on his way to forcing disbursement of the huge fund. Although Garcetti tried to get the class-action lawsuit dismissed because, as Fine recalls, “he said he was doing the best he could and therefore we didn’t have a right to sue him,” the judge ruled in favor of Fine and the case continues to move forward.

. . . . “We’ve learned from discovery that they have 100,000 files that date as far back as 1984 involving more than $13 million held by Garcetti,” says Fine. “We’ve got to request that the files be matched up — the payer and payee — and then require Garcetti to distribute the money. This is one of the greatest human tragedies I’ve ever handled. People are knocking on his door asking for money owed to them and he’s basically saying forget it. People have lost their homes and gone hungry and he couldn’t care less. This is a prime example of bureaucratic laziness. If we changed the structure and paid the employees of his department based on the number of cases that got paid, I guarantee that all $13 million would get paid out in 30 days.”

. . . . The California Legislature apparently concurs with these sentiments and recently passed a law, to become effective in 2001, removing the collection of child-support monies from Garcetti and all district attorneys throughout the state. Despite these victories the district attorney still is garnisheeing Silva’s paycheck for alleged child-support arrears for which Silva has receipts from Garcetti’s office. Garcetti’s enforcement personnel refuse to acknowledge Silva’s proof that he paid the support and continue to seize money from his payroll check against an alleged $60,000 arrearage.

. . . . Silva’s monthly payments vary depending on his biweekly income. His take-home pay is approximately $1,200, of which Garcetti often will leave him with $200 to care for a family of four. In fact, two weeks after Silva’s story ran in Insight , Garcetti took all but one dollar of his $1,200 paycheck. Silva didn’t bother to cash the check and soon will file a lawsuit against Garcetti.

. . . . Fine understands what’s happening to the man responsible for the class-action lawsuit that is seeking to stop these practices. “This appears,” he says, “to be retribution. They continue to mess with John because they’re trying to get back at him for filing the suit.”

Copyright © 1999 News World Communications, Inc.

This account is so convoluted — and I’ve actually STUDIED it before- the effort to follow it , the word “labyrinthe comes to mind. I recommend an ATTEMPT to comprehend it. At the bottom, it notes Richard Fine has had some progress, and it talks child support garnishments, and the D.A.’s failure to get the garnished payments TO the recipient, meanwhile a family of four is living on $200 out of a paycheck of $1,200.

For an update on that case, last I heard, Richard Fine wasn’t looked on too kindly in those circles, and had been put in “coercive solitary confinement” (he’s an elderly gentleman) and there is a FREE RICHARD FINE movement. The failed child support collections through the DA’s office has been transferred to a statewide agency, which is just as imprenetrable and unfair as ever (trust me, they’re a factor in most custody cases) and THEIR funds are being diverted to fatherhood type of initiatives, we believe. Which I can document, and which I think makes a good case for BOYCOTTING CHILD SUPPORT ENTIRELY, EVEN IF YOU NEED IT! Keep the system out of your life, especially you’re a parent with kids, because that status can be changed quicker than the support collected from an unwilling contributor, and your kids may get YOUR wages, but you probably won’t see them.



Here’s another Raw Milk Story that we should read, because (though in Canada) it shows you WHY, unrestrained, governments innately WILL want to get things “organized” and monopolize production, restrict initiative, and in general stamp out the competition. THIS version is about a highly qualified German family that came to Canada in 1983, were successful, after which the war began. It also contains the reference to that “pus” which comes when you stress out a cow. The stressed out, overproducing, high-protein fed, work, work work (i.e., make milk) cow has a lifespan of 42 months, it says. Theirs (this family’s) lived about 12 years, because they were allowed to dry out part of each year. Gee, sounds like a principle I read of in an old book, it’s called the Sabbath, both weekly and every 7 years, and farmers should know about it, too. Yep, this one has many analogies to the current topic, I mean, of LetsGetHonest – SOME government policies really stress us out, even if it’s “for our own good” or (since mothers no longer are a vocabulary word in some circles), “for the Well-being of Families.”

The Incredible Story of Michael and Dorothea Schmidt and Real Milk in Canada

by Sally Fallon

[I picked this one because the trouble dates back to 1994, and seems to have been a direct result of their success, via good management and prior experience, training, and in general love for what they were doing. Self-motivation & good management is generally going to threaten governments, who need dysfunction and psychological immaturity in order to justify their expansion, like budgets, beyond the original blueprint justifying their existence.

I cannot force anyone to read this, any more than I can force them to read Andrea Dworkin, Susan Faludi, or actually plow through some of the documentation justifying homogenizing a nation into “Fatherful and Fatherless,” the former being the scapegoat and the latter being the desired state of all children, regardless of where Mama went, or what Papa did to her causing her to go in front of the fatherful children.

But I hope you will. Some things never change, and this type of behavior will seem like “otherwordly” unless you have experienced a variety of it in some other field, like civil rights regardless of gender or marital status.

This expatriate Caucasian/German couple’s “crime” was their success. They were in the “Jim Crow” era of the dairy world in Canada, I suppose.

The owners are Michael and Dorothea Schmidt who purchased Glencolton when they came to Canada from Germany in 1983. Michael Schmidt is an innovator and an activist. He grew up in the Waldorf education system and has a master’s degree in farming. His entire practical training took place on certified organic farms in Germany.

{{I heard that “homeschooling” is illegal now in Germany. In the U.S., some parents who can’t homeschool opt for Waldorf instead, at least as a little less traditional.}}

In 1978 Schmidt started a biodynamic organic dairy farm in southern Germany. This farm became the first certified organic farm with cheese processing facilities and today cheese from this farm is distributed throughout Germany. Three years later, Schmidt helped establish the first biodynamic organic farm in Egypt, supplying breeding stock for dairy cows. Today this Egyptian experiment is a flourishing research center and community farm. In recent years he has helped train Russian farmers in the principles of biodynamic farming and has participated in a research project in China.

Documented success in Germany, Egypt, Russia, and maybe even China. Surely Canada would be open to the idea…

Once in Canada, Michael introduced spelt to North America and participated in joint research projects with Guelph University, offering the farm for annual farm tours for the students from Guelph. He founded OntarBio Organic Farm Products, Inc. and Saugeen Highland meats to market certified organic meat in Canada. He also developed an export market in Europe for about thirty organic farms in Ontario. With the support of the government, he launched the first North American organic baby cereal, SUMMA, with distribution in Canada and the United States. OntarBio was later transformed into a farmers’ cooperative with over eighty members. In 1989, Schmidt helped introduce roadside grazing using 500 to 1000 sheep, for landscaping and to avoid spraying for weeds.

Healthy, Self-sufficient Farms and Cows


The Schmidts’ first cows at Glencolton were black and white Holsteins, the “official” cow of Canada, the breed that produces the most milk and the highest profits in a confinement dairy system. But the Schmidts soon became interested in the Canadienne breed. Descended from the Normandie cow, the Canadienne was the first cow on the North American continent. It is a small cow that can withstand the cold Canadian winters. Her milk is very rich-high in butterfat, lactose and milk solids-making it an ideal milk for cheese.

He sounds like an all-round helpful, intelligent, businesslike kinda guy….even working with some government help, too, and prospering. In some countries, acceptable. But in North AMERICA clearly this spells Trouble, which brings us to the Homogenizing (and Pasteurizing) of Individual Initiatives in FAVOR of Government Regulated Centralized Planning, because the powers that be love us, obviously (take that on faith, if not exactly to the bank…):

Survival of the Fittest

(a.k.a. Worst, Meanest, Dumbest, Most Dishonest,) Institutional Structures to Protect us,


“Why Well-run, Healthy, Self-sustaining Farms and Cows

must be declared a Public Health Hazard, Tarred, Feathered, and Put out of business

(and how this is done)”

NOW, A little biology/banking lessons on cows — bear with me, I’m going to milk the topic for all it’s worth, because it seems clear to me that the desired (US) national landscape is a populace so immature they will constantly be sucking off the government teat, while being taught that their real problem is not enough real men around, which will be fixed by declaring the crisis, scapegoating (alternately, patronizing) the breeders (i.e., female-headed households, “multiple-partner fertility” and poor, particularly black, women on welfare) and trying (thereby) to breed ENTERPRISE out of the country. I call THIS a war on the general populace’s pocketbooks. See, my POV (Point of View) is different. I’m a Mom, although acting on it has become illegal in this country.

Michael’s search for pure breeds sent him to Quebec. The Canadienne is the poor man’s cow. In the early 1900s, government policy forbade grants to farmers who had Canadiennes and no bank would give loans for any breed except Holsteins. Banks love the Holstein, explains Schmidt, because she is expensive to maintain-leading to more bank loans, more debt for the farmer, more worry and more and more emphasis on squeezing the highest level of production out of the original investment. The Canadienne, by contrast, can survive on hay. She has low production but is inexpensive to maintain. In 1987, the Schmidts purchased 12 purebred Canadiennes from a Quebec farmer. Since that time their herd has been closed. They have bred the Canadienne genetics into their original Holsteins, using several Canadienne bulls.

When Michael Schmidt talks about what’s wrong with modern milk production, he begins with a reverent description of the cow. The undomesticated cow produces 1000 to 1500 liters of milk per year. When the cow was domesticated, this amount was increased to about 4000 liters-a number that works out to about 1000 gallons per year-with good nutrition and careful handling.

The cow has four teats which tradition distributes as follows: one for the calf, one for the other animals on the farm, one for the family that lives on the farm and one for families that live in the towns or cities. The output of the cow can be increased to 6000 or even 7000 liters per year without undue stress on the cow and this is as it should be since so many people now live in cities. You can’t keep a cow in a high-rise apartment. Michael Schmidt’s cows are not pushed, however. They give about 4000 liters per year, although the amount varies according to the milker. Europeans hired milkmaids who had lovely singing voices, to coax more milk from the cows and Michael notices that the Glencolton cows give more milk when it’s Dorothea’s turn to do the milking.

But the coaxing songs of the milkmaid cannot compete with modern methods for increasing production. The modern cow, bred for volume and kept in confinement, gives anywhere from 12,000 to 24,000 liters per year. Milk production is pushed upwards with a high protein diet, a diet to which the udder responds with the production of pus. The average life span of the modern factory cow has declined to about 42 months. In fact, she is only bred once, then milked for as long as 600 days. After that, she is shipped off to the butcher. By contrast, the cows at Glencolton Farms are allowed to go dry during the winter and live in excess of 12 years.

I live in California, and from time to time drive by these huge containment lots, where cows are in the open and crowded together by what looks like the thousands, without room to maneuver. You can smell it from far away. One wonders what kind of hormones of stress, if not injected or fed, must be in their bodies, like that. This is compensated for by ads for “Happy Cows” from California, and out of state cows (personified) vying to get here. So what doesn’t go into production, probably DOES go into advertising at least.

Then there is the question of the number of cows in a herd. Currently the Schmidts keep about 30 milking cows in their barn. Confinement operations range from 1000 to as many as 10,000 cows in one location. The high density of a single species makes disease more likely and antibiotics routine. By contrast, the Glencolton cows have had no warble fly for over ten years. Schmidts vet bill for the year 2000 was $500.

Schmidt’s cows feed on lush green pasture from late May to early November. During the winter they receive hay from his own pastures and a supplement of weeds, sticks and herbs, finely ground and all from the farm. He purchases no grain, no feed at all from outside the farm. The modern confinement dairy cow gets all her food shipped in. At best her diet consists of hay and corn; at worst it contains foodstuffs totally unsuited to the cow-bakery waste, soy meal, chicken manure and citrus peel cake loaded with organophosphate pesticides.

There are no old tires on the Schmidts’ farm because Michael does not make silage. Silage is fermented green crop or hay, usually produced in plastic-covered piles, held down by old tires. It’s a well-known fact in Germany, explains Michael, that you can’t make good hard cheese from cows that have been fed silage. In fact, in some districts, such as Emmenthal, silos are forbidden.

The Schmidts’ cows receive water twice a day, at milking time. There are no troughs in the field and none in the main barn-only in the milking parlor. By restricting water, the cow is encouraged to produce more saliva. A cow can produce 30 gallons of saliva per day, and this elixir is the magic substance that breaks down cellulose in grass, twigs and branches.

Good food, high saliva production and small herd size make for superbly healthy cows. The proof, says Michael, is in the manure, which he picks up off the barn floor and shows proudly to visitors. The manure seems to be contained in a silica coating-it is firm and sweet smelling. It also makes wonderful compost.

Obviously this talented couple didn’t really know “what the _ _ C K they were doing as to farms, cows, or grains, and were a hazard to the wider community as will develop later . . . .


Michael and Dorothea’s farm is a biodynamic farm. They follow the guidelines left by the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner who described the farm as a living organism, its vitality created by the effective use of the enlivening forces of sunlight and the symbiosis of the organisms that populate the farm. The basis of biodynamic farming is composted manure and straw, swept out of the stalls at milking time, allowed to break down, then spread on the fields.



The Milk War began in 1994 after the filming of a Canadian Broadcast Company documentary on Glencolton. “It was our own fault,” says Michael. “We should never have agreed to the publicity.” CBC pre-publicity said that the documentary “would shake the entire dairy industry.”

The first battle in the Milk War came two days before the documentary was to be aired. The Owen SoundHealth Unit raided the farm, seizing $800 worth of dairy products. The products were tested to prove that they were unpasteurized but no test was done to find out whether there were any harmful bacteria present. Charges were laid under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. The Owen Sound Health Unit and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board (OMMB) announced that the Schmidts dairy operation was a health threat, but none of the families drinking this risky product was warned by the Ministry of Health that they were consuming something harmful.

In April at a Toronto farmers’ market, officials of the North York Health Unit conducted a raid, supported by two police cruisers, which proceeded to block Michael Schmidt’ van and prevent his leaving. A two-hour search followed but the officials found no dairy products.

Michael’s jury trial occurred in May of 1994. The government argued that raw milk carried all sorts of hazards. Dr. Murray McQuigge claimed that 22 cases of food-borne disease related to the consumption of raw milk had occurred during the past three years. Even farmers who drank raw milk were cited as hazards because they could be carriers of bacteria. One government witness was an undercover agent who had bought butter and milk and had sent a sample to the lab. The results showed high levels of bacteria, but under cross examination it was revealed that the agent had waited six weeks to send in the sample!

The prosecution trotted out all the arguments against raw milk that had been appearing in the Toronto press. Raw milk had no health benefits, said the experts, but was a source of TB, Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, Coxiella (which causes Q fever) Streptococci and Staphylococci. Although cases of contamination with VTEC (verotoxic E. coli) have never been linked to consumption of raw milk, that did not prevent health officials from engaging in guilt by association. Officials also cited death of a Peterborough infant who mysteriously died of meningitis in 1984. A panel of medical experts said that the baby caught the bacteria from another baby in the hospital nursery whose mother drank raw milk during her pregnancy!

Many witnesses for the defense presented evidence that raw milk had proven therapeutic for them. They voiced concerns about the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and bovine growth hormones which, although technically illegal in Canada, are smuggled over the border and used in some herds. A number stated that they were lactose intolerant and unable to consume pasteurized milk. Dr. Ken McAlister, a general practitioner, testified that he had never encountered any health problems among hundreds of patients who consumed raw milk He cited a 400-bed hospital in Germany where raw milk was given as a treatment for many serious diseases. The defense noted that 17 American states and all European countries allow the sale of raw milk and raw milk cheese.

Under cross examination Dr. McQuigge, the government’s chief witness, admitted that TB and brucellosis are rare in dairy herds now and that Salmonella is more likely a cause of contamination in meat or eggs than milk. Meningitis has often been traced to contaminated water supply, as was typhoid and other bacterial diseases. Schmidt’s lawyers forced the health department to retreat to the lame argument that “flying birds over the fields might drop E. coli and contaminate the milk.”

The presiding judge said that the verdict would take four weeks but it actually took four months. During this period, the Schmidts continued to provide raw milk. But in August, 1994, the day before the verdict, Michael came out of his barn to the sight of police cruisers. At the behest of one humorless inspector, the police confiscated milk, butter and cheese. Michael convinced them to dump it rather than take it away so at least the pigs would profit.

After the verdict, in which the Schmidts raw milk was found to be a health hazard, there was a civil trial that charged the Schmidts with seven counts, ranging from mislabeling to resistance to the direction of a health officer.

During this period, other damage occurred on the farm, damage that could not be directly laid to health authorities. Milking machines were destroyed and two cows were found dead. The building that housed the cheese equipment was broken into four times. The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigated with no results. All they could do was warn the Schmidts not to let their daughters walk to school and to “be careful.”

There was one more official raid in which the Owen Sound Health Unit attempted to remove butter from the Schmidts private cooler. A heated exchange between the authorities and Michael ensued. The authorities left without the butter but the Schmidts were punished for defending their own food against confiscation with more charges.

What’s it about? Color, Psychology, Gender, or just Money?

leave a comment »


I’m a little defensive these days at taking issue with Rep. Danny K. Davis, or Ronald B. Quincy, or Wade Horn saying how much he loves families, and children, and THAT’s why inner-city (especially faith-based) initiatives are being targeted to move the HHS policy, namely, regulating our sex lives, childbirths, work lives, and legal system.

URBAN AREAS (who designed ghettoes, by the way?  Who designed where the functional grocery stores were?  Who put together their school systems?  Who determined in individual cities, where the rich folk live?  Poor folk?  (not exactly).  The US Prison system is full of young men of color, yet I don’t see that crime is particular to color.  Just PROSECUTED crime.

Now if the aftermath of (1) slavery and (2) institutions designed to support it, and we must admit that a war was fought over states’ rights to perpetuate slavery (which is an ECONOMIC theme, and color or race just the justification, or even (i hope formerly), scripture) obviously is going to affect a culture’s marital choices, what kind of sense does it make to then BLAME the women for being single and having children without marrying the fathers, to COMPLAIN that a welfare system exists, and then totally revise it to tip the balance the other way?

NONE.   It’s either justice, or profiling.  PICK ONE.  You can’t have both at the same time.  Accordingly, it’s either “manhood” or “personhood.”  Persons come in male and female, and need each other; what we do NOT need is one side dicttating to the other side just to keep order in the room.  “HEALTHY MARRIAGES” are not made in heaven, or conceived in the mind of a Wade Horn or of a Wade Horn whose programs have been conceived in private and promoted in public, once the federal gran stream was set in motion.  HEALTHY MARRIAGES don’t have invisible matchmakers.  Same with healthy SOCIETIES.  They stop making society-altering decisions behind closed doors.  The word “healthy” itself is a value judgment, and should go jump in the lake.

And I do not buy that it’s a left/right issue.

I am a female, non-minority 3rd generation domestic violence survivor with a college education.  I WATCHED my life dismantled up close and participating, and I OBSERVED while in the middle of it who did this in association with whom, and eventually their WHYs surfaced.  They always do.  I am not the same person going in as coming up, except for a few basics which I got, probably from my family (including a deceased father) OUTSIDE the school system.

I have seen school systems public and private, large and small, religious and nonreligious (and worked in a lot of them).  The primary lessons I observed growing up were nothing to do with subject matter and everything to do with values.

The primary values I observed, starting early, were about bullies, gangs, and how a small child must either join one, disappear into the woodwork (or, sometimes for girls, daydreaming) or fight back.  I fought back once for a girlfriend who was being harassed, sexually (about 5th/6th grade level) and was taken on by males & females both, by the entire (very small) school yard (several grade levels) at recess — for weeks, it seemed.  I did some time in a private school: same deal.  I didn’t tell my parents and my siblings didn’t help either.  These were not poor kids or minority kids, they were what KIDS do when in herds and without something better to engage in.   I did some time in a private school: same deal. Eventually, I gravitated to more urban areas to live in, possibly because there were interesting things to do there, and more types of people to associate with than I grew up with.

I went to TheLoop21.com, a blog I read, hoping it might explain from a different perspective how we understand that part of this race thing is economic.  I googled “domestic violence,” and found this article, by a man to a man, and the man blogging also has connections to Columbia.  He is saying, the concept of trying to put black women down LOWER because their men have already been put there isn’t exactly smart.

He has a second blog on the gun issue, which I think I’ll post next.

If I pick on African-American Healthy Marriage Institutes, and highly educated black males, Harvard, Columbia, MIT, etc. (our President just married into Harvard) it’s from the perspective  of an educator with some understanding of the influence Harvard has had on the current school systems, and how they are (under)performing.

And of how when it comes to Black vs. White, there is always a WOMAN somewhere that can symbolically be put in her place.  I hope, some day, that some of these highly-fronted black pastors will get tired of picking up the pieces of the homeless, presiding over funerals of young men AND WOMEN, and the ceaseless need to send chaplains into prisons, and re-prioritize between needing the ASSISTANCE of government, and their own need for tithes to pay mortgages, and do like Jesus did.  NOTICE the woman at the well, and take a NONstandard approach to her.

The governmental plan is a planned society, and “creating jobs” and helping match boys with girls (but not til they’re married), and people with jobs.  It’s failed.  There is also the “theory” that right versus left is going to make a difference.  Not as far as mothers can tell, I assure you.

This reads better on the original link, but I have bolded some sections below.

Let me recommend, first, these two, no, three, books.  None too recent:


He holds degrees in divinity and fine arts. He is well known as a feminist activist and author. He has written a series of books and articles criticizing traditional concepts of manhood or maleness, such as “Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice” (Meridian, 1990), “Why I Stopped Trying to be a Real Man,” [1] and “The End of Manhood: A Book for Men of Conscience” (Dutton, 1993).

{{THIS basically talks about men’s responses to a situation when in a group, as opposed to alone.  When they cater to the group, justice loses.  He also (with humor) characterizes the ideal male, and engages in conversations with him, after reaching the top of the heap.  Masculinity is identified with Hierarchy, so one is NEVER secure on the ladder, no matter where on it one is.  Made sense to me…  In an appendix, or is it preface, he talks about betraying his sister, and relates that she’d commented “it didn’t go down like that” (approximate quote).  Cruelty was involved.}}

He created “the Pose Workshop,” which entailed men adopting the poses that women strike in pornographic shots (intended partly for men attending Christian retreats), a version of which was broadcast on BBC television. He was Andrea Dworkin‘s life partner for thirty-one years. They began living together in 1974; in 1998 they married. He is a founder of the group ‘Men Can Stop Rape’ [2] and developed the group’s ‘My Strength’ [3] campaign which aims to educate young men on sexual relationships, consent and rape. He also creative-directs the group’s ‘My Duty’ [4] sexual-assault-prevention media campaign, which is licensed to the Department of Defense, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. [5]

Stoltenberg is credited with the quote “Pornography tells lies about women. But pornography tells the truth about men.” The quote is from the essay The Forbidden Language of Sex in his book “Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice” (Meridian, 1990).

Below is not a picture of Stoltenberg, but of Andrea Dworkin, his wife, who died at age 58, making Stoltenberg, who is gay, a widower.  I want us to think about the headline here, and whether we really want to continue along nationalizing the canonization of sex roles as MEN are ABC and WOMEN are XYZ (or else).  So far, from men, we have plenty of bad things (rape, pornography, war, theft and slavery and pyschology to rationalize some of the above) and plenty of good things (beautiful buildings, the internet — I THINK this is a potentially good thing still — the Bill of Rights, and some others).  Moreover, they make sex more interesting when they get it right and can be fully present as a PERSON.  Culture isn’t making it easy, but hear tell this happens (my marital experience was too violent outside the sex to allow either him — or for that matter me — to present what we had AS PEOPLE.  It couldn’t bear the weight (“wait’?) of all that junk or redeem it, nor is this what sex is for…)

MAYBE people are just tired of being used, and find different ways to express this and respond to it.  But here’s an article on Andrea Dworkin, and her photo.

The Prisoner of Sex

A victim of abuse as a child, briefly a prostitute as a young woman, Andrea Dworkin married a gay man and spent three decades fighting hypersexualized America. She lost.


Andrea Dworkin, April 20, 1990.

When John Stoltenberg, the widower of the feminist writer and anti-pornography activist Andrea Dworkin, the woman whom Gloria Steinem called the feminist movement’s “Old Testament prophet,” first met his spouse, he remembers feeling “like we had walked off a cliff.” As if the force of their connection had rendered the world weightless beneath his feet. He was 29 and she was 27, and they started talking out on the street in the West Village after they’d both walked out of a benefit for the War Resisters League because they thought the protest songs were sexist. They started spending most of their time together. Dworkin and Stoltenberg both considered themselves gay. “She said, ‘I met someone,’ ” remembers Dworkin’s lifelong agent, Elaine Markson, “ ‘and it’s a man

. . .

Once she found a home for her rage in the anti-pornography sect of the women’s movement, Dworkin became America’s least likely superstar—a kind of inverted sex symbol. There were other feminists who were as zealous in their conviction that pornography was the “undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda,” as Susan Brownmiller once put it, but nobody else could elicit the same disgust and fascination from the public as Andrea Dworkin—they didn’t have her overalls or her anger; they weren’t as big.

. . .

he really would yell at her audiences: “The First Amendment was written by slave traders!”

Dworkin wasn’t big on compromise, and she wasn’t one for looking on the bright side. Much of society is set up specifically to assist people in their process of ignoring the horrors of the world. Dworkin’s agenda was the opposite. She had little sympathy for anyone with too weak a stomach to dwell with her in the darkness. “The worst immorality,” she wrote, “is in living a trivial life because one is afraid to face any other kind of life—a despairing life or an anguished life or a twisted and difficult life.”

Dworkin was molested or raped at around age 9—the details, in her writing, and according to her closest friends, are murky, but something bad happened then. In 1965, when Dworkin was 18 and a freshman at Bennington, she was arrested after participating in a march against the Vietnam War and was taken to the Women’s House of Detention in Greenwich Village, where she was subjected to a nightmarish internal exam by prison doctors. She bled for days afterward; her family doctor looked at her injuries and started to cry. Dworkin’s response to this incident was her first act of purposeful bravery: She wrote scores of letters to newspapers detailing what had happened, and the story was reported in the New York Times, among other papers, which led to a government investigation of the prison. It was eventually torn down, and in its place today is the idyllic flower garden at the foot of the Jefferson Market clock tower on Sixth Avenue.

Like many members of the women’s movement, Dworkin started out as an antiwar activist and found her way to feminism when she became disillusioned with the men of the New Left. . . .

Because she wanted adventure and experience, and because she wanted to escape all the media attention following her battle against the prison, and because her family—her mother in particular—was deeply ashamed that she had been jailed, Dworkin decided to leave Amerika for Europe when she was 19.

More bad things happened there. She ran out of money and turned some tricks. For a time, she had a passionate romance with a man in Crete—“We’re so much joined in the flesh that strangers feel the pain if we stop touching,” she wrote—but somehow she left her beloved perch above the “gem-like surface” of the Aegean and married a Dutchman, an anarchist, who beat the living shit out of her.

Years later, Dworkin’s comrade Susan Brownmiller, the author of the radical feminist classic Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, spoke out against Hedda Nussbaum’s complicity in the murder of her daughter, Lisa Steinberg. In response, Dworkin published a piece in the Los Angeles Times called “What Battery Really Is,” in which she tried to explain her experience—Nussbaum’s too, she asserted. “When I would come to after being beaten unconscious, the first feeling I would have was an overwhelming sorrow that I was alive. I would ask God please to let me die now. My breasts were burned with lit cigarettes. He beat my legs with a heavy wood beam so that I couldn’t walk. I was present when he did immoral things to other people. I didn’t help them. Judge me, Susan.”

IN THIS ONE ARTICLE, ABOVE, I RELATED THINGS THAT ARE THE FREQUENT FABRIC OF THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM, AND WHILE ALL PROFIT OFF THEM, FEW CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE.  Andrea Dworkin pretty perfectly represents the profile of an Adverse Childhood Experience adult; she went from molestation at NINE, to what sounds like sexual assault, to the point of injury, by a prison doctor,  spoke out about it bravely, to leaving the country (family support gone) to prostitution for survival, to being battered, and had enough of heterosexuality.  She was obese, had health issues and died early.  She never had a child.

She was a young white woman who had been attending Bennington, not exactly the urban minority status deprivation profile that Healthy Marriage things are aimed at.  Of course, her experiences predated a lot of this.


She went through hell in the realm of sex, and took hell for protesting it, she left the country being barely an adult, surely without a work life to support her yet.

One thing survivors of some of this kind of abuse have is a sense of justice and valuing it, they fight back for their “personhood” and often make a difference.  They also have a LOT of anger, and justifiably so.  If society (particularly religions society) won’t let it out, it will maybe go in.

Another factor I see in the above account is how, being battered, she stood by while others were hurt, probably for her own survivla.  The anti-feminists who like to say, women are just as violent, might do well to take some of this into account.

A last thing I see is, she had to eat.  It was a MONEY issue.

As to hypersexualized, and mis-use of women, which none of the authors (today) are appreciating, here’s a telling phrase:

Dworkin’s dissection of gender in that book, her assertion that “ ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are fictions, caricatures, cultural constructs . . . reductive, totalitarian, inappropriate to human becoming,” was to Stoltenberg a revelation, and he quoted that passage in a book he published in 1989 called Refusing to Be a Man, which he dedicated to her

The overdefinition of the world (I think I have a blog of this title) tends to violence.  We all need some definitions to navigate life.  But we cannot LIVE outside our own definitions if we don’t sometimes break the boundaries.  I bet there’d be a lot more healthy faith, marriages, and businesses if so many “powers that be” (they are not immutable) would just give it up and allow the rest of humanity a little privacy.  That’s not a friendship, labeling someone else!  That’s not help, and that’s not reality.  The reality is, all of us are capable of change, until perhaps the last breath.  But the capacity for change is not always allowed by the communities we live in.  So, we find other ones.

The need to continue having other kinds of communities is one of THE biggest arguments I can make against the “Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood” funding.  Trying to dominate the discussion beyond legitimate reach, whether pro, or con, has GOT to be a fundamental original sin, if such exists in the world.

I don’t really think that life without sex is healthy.  There’s plenty of indication it’s good for you — but not like Andrea experienced it!  On the other hand, sex minus one’s soul isn’t much better, particularly if nothing from the relationship contributes to the moments.  Such a choice . . . .

(Obesity can become a form of protection from rape, or even “dealing” with men, one can protect onesself, theoretically, with extra flesh.  Also, stress hormones don’t help maintain lean body weight in women.  I was not molested OR battered as a kid, so I can certainly understand Andrea’s size, possibly, from that angle.)

After separation, and once my life became more balanced and healthy, the health followed, and I lost a lot of weight, kept it off a good while, began really enjoying life in my own body again, a major turnaround to regain control of this primary area.  I also experienced loving another human being (adult), which I couldn’t do to a husband that didn’t want my humanity in the marriage, and even the services were always DEMANDED, so it was hard to give anything voluntarily, though ways were found in smaller spheres.

BUT because we had a typical family court order (frequent contact with the father), this was seen, and became an issue, I saw increased escalations, possibly from jealousy (things were said, not just done, indicating this), and after a few years of that, the stress helped put the weight back on.  Clearly I was not “allowed” to have my feminine gender back along with him out of the house.  Large madonna, if separated from him (and bearing the bulk of the responsibility financially and as to parenting) was acceptable — individual functioning in the larger world of work and friends, was NOT.  I paid heavily, and so did my kids and others associated.  That is craziness, to me, to be punished for functioning OK in this world!

And years later, I see who was partially responsible.

OK, BOOK #2:

AND — another side of the same coin, from an orthodox Rabbi who received an award  from the National Fatherhood Initiative.  So, am I balanced, OK?  But his writing has some sense, and sensitivity.  As with other google searches, I initially forgot to include the author’s name, and the title of the book brought up more shocking Schlock, violent and ugly in intent.  Such qualities are spiritual qualities, and they “suck,” to put it bluntly.

This is

Boteach envisions a way to correct this downward spiral — which he sees as far more than just a feminist issue. Now is the time, he says, for men to start respecting women and for women to start respecting themselves. Women must band together and fight back for their rightful place of honor. For anyone who has ever wondered where our popular culture is taking us, HATING WOMEN is at once an electrifying social commentary and a clarion call for change.

He doesn’t deal with economics [of slavery, of women as a class] at all, and is focused more on the popular culture.  Nevertheless, he describes archetypes (all of them negative, male & female), and correctly observes that a woman CAN run her life without a man, if possibly without the drama attached, and at the end of the day, everyone will still be alive, which cannot always be said from the other side.  He talks about the Circle(s) (Feminine) vs. the Lines.  Reminds me of the (broader in scope) The Chalice and the Blade.  Given the warlike and hard character of today’s society, I have to grant there is some truth in the analogies.  Possibly the Fatherhood Initiative appreciated him telling WOMEN they need to MAKE them be better men, if necessary by boycotting sex til they are, nationally etc.

Obviously, he hasn’ been dealing with the family law system, where a man will go get another woman, then go extract the children from the Mom.  Or, vice versa.  In worst case scenarios, the father gets back by having sex with the kids instead.  So how practical is that theory, really, that it’s our responsibility to make men grow up?

Shmuley Boteach makes the wise point that misogyny is the ultimate weapon against the family, the culture, and the spirit. He breathes new life into this feminist point by stating it as a father of girls. Who knew it was to be an orthodox rabbi that would so cleverly critique the dumbing down of the American culture through the attack on female intelligence? I am proud to be his friend.”
– Roseanne Barr

“The next evolutionary leap for humanity will happen with the feminine archetype of our spiritual domain becomes the dominant force that shapes culture and history. This book is an important contribution toward increasing our awareness of this very basic principle.”
– Deepak Chopra

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Over the past decade Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has made a name for himself not only as an author (penning the likes of Kosher Sex and Why Can’t I Fall In Love?) and counsellor, but also as a friend of the stars, hanging out with Michael Jackson and grabbing headlines in the process.

But not any more. Because Rabbi Boteach has turned his back on the celebrity world – and is so concerned about the public’s obsession with stars and their lives that it forms the basis of his latest book The Private Adam. Initially inspired by a sermon he gave at the 1998 Preacher of The Year competition (he came second), the book focuses on how celebrities have been elevated to hero status over more ‘worthy’ role models, and how the balance can be redressed. Rabbi Boteach clearly feels strongly about the issue, and the time he has spent with public figures both on a social and professional level leaves him well qualified to write on the subject.

AND, well, this one, too while I’m at it:

(1991 / 1999)

BACKLASH, being before VAWA or NFI were formed, or President Clinton issued his famous 1995 Executive order, telling ALL federal agencies to revamp themselves to accommodate Fatherhood, has a chapter on WARREN FARRELL and his change from feminist to fatherhood promoter, anecdotal.  This ties into some of the groups NOW BEING PROMOTED (the Mankind Project, New Warriors Training, Robert Bly, etc.) among men, and should be read.

It also has another chapter talking about HOW the DSM board, basically all male  handled feminist and domestic violence issues, narrowly preventing a term about “masochism” from being mainstreamed.   This is far before “Parental Alienation” theory, and after reading that, I realized why Psychology is simply Reframing Reality Conveniently, and should not be practiced as a national policy.  NB:  The newly reformed Warren Farrell (who I’ve blogged already, plenty, and so have others) works through A.P.A. (psychological) organizations.  It’s an eyeopener, for sure.

  • In her 1999 book Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man Faludi analyzes the state of the American man. Faludi argues that while many of those in power are men, most individual men have little power. American men have been brought up to be strong, support their families and work hard. But many men who followed this now find themselves underpaid or unemployed, disillusioned and abandoned by their wives.
  • {{True, but an inferior character of man responds to this by wife-beating, which is also a cause of men not having women around.  We have not in this answered the question of where responsibility for behavior lies.  I say, the only proper place for it is in the individual.  Those setting policy and in the topmost echelon (this includes foundations, remember, not just legislators) think otherwise and have a designed a society that communicates its distrust of the individual from the TOP throughout the system.  It couldn’t have done this without the IRS and the progressive income tax, collecting I presume billions from people who already have employers interest in profit margins staying high.  But that’s another topic.  I should get this book, and will.}}
  • Changes in American society have affected both men and women, Faludi concludes, and it is wrong to blame individual men for class differences, or for plain differences in individual luck and ability, that they did not cause and from which men and women suffer alike.[2]

Her bio (wikipedia):

Faludi was born to a Jewish family in Queens, New York in 1959 and grew up in Yorktown Heights, New York. Her mother was a homemaker and journalist and is a long-time New York University student. Her father is a photographer who had emigrated from Hungary, a survivor of the Holocaust. She graduated from Harvard University in 1981, where she wrote for The Harvard Crimson, and became a journalist, writing for The New York Times, Miami Herald, Atlanta Journal Constitution, San Jose Mercury News, and The Wall Street Journal, among other publications. Throughout the eighties she wrote several articles on feminism and the apparent resistance to the movement. Seeing a pattern emerge, Faludi began to write Backlash, which was released in late 1991. She lives with fellow author Russ Rymer.

Susan Faludi.JPG

Unlike orthodox Rabbi Boteach, who now has nine children and was raised in Los Angeles and Florida, and is known more as a public commentator (and author), Susan Faludi is first generation post-Holocaust, a Pulitzer prize-winner and journalist.  Any children are not mentioned here.

By contrast, His wikipedia bio is short, and doesn’t even mention a mother (hmm….):

Born in Los Angeles, California, Boteach grew up in Florida. Boteach’s father was an Iranian Jew from Isfahan.

While Faludi was in the U.S. in the 1980s, writing about feminism and observing it, the Rabbi was sent to to Oxford to start student groups.  He is younger, and from a different part of the world (Iran vs. Hungary), and has attached more to celebrities and radio than books and journalism.

Finally (and this is where the blog started — I get long intros, for sure…), Marc Lamont, younger yet, and blogging, but still associated with Columbia University.  A wordpress blog describes him:

I must admit that I am a big Marc Lamont Hill fan, a professor of African-American Studies and Education at Columbia University; he is an intellectual; he has a certain “sense” of vitality and cockiness that I like. Moreover, he is smart and realizes it, especially when dealing with pundits that make various contentions predicated on pure emotions — as was the case the other day by Bill O’Reilly on The factor. Their debate centered around race and politics. And more, it dealt specifically with matters regarding the Tea Party and the New Black Panthers…. Both of these groups deal with complex issues of race, but the Tea Party tends to be more covert than that of the panthers.

And the Columbia Bio

Professional Background

Associate Professor of English Education

Educational Background

Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania; B.S. Temple University

Scholarly Interests
Anthropology of Education. African American Literacies. Masculinity. Public and Counter-Public Pedagogy. Youth Cultural Studies. Neo-Liberalism. Globalization. Ethnographic Theory.

Marc Hill

Faludi:  Born 1959; Boteach — born 1966; Hill — born 1978.  OK

This letter, below, although addressing a different topic, makes more sense to me than any hyperbolized attenuated social science theory propagated by Wade Horn, and friends (black or white) in various places (Washington, at universities, or at church-sponsored conferences).  Don’t they realize, this population is being FRONTED to pass socialization policies that are going to hurt ALL CULTURES AND ECONOMIC CLASSES except the MOST elites, of any country, and those serving their agenda?

An open letter to Slim Thug How much more “down” do you want Black women to be?”

By: Marc Lamont Hill (Add to your loop)

Wed, 06/09/2010 – 00:11 0

Slim Thug made some very untrue and hurtful comments about Black women. In a recent interview, rapper Slim Thug unleashed a very disturbing attack on Black women, here’s an excerpt: …Most single Black women feel like they don’t want to settle for less. Their standards are too high right now. They have to understand that successful Black men are kind of extinct. We’re important. It’s hard to find us so Black women have to bow down and let it be known that they gotta start working hard; they gotta start cooking and being down for they man more. They can’t just be running around with their head up in the air and passing all of us.

I have a brother that dates a White woman and he always be fucking with me about it saying, ‘Y’all gotta go through all that shit [but] my White woman is fine. She don’t give me no problems, she do whatever I say and y’all gotta do all that arguing and fighting and worry about all this other shit.’… While many people dismissed it as a publicity stunt or the rant of an ignorant rapper, I felt compelled to respond to him in the form of an open letter.

Slim, A few days ago, you made comments in Vibe magazine that have caused a great deal of controversy. While I appreciate your willingness to offer your opinion in public, you made several statements that were not only unfair and untrue, but deeply damaging to our community. Normally, I would reach out to you privately, but since your comments were made in a very public place, I feel compelled to respond in the same manner.

A Black woman’s say on the Slim Thug debate As an artist who is respected by millions of fans, particularly young ones, I found your comments to be hurtful and irresponsible. For good or for bad, our children follow the lead of you and other artists for everything from fashion and slang to self-esteem, body image and relationships. Imagine how a young black girl feels to hear from you, her role model, that her “standards are too high” and that she should “bow down” and “settle for less.” Consider the pain that our beautiful brown skinned babies feel when Yung Berg says he doesn’t date “dark butts.” Think about the self-esteem of our community when Nelly refers to our mothers, sisters, and daughters as “Tip Drills.”

As celebrities, your public comments are not just your own. Instead they influence the choices, beliefs, and lives of an entire generation of young people who look to you for direction. Of course, you have every right to say things that you think are true. The problem, however, is that there was very little truth in your comments. In your interview, you talk about how much better white women treat their partners than black women. If what you’re saying is true, why do Whites have the highest divorce rate of any group? Do white men get tired of being treated like kings?

In reality, it seems that you are buying into (and selling) a stale but dangerous ideal that constructs White women as ultra-feminine, loving, queens, and Black women as angry, selfish, and untrustworthy hoes. Even more disturbing was your comment that “Black women gotta start being down for their man more.”

Since slavery, Black women have had to withstand rape, torture, and humiliation (from both white and black men) in order to sustain their families. Now, in 2010, 1 in 3 Black men between 20 and 29 years old are incarcerated or otherwise under criminal supervision. Every day, Black women are raising children without men in the house, working multiple jobs (for less pay!), and supporting brothers as they finish their prison bids.

With Black male unemployment as high as 50 percent in some cities, sisters are often holding down households without child support or other financial assistance. Black female incarceration rates are skyrocketing, partly because Black women are “riding” for their men, hiding guns and drugs, operating as mules, and refusing to snitch to authorities.

In addition, Black women are the group most likely to be victims of domestic violence and the least likely to be married. Still, in spite of all this bad news, Black women are less likely to date outside their race than Black men. How much more “down” do you want Black women to be?

Let’s focus on what’s right in the lives of Black women I agree with you that both brothers and sisters have work to do. Over the last year, we’ve seen countless TV shows, movies, and bestselling books telling Black women how broken they are, how ugly they are, why they don’t have a man, and how they need to behave. Instead of adding to this pile of pain and ignorance, I would encourage you to turn the mirror on yourself. How does the image of the pimp/player/baller/dopeboy promoted in your music help to create the “gold diggers” that you badmouth in your interviews?

How might your own admitted failures at monogamy undermine the type of loyalty that you find missing in Black women? Criticizing the vulnerable is easy. Working on yourself is the difficult part.

I hope you don’t take this letter as an attack, but as an act of concern and love from one brother to another. Through your fame and wealth, you have tremendous power. You can use it to hurt or to heal, to injure or to inspire. The world is watching. What will you do?

Your Brother, Marc Lamont Hill Marc Lamont Hill is

Associate Professor of Education at Columbia University. He blogs regularly at MarcLamontHill.com. He can be reached at marc@theloop21.com.



Dr. Marc Lamont Hill is one of the leading hip-hop generation intellectuals in the country. His work, which covers topics such as hip-hop culture, politics, sexuality, education and religion, has appeared in numerous journals, magazines, books, and anthologies. Dr. Hill has lectured widely and provides regular commentary for media outlets like NPR, Washington Post, Essence Magazine, and New York Times. He is currently a political contributor for Fox News Channel, where he appears regularly on programs such as The O’Reilly Factor, Huckabee, and Hannity. Prior to joining Fox News, Dr. Hill was a regular guest on CNN, MSNBC, and CourtTV. A nationally syndicated columnist, his writing appears weekly in Metro Newspapers. His award-winning daily blog is updated on his website, www.MarcLamontHill.com.

In Fall 2009, he join(ed) the faculty of Columbia University as Associate Professor of Education at Teachers College. He will also hold an affiliated faculty appointment in African American Studies at the Institute for Research in African American Studies at Columbia University.

OK, Here’s Jesus (by the way, I bet Jesus was black, at least by European standards.  Egypt is, after all, part of Africa, and he went down there with his parents (sic) to hide, earlier Moses (coming out) was mistaken for an Egyptian also.  There are certain places in United States where I wouldn’t blend in too well, but apparently they did.  Most of us tend to reflect a good portion of ourselves onto others, but sometimes this really gets out of hand.

ANYHOW, as recorded, HE was NOT a good role model.  He had a profession, but was not employed in it.  He didn’t have the right credentials (academic initiation) and MOST of all, he was not a landowner, a business owner, a husband, or a father.  In our day  he might have been considered a  burden to society, on this basis alone.  To be in the Sanhedrin, you had to have a wife & kids, so he didn’t qualify there.  Maybe, had He lived longer, He might’ve had kids.  Or seen the destruction of Jerusalem in his lifetime, after having become a landlowner, father, and respected member of the community.

If so, maybe then we wouldn’t have to deal with all this Fatherhood Crap and pay for it, too, as if it was His idea, when one of his later comments, protesting the divisive legalism of RIGHT (codified and interpreted from above) vs. THEM, which had this man hauling (without gender discrimination) “men and women” out of their homes and put into jail, later writing:

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ (NOTE the voluntary character, there?)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female (he just there hit the prime distinctions of his time, AND OURS:  “bond” refers to indentured servants, i.e., slavery)

for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

(Galatians 3)

One has to kinda respect comments like that one.

There is always plenty of bloodshed going around, usually in the name of God, or some justice, or some theory.  But these are the words of an “elite” zealot who TURNED, and did some cultural migrations, before which he had been responsible for murders in the name of his religion, from what we can tell.

Nowadays we take things much too literally, in this culture, the figurative and parables were understood.  “Christ” represents the word “anointed” and something spiritual, good, and transformative received from God, something eternal, something that has closer to a pure quality of concern for others than any program ever will.  It also required of those who received it, change of attitude as exemplified by change of behavior (and NOT vice versa!)

Such kinds of beliefs ALWAYS shake up the economic situation, which is generally based on USE of people, and extracting things from them to keep the machinery going.

And like I pointed out before, Jesus was crucified and (now, though it’s commonly understood, I think) Paul was eventually beheaded in a Roman prison, or certainly died there.

We are currently living in a highly managed, and intentionally so, society.  WHERE PEOPLE ARE is becoming more and more stratified, and where they can work, also.  This is most definitely turning parasitic, and until we begin to understand it in some new light which is NOT based on force, and NOT based on institutionalizing others, but personally CHANGING and SERVING (in person) by living with the people one teaches (versus delegating others to do this, and extracting finances from the larger group to carry out delegated programs) . . .

it’s going to get worse before it gets better.  People are fired up about causes, but they have lost something vital as to HEART in dividing up the world so neatly. Others, experiencing the downside of this, are struggling not to lose HEART to simply survive and find a meaning in it.

It is indeed a STIFF, HARD, STRANGE and BEAUTIFUL WORLD, and with some luck, chaos, chance, fortune or the simple weight of the superstructure collapsing the thing, will lead to some change for those who survive the collapse.  I hope this includes my offspring, and I’d like to be there also.

(well, another 6,000 word post, what can you say?  I write because I am?  Writing helps speak me into existence?  Will blogs outlive people?  Though this isn’t a “fatherhood initiative,” will it bear some fruit and propagate after someone tastes it?

(That’s not my responsibility; I just write!)

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 20, 2010 at 1:50 pm

White Guy Helps African American Marriages until He jumps ship on HHS….

with one comment

I’m resisting (almost) the temptation to call this post “Wade” in the Water, as it features the National Fatherhood INitiative, now I’m in HHS, oops now I’m NOT” guy helping African Americans talk about themselves. This is obviously a grassroots movement.

It would be filed next to “Wade Horn jumps ship,” so the water analogy is maybe appropriate.

(See below)

Bio Sketches of Presenters from the “Connecting Marriage Research to Practice Conference

African American Healthy Marriage Initiative Conference

Presented by the Administration for Children and Families and held at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Friday Center

September 12–14, 2006

Wade Horn—Since his 2001 unanimous confirmation by the U.S. Senate as the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Wade F. Horn has provided strategic leadership for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), overseeing a $47 billion budget and 65 programs that serve vulnerable children, youth and families. #

Among Dr. Horn’s achievements in implementing President George W. Bush’s policy initiatives include increasing the effectiveness of Head Start and early childhood education programs, promoting positive youth development and building partnerships with community and faith-based organizations in delivering social services to the poor.

He has also advanced the President’s agenda for reauthorizing the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform legislation by incorporating responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage services into the broad array of ACF programs. Also under his watch, ACF launched a mentoring program for children of incarcerated parents and a public awareness campaign to help rescue and restore victims of human trafficking.

Most recently, Dr. Horn has helped to spearhead the Department’s strategic response to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, ensuring the continued delivery of human services to displaced Gulf Region families. #

Dr. Horn’s results-oriented leadership as a federal official reflects a life-long commitment to the well-being of children, which he has demonstrated as a husband, father, child psychologist, college professor and public policy expert. Dr. Horn was president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, where he pursued a creative strategy using public awareness campaigns, research findings and conferences to encourage and support involved, committed and responsible fatherhood. He also was an adjunct professor of public policy at Georgetown University and an affiliate scholar of the Hudson Institute. #

In addition to having published numerous articles, essays and books, Dr. Horn has served on national panels, boards and commissions including the National Commission on Children, the National Commission on Childhood Disability and the U.S. Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators. But among his many accomplishments, Dr. Horn is most proud of his marriage since 1977 to his wife, Claudia, and his two grown daughters, Christen and Caroline.

Less than a year later,

this news on ALTERNET, a site concerned about civil liberties issues, or so it says:

The Bush administration’s point man for conservative — and often morality-driven — social policy, such as abstinence-only sex education, has resigned. But only time will tell whether his programs remain federal policy.

Last month’s resignation of Wade Horn, former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and point man for conservative social policy, came just as support was crumbling and mistrust mounting for a costly and, many would argue, unsuccessful initiative — abstinence education.

“At this point we’ve spent more than a billion dollars on this program that was never proven in the first place,” said Heather Boonstra, public policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization specializing in reproductive health issues.

Horn left government in early April for a private-sector position at Deloitte Consulting LLP after heading the Administration for Children andFamilies (ACF), a division of HHS. There, Horn shepherded a host of contentious initiatives, for example: marriage promotion for poor women as an anti-poverty strategy, reduced access to higher education for welfare recipients, standardized testing of low-income preschoolers, programs to strengthen fatherhood by pushing matrimony and relationship skills, and chastity for 19- to 29-year-olds.

Many of these policies had come under fire over the years from members of Congress, feminists and advocates of low-income families — increasingly so in Horn’s final months at HHS. But it was Horn’s approach to sex education, with its prime emphasis on virtue, that drew the most opposition and suffered the most discrediting setbacks in the form of political defection and unfavorable research findings.

Did he miss a step after jumping ship? Probably not. After all, when it says in Genesis, “go forth and multiply,” if this cannot be down by sowing one’s biological wild oats (not if one is going to practice what one preaches re: marriage, and abstinence outside of it…), one can certainly “father” and “found” a lot of replicating fatherhood organizations, and set a system in place that they learn how to clone themselves, interbreeding with federal agencies, nonprofits, and faith-based institutions.

That’s why I say, we’re still “Wading in the Water” over this issue, only it ain’t water.

Perhaps he’d do better to think about more arts in the schools, giving kids something better to do than, well, fail to be ‘ABSTINENT” inbetween classes or after school. Butg how can we do that with the millions going to indoctrination about sex (and how not to engage in it) and marriage (and how to stay married even if it “kills” you or whatever things you were inspired to do outside the home)

Great Performances: Free To Dance – Biographies – Alvin Ailey

The Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater (AAADT) began as a repertory company of seven a ceremony of ritual baptism (“Wade in the Water“), a moment of


If you’ve not, somehow, seen this performance, or dance company, I’ll give you a hint. It’s a LOT more interesting than listening to sociologist discuss how to fix the broken system and playing matchmaker.
I’m being flippant, but the fact is, NYT Front page (TODAY) spells out how the Federal Goverment Jobs training program is a bust, for young people AND for middle-agers. Want to see? it?

Which just goes to show how smart it is to ask the originators of Abstinence Education and No Child Left Behind for more smart help:

  • Don’t want a job, even at Wal-Mart (see class action suit based on sex discrimination)? Join a federally based job training program.
  • Want a job? Figure out how to research unemployment, preferably with a conservative faith-based foundation that is GOING to get it right, one of these days.

Seriously, the extended family that writes policy briefs and conferences together, STAYS together.

The rest of us had better learn to pray, for real this time.

Who Submitted Statements re H.R. 2979 Fatherhood Funding?

leave a comment »

(Continuing on the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood Funding, from testimony at the HOUSE.GOV site. (searching “Julia Carson”)


The FOLLOWING individuals, some on behalf of their organizations, made “statements of record” between the time of the June 17, 2010 hearing and the cutoff for submitting statements on-line, which I believe was July 1, 2010.

  • American Humane Association
  • Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood
  • PAIRS Foundation
  • American Mothers Political Party
  • AngelFury.org
  • Anita Barnes
  • Dr. Alan Hawkins, Brigham Young University
  • California Healthy Marriages Coalition 1 (“CHMC” for this post)
  • California Healthy Marriages Coalition 2
  • Center for Family Policy & Practice (Search — I have posted before).
  • Center for Urban Families
  • Child Find of America Inc.
  • Community Endeavors Foundation
  • COPES, Inc.
  • Families in Crisis, Inc.
  • Fatherhood and Marriage Leadership Institute
  • Gail Lakritz
  • Goodwill – Easter Seals Minnesota
  • Greg Eckenrode
  • Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute
  • Linder Battershall
  • Male Empowerment Network Inc.
  • Mariz Zwiefka
  • Mothers of Lost Children – Indianapolis
  • National Fatherhood Initiative
  • National African American Drug Policy Coalition I
  • National Alliance for Family Court Justice
  • National Center for Fathering
  • Nurturing Father’s Program
  • Nurturing Father’s Program, Study 1
  • Ohio Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families
  • Dr. Philip Cowan, Supporting Father Involvement Project
  • Randi James
  • Relationship Research Foundation, Inc.
  • Renovando Familias
  • Rights for Mothers Group
  • Ruth Whipple
  • Sacramento Healthy Marriages Project
  • Technical College System of Georgia-Fatherhood Program
  • Teen-Aid, Inc.
  • Texas Coalition for Healthy Families
  • Dr. Jennifer Baker, The School of Professional Psychology at Forest Institute
  • VA EQUAL Parents
  • VOW Family Champions
  • Warren County Center for the Family
  • YouandMe.We
  • ICF International
  • Northwest Family Services
  • The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy
  • Patty Howell, California Healthy Marriages Coalition

It should be immediately obvious that some of them have a vested interest in continuing their own programs. We all have a “vested interest” in knowing more than anecdotal evidence whether its purpose (reducing welfare, helping kids) was accomplished

CHMC is one of the largest, I already blogged them.


Any of these can be blogged, and their statements read (My electronics won’t, for some reason…


Here’s the statement from the Committee on Ways and Means’ Blog, from Danny K. Davis, sponsoring it (I gather):

Rep. Danny Davis Discusses Responsible Fatherhood Programs
June 17, 2010 12:47 PM |

-by Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL)

Davis Bio Pic.JPG

There is broad agreement that fathers matter in the upbringing of children. Studies show that children raised in the absence of a father are more likely to live in poverty. Children whose fathers interact with them on a regular basis in such daily activities as helping with homework, enjoying recreational opportunities and sharing meals have higher self-esteem and are better learners.

{{cites, please? Who funded the studies {{see earlier posts…}}? Are mothers simply incompetent? This is now the common rhetoric breathed in these economically cloistered circles.}}
Children raised in the absence of a father are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as early sexual activity, as well as drug and alcohol abuse.
Statistics demonstrate that boys raised in fatherless homes are more likely to become violent. Fathers’ positive involvement in their children’s lives and men’s positive involvement in their communities are irreplaceable contributions to the strength of our nation.
No one argues that there is any one model of family structure

Since 1996, actually that argument has been made, and millions of $$ poured into it. Probably the committee already knows this. I figure this is a pro forma statement.
but the elimination of government barriers to healthy relationships and healthy marriages,
The Government taketh away (taxes), the government giveth back (welfare to single mothers who left violent relationships, or didn’t marry, or couldn’t eke out a living in this culture while also getting their kids educated); oops the government didn’t realize this policy of going after child support might [piss off or alienate or further impoverish] the fathers, so without admitting its oversight aloud, the government giveth back in the form of matchmaking services and relationship counseling, using our money, of course ??

Blessed be the name of the Government.

Am I the only one who thinks this isn’t really funny ? What is this, thought-conditioning?
the promotion of cooperative parenting skills and the fostering of economic stability and the provision of incentives to non-custodial parents to fulfill financial and emotional support responsibilities are clearly in the interests of millions of children.
(By THE WAY, “noncustodial parents” in effect means fathers. adding the word “parent” in there is a deliberate distraction. Custody itself is an interesting term, and comes from the realm of jail…)

(The Government, having gotten so inbetween employer and employee, between parents and children (Dept. of Educ.), and between husband and wife, or father and mother, has so demotivated MOST of us to act intelligently or sometimes even THINK without prior permission from the Government, now is seeking to drum up some activity (legal) and replace [previously reduced by the government] INCENTIVES for — one half the parent population, only, the father side. This is being done for the good of “our” children.” )
Or it could also be called:
MY POINT IS, SO STOP SWINGING TO THAT TUNE AND LOOK UP AT WHO’S CALLING OUT THE COUNTS AND NAMING THE ISSUES. and Men, who are good at segmenting the issues (supposedly), and separating consciousness into different parts, need to consult with women (and progressives with conservatives, etc.) when it comes to noticing that the level of open, sensible, LOGI AL debate has gone through the basement while the debt has gone through the ceiling.

Soon, it may not matter who was right, if there’s more social scientists than farmers, and some other country calls in the debt and we are no longer the breadbasket to the world…. However, men (and Congress IS still mainly men) need to listen when MOM — that mythical being whose archetype doesn’t even make it, almost, onto the white house’s ISSUES page by name, says . . . .

. . . Boys, the clock is ticking on this kind of thinking, kind of like the national debt. See (2006 date) stuffworks/money.”:

Public Debt

and the Economy

national debt clock
The National Debt Clock at 1133 Avenue of the Americas and 44th Street, March 26, 2006, in Manhattan.

The public debt is the same as the national debt and the deficit. All of these terms calculate the difference between the amount of money the government takes in each year in taxes and investments and the amount the government spends. The United States public debt is currently well over $9 trillion. (You can look up the exact public debt at the ­U.S. Bureau of Public Debt­.) In 2006, the interest alone on the national debt cost U.S. taxpayers $405 billion


Who Owns the National Debt?

The top foreign purchasers of U.S. debt are:

  1. Japan
  2. China
  3. UK­
  4. Oil exporting countries

(now let’s review: WHOSE kids are these Responsible Fatherhood is rescuing? “Ours”? I guess the Congressmen must be independently wealthy, unlike the rest of “U.S.” because at this rate, their asse(t)s appear to be in hock to other nations. (See my blog on Independence, Fatherhood and Debt — they ARE related topics…))


I am technically challenged because of financial challenges, ongoing, through year after year of custody issues — to get to functional internet. This one saves slowly (sometimes it takes 30 seconds for a save) and today, I lost a whole segment from another cite showing Rep. Davis, in 2002, (photograph, too), participated in a CORONATION CEREMONY for Rev. Sun Myung Moon in a U.S. Senate Building. When confronted on this, he was unapologetic. We are not a monarchy here, yet, and we had best, as CITIZENS, stop acting like SUBJECTS, and let our REPRESENTATIVES know that talking about us behind our backs as if we were a SUBSTANCE to be manipulated (which is exactly how social scientists talk) is UNACCEPTABLE.


DIGRESSION to cover the 2004 CORONATION of The Parent to the World, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, as reported by Chicago Tribune Op Ed Columnist, Eric Zorn.

I already like this guy Zorn; he admits up front his blog is “observations reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order.” (my kinda writing. You have to love what you do . . . . )

The problem is when the tirades, or rhetoric, IS taken seriously by those dispensing it. This one dates from Nov. 2008 and context is, whether Mr. Davis was going to replace Senator Obama:

The flippant response when confronted on this regal behavior is disturbing. It’s disturbingly similar to the marriage rhetoric, and we might want to explore whether the Messianic thinking has gone a little too far in in Federal Circles. . . . . . the U.S. is NOT a monarchy; the Constitution doesn’t allow our leaders to receive titles of nobility or dispense them either. (See “Obama Obeisance link,” if it’s still active, to the right.

This is so “beyond” the faith-based cooperation that’s disturbing a lot of us — take a look at this:

Can Danny Davis’ Star rise with a Moon in the Way?

In promoting himself as a candidate to succeed Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate, U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D-Chicago) seems to be hoping the public has forgotten his participation in a very creepy 2004 “coronation” ceremony in Washington for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his wife.

As I wrote at the time, Davis was an active assistant (see this photo via Rich Miller) in pageantry designed to burnish and inflate the reputation of a man who, divine or not, wants to abolish Western-style democracy, compares gay people to dung-eating dogs, and in exhorting Jews to convert and follow him, told them: “You have to repent. Jesus was the King of Israel. Through the principle of indemnity, Hitler killed 6 million Jews.”

From the archives, here’s my column on that event and the Tribune editorial that followed:

Lawmaker’s take on Moon fete is crowning oddity
June 20, 2004

The most disturbing thing is not that U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D.-Ill.) attended an elaborate coronation ceremony in Washington for the controversial Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his wife.

And it’s not that Davis took an active role in the ceremony, carrying to the dais on a velvet pillow one of the jeweled crowns that were placed upon the heads of the robed Moons.

[Photo from a  blog, not the news article:


{{Back to the Washington Post Article:}}

More than half a dozen other congressmen and senators also were in attendance, according to several reports, including one in the Washington Times, a newspaper Moon owns.

The event took place March 23 in the Dirksen Senate Office Building under the banner of the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace, a Moon-led organization.

“People crown kings and queens at homecoming parades all the time,” Davis said when I called him Friday to ask for his thoughts now that the story, which had been incubating for months in Web logs, has gathered momentum. “We do a lot of things in our society that are simply symbolic.”

Davis said it was his understanding that the crowns represented the Moons’ achievements as “true parents, both to their own children and I guess to lots of children and other people. I think they were being feted for their promotion of parenthood, of family values and family traditions.”

That’s quite a thought. In its heyday, Moon’s cultlike Unification Church was famous for separating adherents from their families and promoting mass arranged marriages that violated American family traditions.

Be afraid.  Be VERY afraid.  Where are Lily Tomlin, Chris Rock, Roseanne, Robin Williams, George Carlin, ANY comedians, when you need them?  Rep. Davis  doesn’t seem to “get” the message that this message is marching to an entirely different beat than our Constitution.

And the “Crown of Peace” honor that Moon in effect bestowed upon himself that day in the federal office building was no mere Good Daddy prize.

As he made clear toward the end of his speech to the gathering, Moon believes himself to be “God’s ambassador, sent to Earth with his full authority.

He said, “I am sent to accomplish his command to save the world’s 6 billion people, restoring them to heaven with the original goodness in which they were created.”

Moon went on to tell the gathering in simultaneously translated Korean that he’s been in communication with the spirits of Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Lenin and “the founders of five great religions,” and that these men and other notables have unanimously “declared to all heaven and Earth that Rev. Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity’s savior, messiah, returning lord and true parent.”

Rep. Davis said: “I think he was simply saying that he’s a promoter of a message and that he thinks his message of peace and world peace make sense, not that he’s a messiah in the traditional sense.”

It’s disturbing that Davis, who has spoken and appeared at numerous other Moon-sponsored gatherings in his seven years in Washington, would have missed the plain assertion in Moon’s speech, an assertion Moon has made frequently and that Davis says conflicts with his own Christian beliefs. But it’s not the most disturbing thing.

No, the most disturbing thing is that, to this day, Davis expresses no regret about assisting in the pageantry designed to burnish and inflate the reputation of a man who, divine or not, wants to abolish Western-style democracy, compares gay people to dung-eating dogs, and in exhorting Jews to convert and follow him, told them: “You have to repent. Jesus was the King of Israel. Through the principle of indemnity, Hitler killed 6 million Jews.”

WOW.  Some of the fast backpedaling over this event (which I missed.  I was dealing locally with issues regarding child support, child visitation, and in general increasing job losses from a very poorly written (and unenforced) custody order at the time . . . . ) is phenomenal.  Appa-rently even some of Washington’s finest felt they had to explain their endorsement by attendance in this event . . . .

The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception
Lawmakers Say They Were Misled

By Charles Babington and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 23, 2004; Page A01

More than a dozen lawmakers attended a congressional reception this year honoring the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in which Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be “reborn as new persons.”

. . .
The event’s organizers flew in nearly 100 honorees from all 50 states to receive state and national peace awards. The only “international crown of peace awards” went to Moon and his wife.

Some Republicans who attended the event, including Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), said they did so mainly to salute the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning newspaper owned by Moon’s organization. “I had no idea what would happen” regarding Moon’s coronation and speech, Bartlett said yesterday.

But a key organizer — Archbishop George A. Stallings Jr., pastor of the Imani Temple, an independent African American Catholic congregation in Northeast Washington — said Moon’s prominent role should have surprised no one. He said a March 8 invitation faxed to all lawmakers stated that the “primary program sponsor” would be the “Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace (IIFWP), founded by Rev. Dr. and Mrs. Sun Myung Moon, who will also be recognized that evening for their lifelong work to promote interfaith cooperation and reconciliation.” The invitation was signed by Davis and the Rev. Michael Jenkins, as co-chairmen of the IIFWP (USA).

The event’s co-sponsors were the Washington Times Foundation, the United Press International Foundation, the American Family Coalition, the American Clergy Leadership Conference and the Women’s Federation for World Peace, according to the invitation. Stallings, a former Roman Catholic priest who was married in Moon’s church, said Moon’s association with those organizations is well known.

“You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not know that any event that is sponsored by the Washington Times . . . could involve the influence, or the potential presence, of the Reverend Moon,” he said.

Use of the Dirksen building requires a senator’s approval. Dayton said he gave no such permission, and Stallings said the question of who did so is “shrouded in mystery.”

Moon has claimed to have spoken in “the spirit world” with all deceased U.S. presidents, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and others. At the March 23 event, he said: “The founders of five great religions and many other leaders in the spirit world, including even Communist leaders such as Marx and Lenin . . . and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons.”

Back to MY Digression:

We cannot stop the multiple foundations funding the government, which I have a come to realize probably own most of the figureheads in Washington more than we want to accept. I certainly think President Obama is plenty intelligent, and I notice, being lean, he’s probably at least as healthy as any preceding president, particularly former President Clinton. However, it’s also known that prior to election, the Obamas were the 10th richest congressmen around. These Congresspeople’s wealth includes wealth and/or assets from spouses as well. Given that, being raised by a single parent or not, there are certain differences from “the rest of us” which skin color doesn’t compensate for. The Healthy marriage Fatherhood Movement was supported by Bush AND Clinton AND even moreso, Obama. What this movement really represents, as far as I can tell, is a centralized government under the pretense of a more Healthy Nation.

Everyone (but “everyone”) knows of the Health Care debate. Too few of those not involved in it know about the extent and far-reaching consequences of the Healthy MARRIAGE debate. It doesn’t make headlines (family wipeouts DO, but they are not generally traced to this doctrine).

Nor do newspapers, also owned by SOMEONE, necessarily point the finger at the hands that feed them, and say, this waste is KILLING us financially, as well as physically.

While my blogs don’t read so smooth, or look so neat, I still will continue keeping the debate going, among fellow-bloggers and on-line, while I can spare the time to do so. The trail tells us a whole lot we didn’t learn in school, often, and what was “going down” while some of us were minding our own business, meaning, “families” and “jobs.”

I could’ve picked on another representative. However, Rep. Davis DID lead out on this bill. It’s not about individuals, but the whole language of this movement DOES smack of government playing parent to the nation, paternalistic talk, and in circles far removed from the situation.

WHEN WE FILE IN COURT, WE ARE NOT TEMPTED TO THINK OF COLUMBIA, PRINCETON, HARVARD, CORNELL, UNIV. OF PA, UNIV. OF MICHIGAN, AND THINK TANKS, PLUS JOSHUA DuBOIS ADVISING PRES. OBAMA (see top pdf, the Kirk Harris download shows a US map of all the fatherhood programs, and the title of the map refers to a webinar run by J. DuBois, i.e., faith-based initiative.


Unlike many programs that are being cut back substantially, THESE are not, it seems. They’ve been going on undercover (not in the press) for over a decade, so that when a person hits the court (she) takes a hit in the gut, the emotional/financial, etc. gut. WHY? Because of the involvement through the child support agencies.

The extra “Pow!” of the punch comes from the involvement of socialistic social service programs’ intent to put Dads back in the hoome. Well, how can this be done? By tipping the balance, working behind the scenes, pushing mediation (I’ll review in another post soon) and talking in comes of OUTCOMES, not PROCESS. Information is withheld that this is going on.


I think I may set up some pages for the individual players. Although you can download it here, The first page will be Kirk Harris MPA, JD, a 14 -pager showing how the fatherhood programs nation wide grew out of the “maternal and child” care programs (no they didn’t actually). I think that innocent and naive viewers (as well as any Dad visitors) whould know what is being said about this fantastic noun, “fatherhood,” and how the thing is to really help the Dads.

  1. [PDF]

    Harris, MPA, JD – Testimony for Ways and Means, Subcommittee on

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
    Jun 17, 2010 The Julia Carson Responsible. Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act (HR2979) championed by Congressman Danny Davis
  2. Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources

    PANEL: The Honorable Evan Bayh, U.S.S., Indiana. The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., M.C., Florida. The Honorable Julia Carson, M.C., Indiana

(1999 testimony — the link leads to individual’s statements . . . . )


The larger question, really is, do we want to become socialist (or have we already); it is a question of finances, and use of them. These finances, many, come from private citizens who submit tax returns. Others are heavily pumped in with help by major foundations.

As an individual leaving a certain bad relationship, I knew that the MOST important thing to me was to regain the infrastructure of my own life and being to make choices how to run it. There were mistakes, but the most overt ones had been made over my objections during the marriage. How to correct this was problematic, but not WHAT to correct.

By contrast, some outsiders (primarily family) saw the breakup of the marriage as a failure. I saw it as a positive step, an improvement, and not a failure. The failure probably was marrying this guy to start with, but I was a different person then, not so confident.

Generally back seat drivers are not GOOD drivers. To just exist, and not have much control over the primary decisions of one’s life, or what one does with it, isn’t good. No, where freedom to choosee remains, it should be exercised and safeguarded. The OTHER reason it’s important is that one can adjust course faster, when a choice doesn’t work so well, and the learning curve accelerates.

When the government, or any major, large institution gets into doing things behind closed doors, then those ‘done to” miss that learning curve, and either have an illusion of choice in action (hence, don’t know their landscape well), or know they don’t and are less motivated to make something MEANINGFUL out of time on earth, as opposed to merely eating, breathing, surviving. And many are at that level already.

The concern about the role that private wealth plays in running government isn’t new, but people who don’t look, just aren’t aware.

These programs have been going on for so LONG: here’s from 2000, 106th Congress: The Child Support act was approved “BY VOICE VOTE.”



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Contact: (202) 225-3625
July 20, 2000
No. FC 31-A

Archer Announces Committee Action on H.R. 4868, the “Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2000,” H.R. 4678, the “Child Support Distribution Act of 2000,” and H.R. 4865, the “Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act”

Congressman Bill Archer (R-TX), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that on Wednesday, July 19, 2000, the Committee ordered favorably reported, as amended, H.R. 4868, the “Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2000,” by voice vote. The Committee also ordered favorably reported the following two bills, as amended: H.R. 4678, the “Child Support Distribution Act of 2000,” by voice vote

Title V – Fatherhood Programs

For the fatherhood grant program for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, $140 million would be appropriated. The charitable choice provision of the welfare reform law of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) would apply to these fatherhood grants; this provision would allow States to contract with charitable, religious, or private organizations to deliver services. In addition, a national clearinghouse of information about fatherhood programs and a multi-city fatherhood demonstration project would be established.

Non-profit fatherhood organizations eligible to apply for one of the two $5 million multi-city fatherhood project grants would be required to have several years of experience in designing and conducting fatherhood programs; experience in conducting fatherhood projects in more than one major city, and experience in coordinating programs with local government agencies and private, nonprofit agencies. One of the fatherhood organizations would be required to have extensive experience in using married couples to deliver their program in the inner-city. Several provisions designed which would deal with domestic violence are included in the bill. Funds would not be able to be used for court proceeding on matters of child visitation or child custody or for legislative advocacy.

TITLE VI: Miscellaneous

The time that funds can be spent on the evaluation of the Abstinence Education Program would be extended through 2005.

Pick one: Social Science (pushing Fatherhood & Marriage) or Civil Rights. . .

with one comment

By the way, I found the previous post (with blue, pink & green color coding) simply looking up who were the main speakers (“Witnesses”) for the House Ways and Means Committee’s hearing to authorize more HR 2979, Fatherhood Funding (“Innovative” of course).

Just a bit of housekeeping  here:  (from a pingback, someone co-opted the content).

~ ~ ~ ~HEY !! ~ ~ ~

Pick one: Social Science (pushing Fatherhood & Marriage) or Civil …


“Tyler Evans —

take your NAME off “AUTHOR”  on the banner & LINK on your blog (above) citing and linking MY Post.”


~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Title: Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] (introduced 6/19/2009) Cosponsors (39)
Related Bills: S.1309
Latest Major Action: 6/18/2010 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.

A – House of Reps H.R. 2979

Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009

I had complained that we (noncustodial or embattled in the courts mothers) hadn’t received much warning about it. OPEN CONGRESS also mentions, it wasn’t exactly in the news:

Recent News Coverage

Hmmmm, no news coverage found for this bill at this time. This means that this this bill has not yet been mentioned on a publicly-searchable news website by either its official number (for example, “H.R. 3200”) or title (for example, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”). As soon as that changes, our daily automated search across the Web will catch it and include it here. If this bill is of interest to you, you can write a letter to the editor referring to this bill by name, and if your letter is published on the Web, a link back your letter will appear here within about one day. Or, if you know of a news article about this bill to display here, email us the web address of this page and the web address of your suggested news article: // writeus@opencongress.org Our editorial team will post relevant links as quickly as possible. Thanks for helping to build public knowledge about Congress.

You can go there for the complete bill text.

A little extra boost with a Resolution from SEN. EVAN BAYH (INDIANA) & SEN. BURRIS (ILLINOIS), well-timed: (Source: http://THOMAS.LOC.GOV

59. S.RES.560 : A resolution recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.
Sponsor: Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] (introduced 6/17/2010) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/21/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

60. S.RES.572

WOW — this one goes GLOBAL, seems to me that back in 1998 & 1999, they’d limited it to the U.S. ALSO, if it’s IMMEASURABLE, can we scale back on some of the multi-million$$ studies??


June 17, 2010

Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BYRD, Mr. BURRIS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. CASEY, and Mrs. LINCOLN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

June 21, 2010

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to


Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.

Whereas responsible fatherhood is a priority for the United States;

Whereas the most important factor in the upbringing of a child is whether the child is brought up in a healthy and supportive environment;

Whereas father-child interaction, like mother-child interaction, has been shown to promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children;

Whereas research shows that men are more likely to live healthier, longer, and more fulfilling lives when they are involved in the lives of their children and participate in caregiving;

Whereas programs to encourage responsible fatherhood should promote and provide support services for–

(1) fostering loving and healthy relationships between parents and children; and

(2) increasing the responsibility of noncustodial parents for the long-term care and financial well-being of their children;

Whereas research shows that working with men and boys to change attitudes towards women can have a profound impact on reducing violence against women;

Whereas research shows that women are significantly more satisfied in relationships when responsible fathers participate in the daily care of children;

Whereas children around the world do better in school and are less delinquent when fathers participate closely in their lives;

Whereas responsible fatherhood is an important component of successful development policies and programs in countries throughout the world;

Whereas the United States Agency for International Development recognizes the importance of caregiving fathers for more stable and effective development efforts; and

Whereas Father’s Day is the third Sunday in June: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate–
    • (1) recognizes June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day;
    • (2) honors the men in the United States and around the world who are active in the lives of their children, which in turn, has a significant impact on their children, their families, and their communities;
    • (3) underscores the need for increased public awareness and activities regarding responsible fatherhood and healthy families; and
    • (4) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to supporting and encouraging global fatherhood initiatives that significantly benefit international development efforts.


(well, you can look it up. I think we get the general idea!)


The “Center for Fathers, Children, and Family Well-Being” has two highly-educated principal investigators: this is Dr. Ronald Mincy (who was a Witness from Panel 2) on H.R. 2979, which explains how I found the article surveying the effect of Father closeness on Young Adult Daughter etcetera….


Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice

A.B., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT.

He is wellpublished and highly qualified for the social science work, as listed here:

Dr. Ronald Mincy joined the School of Social Work faculty in 2001; he teaches Introduction to Social Welfare Policy, Program Evaluation, and Advanced Methods in Policy Analysis. He came to the University from the Ford Foundation where he served as a senior program officer and worked on such issues as improving U.S. social welfare policies for low-income fathers, especially child support, and workforce development policies; he also served on the Clinton Administration’s Welfare Reform Task Force.

He is a member of the MacArthur Network on the Family and the Economy, Chicago, IL. He is also an advisory board member for the National Poverty Center, University of Michigan; Technical Work Group for the Building Strong Families and Community Healthy Marriage Initiatives; the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative; Transition to Fatherhood, Cornell University; the National Fatherhood Leaders Group; the Longitudinal Evaluation of the Harlem Children’s Zone; and The Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts.

Dr. Mincy is also a former member of the Council, National Institute of Child and Human Development and the Policy Council, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, co-chair of the Grantmakers Income Security Taskforce, a Board Member of the Grantmakers for Children, Youth, and Families.

Dr. Mincy is a co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a faculty member of the Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC), and the director of the School of Social Work’s Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.

Other staff come from Smith, Barnard, Harvard Graduate School of Education, NYU, and Kenyon.


The other co-principal investigator of Fragile Families. But THEY add work from PRINCETON, and a $17 million grant from Eunice Shriver Foundation. and plenty more, including government agencies. The word “Fragile” means UNMARRIED

Sara McLanahan

Ph.D. 1979 University of Texas, Sociology. Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University; Faculty Associate of the Office of Population Research; founder and Director of the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Interests: Child development, child wellbeing, parenting, education, poverty, and family and community influences on the development of young children. PI on the “Fragile Families Study.

A list of other research associates makes one feel that the field to be in is CERTAINLY Sociology or Psychology these days….


The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is following a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000 (roughly three-quarters of whom were born to unmarried parents). We refer to unmarried parents and their children as “fragile families” to underscore that they are families and that they are at greater risk of breaking up and living in poverty than more traditional

The core FF Study was designed to primarily address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers: (1) What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?; (2) What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?; (3) How do children born into these families fare?; and (4) How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

The Study consists of interviews with both mothers and fathers at birth and again when children are ages one, three and five, plus in-home assessments of children and their home environments at ages thr

ee and five. The parent interviews collect information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and program participation. The in-home interview collects information on children’s cognitive and emotional development, health, and home environment.

Wasn’t one of John Taylor Gatto’s Seven Lesson Schoolteacher points “You Can’t Hide?

But of course it’s about the children, and NOT about Social Engineering with a view towards eventual Slavery (excuse me, Socialism)

Several collaborative studies provide additional information on parents’ medical, employment and incarceration histories, religion, child care and early childhood education. The first four waves of data are available on the web at http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/public.asp. Research findings based on data from the Fragile Families Study are available in the Fragile Families Working Paper series.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood Study recently received a $17 million grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) to field a nine-year follow-up. This project combines the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and will continue through 2010.

The Study contributes to the teaching/training mission of CRCW by hosting bi-monthly workshops and courses for faculty and students at Princeton and Columbia University. The Study has also sponsored several summer workshops at Columbia University. Finally, Princeton undergraduates use these data for their senior theses, under the guidance of CRCW faculty.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study contributes to the policy mission of CRCW by publishing research briefs that translate working papers into information that is useful to policy makers and practitioners. The Study also provides useful information to foundations, government agencies and NGOs working to improve the conditions of children in New Jersey: see Children’s Futures and Fragile Families in Urban Essex .

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton University’s Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, the Columbia Population Research Center and The National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) at Columbia University.

The Principal Investigators of the Fragile Families Study are Sara McLanahan and Christina Paxson at Princeton University and Irwin Garfinkel, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Ron Mincy, and Jane Waldfogel at Columbia University.

POPULATION RESEARCH, FUNDED BY FEDRAL $$ and private foundations



The Guttmacher Report on Public PolicyGuttmacher Institute

February 2005, Volume 8, Number 1
Issues and Implications

Reproductive Health Advocates and Marriage Promotion: Asserting a Stake in the Debate

By Cynthia Dailard (See below — she passed away 12/24/2006)

“Marriage promotion” represents a cornerstone of social conservatives’ domestic policy agenda, and proposals designed to promote and strengthen marriage are gaining currency at all levels of government. Since taking office, President Bush has promised to invest in marriage promotion on an unprecedented scale through his proposal to reauthorize the nation’s welfare reform law, and legislation pending before Congress would allocate substantial funding toward that end. Yet even as the president waits for Congress to act, his administration is finding ways to devote significant funding to marriage promotion activities through existing programs and funding streams.

The very question of government involvement in this area provokes strong reactions among players representing a wide range of interests and ideologies. The sexual and reproductive health community potentially has much to contribute to debates over policies and programs designed to promote or maintain the formation of intimate relationships that are healthy and stable—whether married or otherwise. To date, however, sexual and reproductive health advocates and practitioners largely have sat on the sidelines of this important social policy debate.

The Politics of Marriage

The federal government first began promoting marriage as a matter of public policy through the 1996 welfare reform law. Based on the argument that the existing welfare system provided a disincentive to marriage and undermined the traditional family structure by encouraging out-of-wedlock births among poor women, three of the four purposes of the 1996 law were designed to promote marriage. Notably, however, these marriage promotion goals permitted the states to spend their welfare block grant funds on marriage promotion activities targeting not only welfare recipients but all Americans.

Although conservatives applauded the 1996 law’s success in promoting “work over welfare,” many felt that it had failed to live up to its promise to promote marriage. Accordingly, President Bush, shortly after taking office, pledged to devote unprecedented attention and resources to marriage promotion activities. Since then, the House of Representatives twice passed welfare reauthorization proposals that would make good on the president’s promise, but the more moderate Senate’s attempts to move similar legislation fell apart over issues unrelated to marriage. Following the 2004 election, which broadened the conservative margin in Congress, both the House and Senate Republican leadership announced in January that Congress now would move swiftly to enact welfare legislation that would devote $200 million per year for “healthy marriage promotion grants” as well as $100 million per year for marriage-related research and demonstration projects.

The Bush administration, however, has not been idly awaiting congressional action on this front. According to various estimates, the administration during its first term tapped existing programs and funding streams to spend $90–200 million for dedicated marriage promotion activities and related research. Meanwhile, according to an April 2004 report by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a growing number of states have begun to sponsor marriage promotion activities, such as premarital counseling, school-based marriage education, and education and support services to married couples; seven states already commit a significant portion of their federal welfare block grant funding to such types of activities.

Ideology, Research & Reactions

For many social conservatives, promoting heterosexual marriage goes hand in hand with fierce opposition to the formal sanctioning of homosexual unions, in the name of “protecting” marriage. It also falls under the umbrella of a larger ideological and religiously motivated policy agenda that includes teaching young people that remaining abstinent outside of marriage is the expected standard of behavior and that supports channeling substantial funding to faith-based organizations to achieve these related policy goals.

For these social conservatives, little further justification for governmental marriage promotion may be necessary. The fact is, however, that they also can point to an established and growing body of research showing that marriage is good for individuals, particularly children. Married people are healthier, live longer and have higher earnings than single people. Children raised in married, two-parent families, moreover, are five times less likely to be poor than those raised by a single parent; they are also less likely to drop out of school or become a teen parent. Moreover, it would appear that it is not just the presence of two parents in the home that matters—children raised by their married, biological parents have better developmental outcomes than children who grow up with stepparents, and often with unmarried, cohabiting parents. (It is also worth noting, however, that high-conflict {{or VIOLENT…}} marriages, and the stress and loss of parental income associated with divorce, can adversely affect both children and adults.)

At the same time, an array of progressive constituencies either express concern about the potential form that government efforts to promote marriage may take, or question the notion of governmental involvement in this area entirely. Common concerns include that such policies have the potential to denigrate women by reinforcing outdated gender roles; may harm victims of domestic violence by encouraging them to remain in abusive relationships; and may push teens and young adults prematurely into marriages that tend to be unstable and leave them at increased risk of poverty and reduced educational attainment when those relationships dissolve. For some, marriage promotion policies simply place government in the inappropriate position of promoting a particular moral or religious viewpoint—one that sanctions some forms of intimate relationships while denigrating others.,


WordPress site in her memory

Her obit — she was only 38!

Before joining Guttmacher, Mrs. Dailard was associate director for domestic policy for President Bill Clinton, legislative assistant and counsel for Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and a fellow at the National Women’s Law Center.

She was a board member of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Mrs. Dailard was critical of a national movement to encourage abstinence-only pledges by teenagers without more comprehensive instruction in sexual health. She said those teenagers who vow chastity are less likely to use contraception when they have sex.

“It’s hard to keep a condom in your pocket when you’ve promised not to have sex,” she said.

Cynthia Boles was a native of Syosset, N.Y., and a 1990 graduate of Harvard University. She was a 1994 graduate of the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. She lived in Washington.

Survivors include her husband of 14 years, Scott Dailard, and their two daughters, Miranda Dailard and Julia Dailard, all of Washington; her mother, Ellen Boles of Syosset; a sister, Sandra Boles of Potomac; and a grandmother.”


The Guttmacher Policy Review and its readers recently suffered a tremendous blow. On December 24, 2006, at the age of 38, one of our most prolific and accomplished authors, Cynthia Dailard, died suddenly. Trained as a lawyer and seasoned through her work on Capitol Hill and in the White House, Cynthia, who joined the Guttmacher Institute’s policy staff in 1998, was a disciplined, rigorous analyst and a compelling communicator. She seamlessly blended an authoritative knowledge of research–and an inherent feel for the power it can have in policy formulation–with an insider’s …



“The Effects of Nonresident Father Closeness on Young Adult Daughter’s Sexual Behavior”

with one comment


And just WHO needs to know?

(and why?)

If an adult daughter is young, or NOT so young, so long as she is not spreading STD’s, or selling herself, her sexual behavior is, one would think HER behavior. After all, is it HER body, or not?

This is what comes from unmonitored use of federal tax dollars and policies. Because THIS one came from a group centered out of the reputable Columbia University’s School of Social Work.
Here’s the summary of the research. I mean, “Observational Studies.” My commentary is inserted (italics mine, also), someone has to get a woman’s point of view in there:

The Effects of Nonresident Father Closeness on Young Adult Daughter’s Sexual Behavior

This study examined the relationship between father closeness and daughter’s number of sexual partners in young adulthood using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health dataset. Studies show that children from two-parent families are less likely to exhibit sexual risk behaviors as adults than children from single-parent families. Two parents are better able to supervise their child’s behavior than a single parent. According to the US Census, 63.2 percent of Black families and 26 percent of White families are headed by a single parent. Many Black adolescents in single-parent families maintain close relationships with their non-resident fathers and such relationships are associated with fewer internalized and externalized behaviors and lower levels of emotional distress and delinquency.

In the full sample, we found that closeness to fathers is negatively associated with the number of sexual partners a young women has, but there is some evidence that these results are driven by resident daughters. This evidence is inconclusive because the high correlation between closeness at Wave Two and living arrangements at Wave One make estimates of both imprecise. However, Black women had different results than their peers. Nonresident Black daughters felt closer to their fathers than their peers. Moreover, there was a negative and significant association between closeness and number of sexual partners in the nonresident black women sample. These results are consistent with the literature that nonresident Black girls felt and behaved differently than their peers.

{{“”Black girls”??

{{In the above description, there are no “black men.” No one in (his) right mind would use the phrase “Black boys,” at least not on a social science site (public access). He’d get defrocked AND defunded. All the nouns referring to the male gender in this description (above) are either:

non-resident fathers.

{{But the word “Black” is associated with — get this — in order:

  • Families
  • Adolescents
  • Women
  • Daughters (nonresident), and finally
  • Girls

{{As usual, the invisible noun here is the word “mother,” resident or not, black or white…

Am I right? Check it out.


ONE MORE TIME, this time let’s look at the words “father” and “mother,” in BLUE (for boys) and PINK (for girls)… I’ll put the words “resident” or “non-resident” simply in bold, so we can see what nouns (boys, girls, women, fathers, daughters, families, parents, adolescents, children, etc.) they modify.

Gender-neutral words referring to human beings will be GREEN

“This study examined the relationship between father closeness and daughter’s number of sexual partners in young adulthood using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health dataset. Studies show that children from two-parent families are less likely to exhibit sexual risk behaviors as adults than children from single-parent families. Two parents are better able to supervise their child’s behavior than a single parent. According to the US Census, 63.2 percent of Black families and 26 percent of White families are headed by a single parent. Many Black adolescents in single-parent families maintain close relationships with their non-resident fathers and such relationships are associated with fewer internalized and externalized behaviors and lower levels of emotional distress and delinquency.

“In the full sample, we found that closeness to fathers is negatively associated with the number of sexual partners a young women [sic] has, but there is some evidence that these results are driven by resident daughters. This evidence is inconclusive* because the high correlation between closeness at Wave Two and living arrangements at Wave One make estimates of both imprecise. However, Black women had different results than their peers.** Nonresident Black daughters felt closer to their fathers than their peers.** Moreover, there was a negative and significant association between closeness and number of sexual partners in the nonresident black women sample. These results are consistent with the literature that nonresident Black girls felt and behaved differently than their peers.”**

The Evidence is Inconclusive. Guess they’d better go back and study (I mean, Observe) it some more.

**Just who is a black woman/daughter’s/girl’s peer?


Oh, I forgot who was sponsoring the study:




WHERE did this idea come that you can have a FAMILY and a FATHER without a MOTHER?

Oh, I forgot about our current President and WHITE HOUSE.gov

Strengthen Families

President Obama was raised by a single parent and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.

You see any pink? I didn’t. I know the First Lady is a mother, but not in this context. And He wasn’t raised by a mother, but by a single PARENT.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 17, 2010 at 5:04 pm

How many foundations, acronyms (CPR, MDRC, PSI), Federal $$ and Ivy League hotshots does it take to “screw” . . the Poor?

leave a comment »

INTRO (added 07/17)

For international visitors, or others who may not get the pun in the title:

There’s a common joke used to degrade people of certain ethnic — or professional — profiles, usually to insult the intelligence of the target group. It refers to screwing in a a lightbulb, something a child can do, and goes “How many ______s does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” and the answer is a clever twist on why it takes so many. ”

The word “Screw” has another off-color connotation, pun intended here.

In this case, it’s NOT a joke; the more I look, the more I feel the USA is screwed. By whom — read on. I experienced total devastation through this system, so far, and without committing a single crime. My “social” crime was not taking the low road, but the high road, out of a marriage that probably shouldn’t have happened, but did, and then my misplaced value on marriage (exactly what these people are promoting) resulted in my staying in just short of us becoming a statistic. There weren’t real other options, that I saw — welfare, and a battered women’s shelter with one toddler, and pregnant with another child? That wasn’t in my vocabulary or background – we were a WORKING family.

We didn’t fit — at all (nor do many women affected by religious-based violence) the target profile of these programs — AT ALL. I was full-time employed while pregnant, and gave birth to very healthy children, fully covered by insurance provided by my work, not his. By the second child, almost every infrastructure was shut down — for me — and came only through him, and he wasn’t very forthcoming.

Women are NOT going to be safe in their marriages, if the marriage goes sour or violent, or OUTSIDE them unless we can be safely independent without excommunication from our communities.

Society has to handle its love/hate relationship with the PAID wages of employed mothers (meaning, child care, school system, after care, a certain scenario. Because the public school system in this country discriminates against the poor, that also impacts their future) AND the UNPAID benefits nonworking mothers provide to their familis and children.

CORPORATIONS historically have cared about their profits first, and their employees second, until forced to do differently. This splits up families, obviously. SCHOOLS in the US are also a jobs basis and designed on the corporate model, the “employer” being the government (although that government gets its wages from the very parents and non-parents it claims to be serving and educating).

CHURCHES, MOSQUES and SYNAGOGUES also must deal with money matters, and typically exist (from what I understand) in the US as “nonprofit” tax-exempt corporations. They have mortgages and typically pay their leaders (although not always). Therefore when a financial conflict of interest arises because a prominent — or even just attending — father begins assaulting a daughter or a wife, the temptation will be to cover it up for the “greater good,” i.e., continuing the community, but sacrificing the individual’s rights or safety. Some readers will remember, this was attributed to why Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed – – because if he “rocked the boat,” the Romans might come in and make it worse for the Jews. Which, later, obviously happened.


As a woman who has seen the best and worst of a religion I adopted as a young woman because my own family was destitute of one, of a personal family identity outside one father’s professional profile (for the most part), I am quite willing to reject “religion” when it fails to practice what it preaches as I see my government, and its institutions have also utterly failed the people they preach about “serving.”

These foundations have utterly forgotten what the Declaration of Indepencence declares, and are mostly concerned about their own positions in life, and structuring a society to preserve their right to run others’ lives without their informed consent, and at their expense, too.

When a president cannot say the word “mother” along with the word “father” when describing “Families and Children,” and this president is held up as a role model and leader, women, and mothers of children, and the children ARE “screwed.” Linguistically, they are just sperm incubators, a delivery system for kids. We also get to now be scapegoats for society by either declining to marry, or leaving a marriage, yet the actual scapegoats are the society’s engineers, not the people who have become simply the gas in its (think) tanks or the blood in its veins.

It takes time to gestate and raise a child, and I think we are approaching the time when women are going to start saying NO! We will NOT produce babies for you to abuse, waste, or box up and become half-human order-takers and low-wage laborers, or young men and women to go fight your wars over land, oil, and the global economic system. If I participate in this happening, perhaps I will have in part helped compensate for having been unable to stop domestic violence they witnessed growing up, or divert and protect them from the INSANITY that took place the moment some professional, probably on the take either literally ($$) or by business referrals, knew how to “let the games begin” by getting our case into a custody battle.



This dates back 5 years.


(DOLLARS and SENSE logo here)

29 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 USA


Copyright © 2010 Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.

Dollars and Sense logo

Marriage Promotion, Reproductive Injustice, and the War Against Poor Women of Color



On December 22, at the stroke of midnight, Renita Pitts became a single woman. Renita is 44 years old, a mother of five with 14 grandchildren. She has been on and off of welfare for most of her life. After she had her fifth child, her husband brought crack cocaine into their house, telling her that it would help her lose weight. She became addicted and struggled for 13 years with that addiction. Throughout her marriage, Renita says, she was afraid to leave her house. “I couldn’t trust my husband with our children long enough to go to school. If I left for even an hour, he would have a full-fledged party going on when I came back,” she says. In addition to being a drug addict, Renita’s husband was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive. She says they fought frequently, and she had to call the police again and again.

Renita and her husband separated shortly after she stopped using drugs and returned to college. She had also begun attending church. According to Renita, her husband “was insecure because of my security.” He gave her an ultimatum, saying she must leave school and stop going to church. When she refused, he left.

Despite the abuse and the drugs, Renita says, she felt many social pressures to stay married. Regardless, she says, “it was important not to have him in my life, constantly pumping me full of drugs.” She says the relationship had become so abusive that if she had stayed in it any longer, “someone would have ended up dead.”

With the help of California’s welfare program, Renita is currently enrolled in the African American Studies and Social Welfare departments at the University of California at Berkeley and works on social justice issues at the Women of Color Resource Center. She was happy to see her divorce finalized in December.

The life stories of Renita and many other women like her are not on the radar screen in Washington, however. Legislation that would promote marriage among low-income people is currently wending its way through Congress. The so-called “Healthy Marriage Initiative” includes a range of provisions designed to encourage women on welfare to get and stay married: providing extra cash bonuses to recipients who get married, deducting money from welfare checks when mothers are living with men who are not the fathers of their children, increasing monthly welfare checks for married couples, offering marriage and relationship education classes, and putting up billboards in low-income communities promoting the value of marriage. Several provisions specifically target Latino and African-American communities. So-called marriage promotion policies, such as those in the Healthy Marriage Initiative, have been touted by the Bush administration and enjoy wide bipartisan support in Washington. Many advocates, however, are concerned that, if the bill passes, it would become more difficult for Renita and domestic violence survivors like her to get a divorce and to survive without a husband.

Married Good, Single Bad

The administration’s point man for marriage promotion is Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services {HHS}, whose Administration for Children and Families {ACF} would run the initiative. In July 2002 Horn wrote, “On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy and stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor. They’re more successful in school, have lower dropout rates, and fewer teenage pregnancies. Adults, too, benefit from healthy and stable marriages.” Critics say Horn sees the wedded state as a cure-all for society’s ills, while ignoring the difficulties of promoting something as intensely personal as marriage. Horn and others in the ACF refused repeated requests for comment.

Marriage promotion legislation has its roots in the 1996 welfare reform act. This legislation ended welfare as an entitlement–it allowed states to deny assistance to fully qualified applicants, and resulted in the abrogation of some applicants’ constitutional rights. It also created a five-year lifetime limit for welfare recipients, denied aid to many immigrant communities, created cumbersome financial reporting requirements for welfare recipients, and set up work rules that, according to many recipients, emphasize work hours over meaningful employment opportunities and skill development. The legislation explicitly claimed promoting marriage as one of its aims.

When welfare reform was passed, Congress required that it be revisited in five years. The Healthy Marriage Initiative that Congress is considering today was introduced in 2002 as part of the welfare reform reauthorization package. Welfare–now known as Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)–was set to be reauthorized that year, but that reauthorization is now two years overdue.

In September, Senators Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) introduced a bill to reauthorize welfare for six months without overall changes, but with $800 million for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs over a two-year period. Sen. Santorum has been a strong proponent of marriage promotion. In an October 2003 speech to the Heritage Foundation, he promised to aggressively press for legislation that supported marriage between one man and one woman. “The government must promote marriage as a fundamental societal benefit. … Both for its intrinsic good and for its benefits for society, we need marriage.

{{Did these men, Senators, not take an oath of office similar to the President’s, to uphold and defend the constitution? If these Senators are so concerned about marriage, why don’t they socially shun, and hold conferences about, some of their cheating-on-their-wives colleagues, let alone former Presidents (let’s hope Obama has better sense than Clinton in that category)..?? ONE nation under God, and ONE set of Federal laws, and ONE set of the Bill of Rights for all. Government designing family life is the same as Government deciding religion, and as such is prohibited…}}

And just as important, we need public leaders to communicate to the American public why it is necessary.” The reauthorization bill has died in the Senate, but because of its strong bipartisan support, it is likely to be re-introduced. Sen. Santorum refused repeated requests for comment for this story.

Diverting Dollars

Although the debate about marriage promotion has focused on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, this is just one piece of the Bush administration’s pro-marriage agenda. The Department of Health and Human Services has already diverted over $100 million within existing programs into marriage promotion. These are programs that have no specific legislative authority to promote marriage. Some examples: $6.1 million has been diverted from the Child Support Enforcement Program, $9 million from the Refugee Resettlement Program, $14 million from the Child Welfare Program, and $40 million from the Social and Economic Development Strategies Program focusing on Native Americans, among others. Plus, another nearly $80 million has been awarded to research groups studying marriage.

One beneficiary is in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Healthy Marriages Grand Rapids received $990,000 from the federal government in 2003 to “facilitate the understanding that healthy marriages between parents is [sic] critical to the financial well-being of children, increase effective co-parenting skills of married and non-married parents to improve relationships between low-income adults who parent children, increase active, healthy participation of non-custodial fathers in the lives of their children, increase the number of prepared marriages among low-income adults, and decrease the divorce rate among low-income adults.” The program coordinates local public media campaigns plugging marriage as well as relationship counseling classes, many offered by faith-based providers.

It is precisely this emphasis on marriage as a cure for economic woes that worries many welfare recipients and advocates. According to Liz Accles at the Welfare Made a Difference National Campaign, “Marriage promotion is problematic for many reasons. It is discriminatory. It values certain families over others. It intrudes on privacy rights. The coercive nature of this is lost on a lot of people because they don’t realize how deeply in poverty people are living.” Accles says that adequate educational opportunities, subsidized child care, and real job skills and opportunities are the answer to the financial concerns of women on welfare. She joins many domestic violence counselors in saying that marriage education funded by government coffers and administered via faith-based providers and welfare case workers is at best a waste of taxpayer money, and at worst pushes women deeper into abusive relationships that may end in injury or death

{{including sometimes to the kids. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to us how THAT helps the welfare of children And now that’s it’s known this happening, why hasn’t the policy changed??!}}

In Allentown, Pa., a program called the Family Formation and Development Project offers a 12-week marriage education course for low-income, unmarried couples with children. Employment services are offered as part of the program, but only to fathers. In its application for federal funding, the program set a goal of 90% of the participating fathers finding employment. No such goal was set for the mothers. According to Jennifer Brown, legal director at the women’s legal rights organization Legal Momentum, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services, “What we fear is that this kind of sex stereotyped programming–jobs for fathers, not for mothers–will be part of marriage promotion programs funded by the government.”

Experts at Legal Momentum are concerned that the administration is diverting scarce funds from proven and effective anti-poverty programs and funneling the money into untested marriage-promotion programs. They say there is little information about what is happening on the ground, making it difficult to determine what activities have been implemented.

Feminist economists point out that the mid-1990s welfare reform law served larger economic interests by moving women out of the home and into the work force at a time when the economy was booming and there was a need for low-paid service workers. Now that the economy is in a recession, the government has adopted a more aggressive policy of marriage promotion, to pull women out of the work force and back into the home. According to Avis Jones-DeWeever, Poverty and Welfare Study director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, “We are talking about putting $1.5 billion into telling women to find their knight in shining armor and then everything will be okay.”

Jones-DeWeever says the view that marriage creates more economically stable individuals is not grounded in reality. She notes that individuals are likely to marry within their own socioeconomic group, so low-income women are likely to marry low-income men. According to author Barbara Ehrenreich’s estimates, low-income women would need to have roughly 2.3 husbands apiece in order to lift them out of poverty. Jones-DeWeever points out that in African-American communities, there are simply not enough men to marry: there are approximately two and a half women for every African-American man who is employed and not in jail. In addition, many social policy analysts are quick to point out that in general, poor people are not poor because they’re unmarried. Rather, they may be unmarried because they’re poor: the socioeconomic conditions in low-income communities contribute to a climate in which healthy marriages are difficult to sustain.

Another criticism of marriage promotion comes from survivors of domestic violence and their advocates. Studies consistently show that between 50% and 60%–in some studies up to 80%–of women on welfare have suffered some form of domestic violence, compared to 22% of the general population. In addition, between 3.3 and 10 million children witness domestic violence each year. Domestic violence survivors say their abuse was often a barrier to work, and many have reported being harassed or abused while at work. Most survivors needed welfare to escape the relationship and the violence. Any policy that provides incentives for women to become and stay married is in effect coercing poor women into marriage. Many women on welfare, like Renita Pitts, say that their marriages, rather than helping them out of poverty, set up overwhelming barriers to building their own autonomous and productive lives.

According to Kaaryn Gustafson, associate professor of law at the University of Connecticut, policies that attempt to look out for women’s safety by restricting or coercing their activities are paternalistic and misguided. “The patriarchal model is really troubling. The gist is that if there isn’t a man in the house there isn’t a family. The studies of family well-being are all very problematic because you cannot parse out the issues of education, socioeconomic status, and other emotional and psychological issues that are tied up in who gets married and who doesn’t.”

Domestic violence ITSELF often is a reflection of a paternalistic attitude, and this DOES stem at least from faith communities. Moreover, we have to look at this United States which used to legalize slavery. Slavery is abusive and a paternalistic attitude justified it. I’ve “just” had enough of this! So, in effect, promoting marriage — both undermines individual civil rights, and duplicates the same attitude which justifies such violence towards a woman because she is a woman!

Reproductive Straitjacket

While marriage promotion as a federal policy began in 1996, many say it is only one part of a much larger system of control over, and sanction of, the sexual and reproductive freedoms of poor women and women of color. Another part of this system is child exclusion legislation, which has been adopted by 21 states. Child exclusion laws permit states to pay benefits for only one child born to a woman on welfare. Social policy experts say it is a response to the myth that African-American welfare recipients were having more children in order to get larger benefit checks. Such laws push women either deeper into poverty, or into abortions. In some states, a woman who chooses to have another child instead of an abortion may end up trying to raise two or more children on less than $300 a month.

Christie, who would like to use only her first name, is a single mother of two. She has been working, supporting her children and herself, and going to college. Since her first child was born, she has also been receiving welfare. While on welfare, she fought to get a college degree in general education; now she hopes to get a job as a Spanish language translator. During her time in college, her welfare caseworker told Christie to quit going to school and instead report to a welfare-to-work program. She says, “I felt that it was a punishment. Just because I was on welfare, they could make me quit school and come and sit in a room and listen to people talking about the jobs I should get. Most of the jobs that they wanted you to have were geared towards the lower poverty level where you stay in poverty and you can never climb the socioeconomic ladder. It’s like that’s your position and that’s where you have to stay.”

When Christie became pregnant with her second child, her caseworker told her she could not receive an increase in her benefit. This forced Christie into some tough choices. “My religion kept me from having an abortion. I worked after I had my daughter, because I felt like it was a mistake that I made, and so I tried to do what I could for my daughter.” Christie says this legislation penalizes women for having children, and creates an overwhelming sense of guilt that permeates low-income families. Rather than celebrating the birth of her daughter, Christie felt that she needed to work twice as hard to make up for her “mistake.”

When states began adopting child exclusion policies in the early 1990s, they were implemented under federal scrutiny. States were required to keep data about the financial status of affected families. These data showed that child exclusion policies resulted in women and children being thrust further into poverty. One of the more sinister effects of the 1996 welfare reform law is that it did away with the requirement that states monitor the outcome of child exclusion policies. Since 1996, states have been able to impose sanctions on families without paying any attention to the results.

According to a July 2002 report by the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C-SNAP), a research and advocacy collaborative, child exclusion policies are directly correlated to a number of risks to the health and well-being of children. Infants and toddlers in families that have been sanctioned under the child exclusion provisions are 30% more likely to have been hospitalized than children from families who have not been sanctioned, and these children are 90% more likely to require hospitalization at the time of an emergency room visit. In addition, child exclusion sanctions lead to food insecurity rates that are at least 50% higher than those of families who have not faced sanction. The negative health and welfare impacts reported in the C-SNAP study increase dramatically with each year that a family experiences sanctions.

Proponents of child exclusion legislation, including many members of the Bush administration and a bipartisan array of senators and representatives, claim that women on welfare have no business bringing a new child into the world whom they cannot support financially.

The United Sates has a long history of regulation of poor women’s reproductive activities. From the forced sterilizations performed in low-income communities of color in the 1940s, 1950s, and even later, to state child services departments appropriating poor Native American children and giving them to upper-class white foster parents, many U.S. historians say that sexuality among lower-income communities of color has traditionally been viewed as something that should be controlled. The University of Connecticut’s Gustafson responds, “There is this idea that if you pay taxes you have the right to control those who don’t, and it smacks of slavery. There should be some scope of liberty that should be unconditional, and that especially includes sexuality and family formation.”

There’s no such respect for freedom and privacy under TANF. The program requires women to submit to a barrage of invasive questions and policies; TANF applicants must provide private details about every aspect of their lives. In California, for example, the application asks for the names of up to 12 men with whom a woman has had sexual relations on or around the time of her pregnancy. In San Diego county, before a woman can receive a welfare check, she must submit to a “surprise” visit by welfare case workers to verify that there isn’t an unreported man in the household, among other things.

One of the problems with all of these sexual and reproductive-based policy initiatives is that, according to Gustafson, they distract people from the actual issues of poverty. While TANF accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget, the hysteria surrounding whether and how to assist poor families with children has created an uproar about whether low-income women should even be allowed to have children.

Because the 1996 welfare reform law eliminated the concept of welfare as an entitlement, welfare recipients lack certain protections other U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. In effect, when you apply for welfare you are signing away many of your constitutional rights

Similarly, when a woman receives cash aid and food stamps after leaving a violent relationship, she signs over her right to collect child support to the local county. She is NOT, however, openly told that the U.S. Government is promoting marriage and some of the monies used to collect her child support are diverted into programs that may eventually help the man she just left get back into her life, or even get her children. In other words, we aren’t given full information to make a good decision at the time. This is VERy manipulative and in essence treat as her like less than adult.

For this reason, many advocates today are critiquing welfare through the lens of human rights rather than constitutional rights. International human-rights agreements, including the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, afford women many universal human rights. “Those include access to education, access to reproductive choice, rights when it comes to marrying or not marrying,” says Gustafson. “When you look at the international statements of human rights, it provides this context, this lens that magnifies how unjust the welfare laws are in the United States. The welfare system is undermining women’s political, economic, and social participation in society at large.”

On September 30, Congress passed another extension of the 1996 welfare legislation. This extension contained no policy changes–for now. When Congress does finally reauthorize welfare, child exclusion policies and marriage promotion are likely to be hot-button issues that galvanize the debate. According to Liz Accles at the National Welfare Made a Difference Campaign, there are three steps to a successful welfare strategy. “Access. Adequacy. Opportunity. All three of these hold equal weight. You cannot have benefits so low that people live deeply in poverty. You can’t have good benefits that only a few people get access to. You also need to have opportunity for economic mobility built in.”

Although the marriage promotion bill was defeated this time, it continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support–including support from the White House now that George W. Bush has a second term. Welfare recipients and social policy experts are worried that whenever welfare reform is debated, politicians will deem regulating the reproductive activities of poor women to be more important than funding proven anti-poverty measures like education and meaningful job opportunities.

Sarah Olson is a contributing reporter for Free Speech Radio News and the National Radio Project’s “Making Contact.” She is also a mentor and journalist at the Welfare Radio Collaborative.

RESOURCES Joan Meisel, Daniel Chandler, and Beth Menees Rienzi, “Domestic Violence Prevalence and Effects on Employment in Two California TANF Populations,” (California Institute of Mental Health, 2003); Richard Tolman and Jody Raphael, “A Review of the Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence,” Journal of Social Issues, 2000; Sharmila Lawrence, “Domestic Violence and Welfare Policy: Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on Marriage and Child Well-Being: Issue Brief,” (Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New Federalism, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2002); E. Lyon, “Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New Research and Its Implications,” Policy and Practice Paper #10, Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, (National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, 2000)

I looked up “Children Families and the New Federalism,” and on its database googled “domestic violence mediation” and found this:

Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt in Maryland (unreviewed)
Strategies for Addressing the Needs of Domestic Violence Victims within the TANF Program: The Experience of Seven Counties (unreviewed)
Assessing Effective Welfare-to-Work Strategies for Domestic Violence Victims and Survivors in the Options/Opciones Project (unreviewed)
Psychiatric Disorders Among Low Income Single Mothers: Mothers’ Well-Being Study (unreviewed)
CalWORKs Project (unreviewed)
Study of Screening and Assessment in TANF/WtW (unreviewed)
Women’s Employment Study (reviewed)
San Bernardino County (CA) TANF Recipients Study (unreviewed)
Multiple Impacts of Welfare Reform in Utah: Experiences of Former Long-term Welfare Recipients (unreviewed)
Tracking Closed Cases Under The TANF Program in Massachusetts (unreviewed)
Supporting Healthy Marriage (unreviewed)
Welfare-to-Work, the Private Sector and Americorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) (unreviewed)
Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration (reviewed)
Welfare-to-Work Grants Program Evaluation (reviewed)
Connecticut’s Jobs First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project (reviewed)

Let’s look at who’s behind Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration, which project took place over a 10-ear period, it says:

Investigator(s) Fred Doolittle (MDRC)
Virginia Knox (MDRC)
Earl Johnson (MDRC)
Cynthia Miller (MDRC)
Sponsor(s) US Department of Health and Human Services
Funder(s) PEW Charitable Trusts
Ford Foundation
AT&T Foundation
US Department of Health and Human Services
US Department of Labor
McKnight Foundation
Northwest Area Foundation
US Department of Agriculture
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Subcontractor(s) Abt Associates, Inc.
Domain Income Security/TANF
Status Completed (final report released)
Duration Jun 1991 – Jun 2001
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To implement and evaluate the Parent’s Fair Share Demonstration (PFS).
Program/Policy Description PFS centers on four core activities: employment and training services, peer support through group discussions focused on the rights and responsibilities of non-custodial parents, stronger and more flexible child support enforcement, and voluntary mediation services to help resolve conflict between the custodial and non-custodial parents. PFS is required for non-custodial parents (usually fathers) who are unable to meet child support obligations and have been referred to PFS by the courts.
Notes No notes reported.

And the findings, in brief:

Recent Findings in Brief

12/01/01: Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration: The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons From Parents’ Fair Share

Final Descriptive/Analytical Findings

As a group, the fathers were very disadvantaged, although some were able to find low-wage work fairly easily. PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities. PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children. Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

Because I happen to be familiar with the contractor “MDRC” through prior research (i.e., looking around on the web….), I went to CPR (Centerforpolicyresearch.org) and simply typed in “Parent’s Fair Share.”

This is how many links came up:

Search Results

1 Projects – Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ProjectRelevance: 3006
Assist MDRC in design and implementation of a mediation component in the Parents’ Fair Share Demon…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/284/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:09:47 PM
2 PovertyRelevance: 2008
Many of CPR’s projects involve identification and assessment of programs to reduce poverty and…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/Poverty/tabid/262/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:33:25 PM
3 Incarceration and ReentryRelevance: 1004
CPR has done seminal work on child support and incarceration. As a result of CPR’s studies of …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/IncarcerationandReentry/tabid/263/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:20:48 PM
4 Projects – Child Support Strategies for Incarcerated and Released ParentsRelevance: 1003
Publicize information on the child support situation that incarcerated and paroled parents face an…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/378/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:51:44 AM
5 Court ServicesRelevance: 1003
CPR’s Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes have pioneered the development, implementation and ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/CourtServices/tabid/256/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:15:59 PM
6 Projects – Evaluation of Parents to Work!Relevance: 1002
Evaluation of a program to utilize TANF funds to deliver services to noncustodial parents involved…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/375/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:46:52 AM
7 Child SupportRelevance: 1002
CPR personnel have been leading researchers and technical assistance contractors for nearly ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/ChildSupport/tabid/255/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:09:46 PM
8 Projects – Task Order 38: An Assessment of Research Concerning Effective Methods of Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents with Child Support ObligationsRelevance: 1002
An analysis of child support issues concerning offender and ex-offender noncustodial parents. The …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/382/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:54:07 AM
9 Projects – Texas Access and Visitation Hotline IIRelevance: 1001
Evaluation to assess the effectiveness of a telephone hotline offering parents in the child suppor…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/294/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:21:13 PM
10 Publications – When Parents Complain About Visitation.Relevance: 1001

http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Publications/tabid/233/id/427/Default.aspx12/18/2008 3:46:12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

They do things like this:

Multi-Site Responsible Fatherhood Programs

Subcontract with Policy Studies Inc.

Contract with Office of Child Support Enforcement

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

1999 – 2001

Close Abstract

Multi-site evaluation of eight responsible fatherhood projects to assess various methods of outreach, client intake and service delivery to noncustodial parents in an effort to promote their financial and emotional participation in the lives of their children, and to assess the effectiveness of a management information system developed to for use at the sites.

or “MEDIATION INTERVENTIONS” (based at the Child Support Location) to get them more ACCESS to their children. . .. A whole other set of funding (HHS) is the “access visitation grants system.”

(CFDA 930597, I believe on TAGGS.hhs.gov) another thing I wasn’t told about in my custody issues.

MDRC, like PSI, like CPR, and others, are many of the organizations contracting out these programs. LESS highly publicized (but it’s out) is the court-based organization, AFCC giving awards to Ms. Pierson (of CPR), this organization also pushes mediation.

We are all in all moving quite towards a “planned economy,” whether or not we personally approve of it, or comprehend in just how many ways. LOOKING UP ONLY “Parent’s Fair Share” on the web, these came up:

Promising Practices Home

Operated by the RAND Corporation


For this amazing summary, with so many government agencies, quite an assemblage of persona (and backed by several foundations), done in 8 different areas, the bottom line is, it didn’t affect anyone’s bottom line! No significantly increased child support payments, and not much more involved fathers. Says so right here!:

  • Overall, from the perspective of the custodial parents, the net result of PFS did not produce a detectable change in their total income as a result of child support payments.
  • With respect to child contact, PFS did not lead to increases in the frequency or length of contact that noncustodial parents had with their children.

In fact, kind of the contrary:

  • For more-employable men, the program had little effect on average earnings and somewhat reduced employment among those who would have worked in part-time, lower-wage jobs.

Back to topTop

Hrere’s the MDRC site report on the Parent’s Fair Share:

The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration, run from 1994 to 1996, was aimed at increasing the ability of these fathers to attain well-paying jobs, increase their child support payments — to increase their involvement in parenting in other ways. These reports — one examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ financial and nonfinancial involvement with their children and the other examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ employment and earnings — provide important insights into policies aimed at this key group.

What it doesn’t say — we failed at both goals…

By the way, MDRC stands for Manpower Development Research Corporation. These Corps are sprouting up to work with the government (and foundations behind the government policies) to manage society.

From April 2010, Still coming up with “astounding” revelations (for how much$$?) about how life works:

Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships

What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

{{that depends on who “WE” is. One thing seems evident — that the four authors to this paper, below, are employed, or at least have some nice sub- sub-contracting work… Another thing “We” (women in my position) would have LIKED to know is that organizations like MRDC and CPR and PSI and others are (through HHS) making our lives harder, “for our own good” because we dared to collect child support at one point in time. In retaliation for this, our “exes” will be helped by the United States Government to stay on our tails for the rest of time, possibly.}}

No, SERIOUSLY now, as of April 2010, after a decade plus of family/fatherhood programs, what bright conclusions can be drawn?

As described in earlier articles, children whose parents have higher income and education levels are more likely to grow up in stable two-parent households than their economically disadvantaged counterparts.

WHO IS THIS MDRC? Now that some poor folk actually have internet access, we can find out who’s studying (us):

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.

The Board of Directors are the Cream of America, as follows:

Board of Directors
Robert Solow, Chairman
Institute Professor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mary Jo Bane, Vice Chair
Professor of Public Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Rudolph G. Penner, Treasurer
Senior Fellow
Urban Institute
Ron Haskins
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families
Brookings Institution


Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins

Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families

A former White House and congressional advisor on welfare issues, Ron Haskins co-directs the Brookings Center on Children and Families. An expert on preschool, foster care, and poverty—he was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.

(SEE MY TOP ARTICLE, THIS POST – some people are not too happy about it!)

Encouraging Marriage Helps Everyone

Children & Families, Marriage and Family Formation, Social Issues, Social Norms

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

Business Week

Higher marriage rates among the poor would benefit poor adults themselves, their children, and the nation. Although I do not support coercive policies to achieve higher marriage rates, I do favor marriage promotion programs conducted by community-based organizations such as churches and other nonprofit civic groups. The activities these groups should sponsor include counseling, marriage education, job assistance, parenting, anger control, avoiding domestic violence, and money management.
I also notice that creative solutions to making ends meet are not necessarily on the agenda here. For example, instead of funneling the “poor” in to poor jobs, low-wage jobs, how’s about helping THEM to start businesses and run them?
Or to get grants and pursue some of their dreams, possibly filling in a gap that someone from Harvard, MIT, or a sociologist might not see?
Does anyone besides me see the irony in having someone IN government coach someone else about money management ?? ?????
%d bloggers like this: