(I’m not on the usual holiday schedule, and so decided to post — not bail, but this older draft — on hearing that a certain business model from San Diego had made it to the UK.  Tone:  disgruntled — be forewarned).

The Ship of State supposedly lurched and changed course from Welfare State Democrat to Limited Government Republican this week. But up til the last moment before the election, our President was assuring Women that new initiatives to help Women were indeed being launched, and to defend children, also!

Throw the accolades and prepare cast your ballots, it was October 27th..

{as reported Here, with “Let’sGetHonest” comment below, and others’:}

As part of ongoing Administration efforts to reduce domestic and sexual abuse, HHS, HUD, DOJ, Treasury, Labor and FDIC announce new initiatives to protect victims of abuse, provide resources to prevent abuse

Today, the Obama Administration is highlighting unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse. As part of this ongoing government-wide effort, HHS, HUD, DOJ, Treasury, Labor and FDIC today announced new initiatives to protect victims of abuse and provide resources for families and communities to prevent abuse.

WHY, ALWAYS, it’s the language of oceanic expeditions on uncharted waters: launching, pilots, initiatives; strong, thrusting aggressive moves to fix problems created by (the past 4 administrations and still in process as he speaks):

Today, the Department of Justice, with assistance from the White House, is launching Access to Justice for Domestic Violence Victims, a pilot project to encourage more commitment from the private bar to provide pro bono legal services to victims of domestic violence.

. . . Today, in partnership with the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the Office on Violence Against Women is launching a new virtual resource***

When announcing, and promoting, nowadays, these initiatives are presented in strong, masculine, almost swashbuckling, seafaring terms. A little different from Lincoln, who referred to the start of our nation in birth terms: “Our forefathers brought forth on this continent new nation.”…

Some thoughts (like, mine….) on “virtual resource.”

**”VIRTUAL resources” are infinitely expandable, and less messy than actual resources:

These unprofitable nonprofit virtual resources have such a (useless) reputation among certain people who’ve experienced (in real-time, and real life) the stalking, assaults, and devastation (etc.) of domestic violence (as defined in literature & law) and stalking (as defined in literature and law) that they have begun to form their own nonprofits and foundations to address the nonperformance of existing nonprofits and foundations.  If we all did this, then there would be fewer tax resources to compete for, which MIGHT make this world a better place, as we’d be cast on our OWN (real) resources and networking.  (see:  California’s “Survivors in Action” for an example of this.  Note:  I’m not endorsing, just commenting).    Or, the imminent Battered Women’s Custody Conference in upstate NY (about to meet this month) which is addressing the system failures in the “courts.”

So perhaps the REAL race in life is to join or form one of these virtual resource creation team, and continue to scam people who have (mixing in hope) confused hyperlink with actual help.

A VIRTUAL RESOURCE by definition exists on electronic chip & rhetoric, annotated by experts (“ours, not theirs”) and and, last I heard, are replacing the function if thinking, judgment, sensibility and awareness.  Virtual resource centers (websites) and Technical Assistance grants (or organizations)  are also easier to catalog, and measure downloads or page views, which I imagine can go in the final figure under “services provided” (click…)..They are all the rage and safer to do than, say standing inbetween a raging person and his or her intended target…I’d imagine also as no people are likely to REALLY hold the funders accountable, collectively (the funders are often the American public, other times private wealth etc. — you know the drill).  Hence, yeah, it’s a VIRTUAL resource.  I really appreciated those “VIRTUAL” (translation:  invisible) resources while I was in the relationship, being battered (and no internet access in the home also…).   that spoke to the real need…

These virtual resources virtually free up whoever compiled them (and that’s usually about the process -compiling previous literature, with a few personal stitches) to go around selling access to the website — or to a conference in which the website will be promoted.  It’s a virtually foolproof formula, and draws federal grants funding.   In this world of “services” anecdotal evidence appears to suffice to get the faucet open, then continue the flow in a certain direction (think about “irrigation ditches,” maybe?).  The mark of the expert is a host of virtual resources, conferences, and collaborations for those who haven’t joined those conferences, collaborations, etc. yet.

The chief characteristic of “VIRTUAL” resources is that they are not “REAL” resources.  They are typically information, or access to it.  Period.  There may or may not be a live person behind them; that person may or may not be more than a live outsourced receptionist or customer service individual.  Rarely is this what’s going to help a very real, human, and sometimes bloody situation.

 

However, once, in — and privately, when in planning stages, they are openly discussed as research and demonstration projects, i.e., “Social Science.” to wit, in almost any field, (Child Support Enforcement, Fatherhood, Marriage, etc.) there are such projects.  What starts out in PIONEERING verbiage ends up in detached data summary and sorting.  This is two different parts of the human brain — a) appeal to the reptilian brain to get the thing moving and b) maintain an aura of scientific detachment and objectivity (NOT “passion”) once it’s in motion.

In addition, there is even an entire federal grants CFDA Category specifically called “Social Science Research & Demonstration.”

Program

93.647 Social Services Research and Demonstration

Federal Agency

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Office: Administration for Children and Families

Authorization

Social Security Act, Title XI, Section 1110, 42 U.S.C 1310.

Program Number

93.647

Last Known Status

Active

Objectives

To promote research and demonstrations related to the prevention and reduction of dependency** or the administration and effectiveness of programs related to that purpose.

I have a question.  Research and demonstrate UPON WHOM?  Is this with informed consent?

For “dependency,” read “poverty” or “relying on welfare to survive.” Funny, our governments are broke, and the debt is skyrocketing, but there is always room for more ‘initiative” so long as human life and its trouble exist; solving them, is a definite market niche.

A real turnover in power, will Congress work with him? Will he work with Congress, mainstream media asks?

I have news: the (supposed) Captain of our salvation (if you’re Democrat & don’t realize the image is idolatrous) and the (supposed) evil pirate, Captain Cook (if you’re Republican) and simply by being Black, and elected President, a figment of your worst nightmare (if you’re a Conservative Tea Party Hoosier, and racial purity advocate: yes, these still exist, and are still racist, not just sexist) — and more business as usual, only moreso, (if you’re a woman and a mother stuck in the court system) launched more initiatives at which we’re supposed to “oooh” and “ahh.” Have the systems set in place changed?

As described by ADL: (hover)

Note: Apply Economic Pressure, and avoid appearance of endorsement of tactics such as the KKK.

Our President is not without precedent, or entirely a free agent. Today, I’m going to reference a document that declares the “logical” basis for certain policies going back through five (5) — count ’em (5) Presidential Administrations. These started ultra-conservative, and are part of our Heritage, as in “The Heritage Foundation,” and perhaps one reason that not only wealth and government is being centralized, and government is beginning to regulate faith may be because of the undue influence and sponsorship of a truly arrogant individual who openly declares intent to form a one-world (not just one-nation) theocracy — apart from the UN, if the UN won’t crown him — and no, that’s not a joke, and it’s not the Pope.

The connection between the master/slave mentality and the social scientists’ mentality is becoming clearer and clearer. And it’s a genuine war…and not really a laughing matter. Still …

√√Seriously, Veterans of the FC wars and subject matter of many studies – – – I’m launching an initiative too; who’s on board?

Let’s return the Us/Them perspective, start some institutions (maybe the taxpayers will kindly increase their %, and, on behalf of safety and sane fiscal programs, fund some mothers who, belatedly, that their lives were the subject matter of demonstration projects and experiments to make a kinder, gentler (that was Bush — which one, it’s kind of blurring), Great Society, which now, you know that dates me. if you have a Ph.D., work for a nonprofit, and are associated with any institute sponsored by wealthy families directly to a U.S. University, and if you have worked in the public sector before, you are automatically DISqualified. If you are a Veteran of Family Court Wars, and have lost custody in them after protesting violation of due process, perjury, gagged evidence, threats, or other corruptions, AND you can read, count (or even multiply and divide would be nice), WRITE without jargon and stick in one person for an entire paragraph (most bureaucratcs can’t), and to one topic ata time — if you can accurately report what you accurately observe, and have a nose for theology, crackpot pseudoscience and psychobabble posing as real science and intelligence, you are qualified. The Hippocratic oath is required. A sense of humor and occasional biting sarcasm is desired — you’ll need it, if nothing else to punctuate the arid flats of expensive, but senseless propositions with a momentum of their own, no matter who many figureheads declare they are new, unprecedented, represent “initative” and are being launched.

Family Court Systems Purposefully Mask Abuse and Abusers

That link, Sept. 2009, is to a blog characterizing 4 key philosophies in family courts; and to my comment, about Sept. 2010, agreeing, and asking why restraining orders are issued, ever:

SHE WROTE, comparing the system to build-ups to previous genocides

It is largely a case of organizational abuse where women and children in already vulnerable situations go to the family court believing wholeheartedly that these courts will provide orders to protect them.

The attempt to constantly focus on the batterer (if you’re a victim) or the false-alleger that she was battered (if you’re the one accused) clouds the larger issue of abusive institutions taking advantage to consolidate power. Still…

Of all the various lessons we may learn, differing from family to family, that’s one we FIRST unlearn; and the faster, the better…I was a slow learner, and kept trying to retain/regain that RO status, failing to learn which piece of the larger puzzle this represented.

The problem is that most of the key-stakeholders {{I believe author means judges, evaluators, and policy-setters}} are men that are fathers and some who have abused or are currently abusing. The best way to understand how these interests have dominated the family law practice is to look into previous cases of genocide and how large organizations aligned to commit it. One of the most well known cases is the holocaust, where thousands of members of the jewish community were murdered.

It all began with the gold star, documenting how many there were of them and then isolating them into an area where they were tortured, murdered or enslaved. The techniques that were used back then were primitive, but effective in carrying out their goals. Today, we have a more complex world with more of an ability to monitor the masses more effectively.

Most Family Courts have too much power to make decisions upon their own accord similar to the old, “at her majesties pleasure” which leaves a lot of room to instigate what some have considered an act of torture. Each case is often isolated to lead the victim to believe that they are the only one and that they will “help” protect the child. It is often too late before the victim discovers that the members worked together to not only diminish your ability to protect yourself and your child, but to ensure that either no one will know or that no one will believe you. That is why a majority of mothers that lost custody were for the reasons of mental illness and is not consistent with the average statistics of mental illness out side this organization.

I replied, from my recent understandings & research:

Read my Luzerne racketeering post (Twittered to your right) and understand, for real this time, that handing out restraining orders, like candy or panacea, has got to be irresponsible.

. . . {{after citing specific case outcome, see “Luzerne County, PA” post…}}

Something really doesn’t smell right here, though. We women have GOT to stop being so gullible, especially people who haven’t had street smarts yet, somehow, or those who have but still somewhere inside them believe that people in authority, and experts, go that way from some sort of ethical quality that the rest of us have less of.

The moral guys won’t succumb to beating up on their women and failing to pay child support, stealing their kids to get even or avoid a simple debt. Family court was designed for those who WILL, I’ve know that for years (it’s obvious, that’s why!)
~ ~ ~ ~
I’ve also known for some time now that the organizations promising women DV help are selling themselves and “collaborating” (supposedly this means, altruistically, ethically) to address the problem of poor black (that’s the terminology that sells the programs better) unable to connect with their children or pay their child support.

The springboard for this post, drafted August 2010, was a 38-page document from a “think tank” called Responsible Government. Reading it, I question the “responsible” (let alone “intelligible”) part, but I understand this in the larger frame of things, it’s like a yearly mating ritual, largely symbolic, and preparatory to requesting continuing and more marriage & fatherhood funding. While often attended, or assisted by females, it is largely by males, for males, and about males (mostly black & poor, at least theoretically) and ostensibly for the benefit of the entire nation.

This comprehensive, yea, “unprecedented” (?) ongoing nationwide project, draining the nation’s resources in million$$ increments, could only be justified as for the nation’s good. As defined by the few, and those employed by them, and as supported financially by (a) wealth and (b) the progressive income taxe

Before you judge my language, read the rhetoric. It demands SOME response!

There are a few scenarios in which that MIGHT be true, for example, if it’s for the good of the entire nation to continue to cannibalize itself through family wipeouts around the family law system, leaving more for the survivors, and survivor of the intelligent enough to avoid that trap.. or, to place bets on the winning parties, like a cock-fight. I do tend to question why cock-fighting and dog-fighting for gambling purposes is illegal, but the family court system remains with similar results; equally a circus and gathering place of spectators and speculators, and those who set the fight, etc. What’s more, this venue is supported by common funds from taxpaying public.

ABOUT SOCIAL SCIENTISTS — they come in PACKS, and are funded often by government, or universities, or nonprofits with significant wealth behind them. Their job is to study population and figure out how to control it, labeling it is part of this. This itself is largely immoral. I wonder how many actually realize this. The talk will not be of “right” except perhaps incidenttally. It will be in terms of “outcomes” and “results.” This is the language of experimentation, and the subject matter are other fellow-human beings. The history of this trend isi worse than the history of the family law system (see “Shady, Shaky Foundations” post, herein) — it’s in eugenics. If you think “Nazi,” you have the right idea. See site “http://www.sntp.net,” i.e. “Say No To Psychiatry” (same idea, different branch).

I’d said the social scientists that publish together, preach together, promote each other together, well, they are found collaborating on policy briefs about — well, those NOT making the policy briefs –they stay together.

“Birds of a feather, flock together“

 

Now, I can be anal-retentive with the best of them (despite not always spell-checking a post), particularly when that phrase doesn’t sound quite right. Flock is more noun than verb, usually. So, why not look it up? How old is it?

In nature, birds of a single species do in fact frequently form flocks. Ornithologists explain this behaviour as a ‘safety in numbers’ tactic to reduce their risk of predation. In language terms, it was previously more common to refer to birds flying together than flocking together and many early citations use that form, for example Philemon Holland’s translation of Livy’s Romane historie, 1600:

“As commonly birds of a feather will flye together.”

Just for fun (and not for the first time) I strung together about 3 of the names under Witness Panel #2 for the House Ways and Means yada yada (see about the last 4 posts herein [@ Aug. 14, 2010) on Julia Carson (who is ?? ??? . . . . . . did we need a token woman in the fatherhood funding bill?) to see what would come up. Think this one combined:

Ronald Mincy Kirk Harris Sara McLanahan [of fragile families collaboration]

Here we are:

[PDF]

Position Paper

42 Kirk E. Harris, “Public Housing and the Legacy of Segregation,” in M.A. Turner … 53 Marcia Carlson, Irwin Garfinkel, Sara McLanahan, Ronald Mincy, …
www.justpartners.org/JPI_PDFs/RESPONSIBLE_GOVT.pd

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT — (an oxymoron?)

This is 38 pp of pdf. Dated October 2009, it starts out
:

October, 2009

Responsible Government:

Investing in the Well‐being of Black Fathers, Families and Communities

“African American fathers are a strong support to the health and well‐being of the family unit. Government should and must play an active role in supporting African American families.

This report shows that by investing in the well‐being of our Black fathers, we will strengthen the Black family and provide pathways out of poverty and greater opportunities for all.” – Rep. Barbara Lee, Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus

A nation’s wealth and thus its future can be measured by the well‐being of its children. If we measure the wealth of the United States by the well‐being of our children, the message is troubling. . .

(“We” who? ?? the phrase is troubling.. — measuring the wellbeing of “its” children [whose children??] that phrase is even more troubling! let alone the concept of measuring well-being, and doling different measures of it out.)

Well, first, let’s talk about our nation’s Grammar, which is an indicator. It starts out simple, yet grandiose: third person singular — “a nation’s wealth.”
(any nation in particular?)

“A nation’s wealth and thus its future . . . “

THAT’s a loaded statement. Is there some historical basis for it? For example, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Third Reich, a few more come to mind.. They were certainly wealthy. Then, there’s the Judaeo-Christian heritage, which US is supposedly based on, and several founding documents were consciously fashioned after, which says in Psalms

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” (i.e., a theocracy…) . . . .

OR, from the supposed wisest, richest king (i.e., Solomon) that ever lived:

“Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is
vanity. Eccles. 1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the
sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh:
but the earth abideth for ever.”

and, realizing that accumulating riches, or wisdom, doesn’t mean one can take them beyond the grave:

Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it
happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my
heart, that this also is vanity.” and:

3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even
one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea,
they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a
beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit
of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

We are all, in other words, going to die — time to face that! Practically, then, and logically:

Wherefore I
perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice
in his own works.

Not about to happen in this climate — when we have to be taxed and let well-meaning benefactors figure out (privately) how to eradicate poverty for all time, and help families, restructure society, and do just about anything BUT rejoice in our own works, in peace!

Of course, in the process of acquiring this wealth & wisdom, said King Solomon allegedly bankrupted his kingdom, his son was worse after him, and the kingdom split, in the next generation.

Is this tradition irrelevant to present policymakers? No — because this US, which started (constitutionally, at least) as colonies, and with slaves, and wiping out native populations en route westward, protested being itself colonized by Great Britain, originally. Great Britain, saw itself as the ruler of the world, and it’s wealth, and the imagination had been captured as God’s “chosen,” with other Europeans, latching in art and literature onto the imagery of the people of the Book.

Here’s Rembrandt’s 1635 characterization of a lavish feast, with gold, silver, freely flowing wine, and a prophecy of doom: “The Handwriting on the wall” of Belshazzar’s Feast. Everyone in the painting looks basically Caucasian, but here’s the theme:

Image linked from artbible.info

(However, original is on display at the National Gallery in London). This Babylonian feast of a 1,000, a wealth indeed, was marred (acc. to the account in Daniel 5) because its wealth had been pilfered from the temple of the REAL God and was used to worship false gods. The moral being, don’t mess with the wrong God, and don’t worship money, or wealth, or God will get you, king or no king! :

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.

3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.

4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

In another day and time (though I suspect little has changed in humanity’s original tendency towards greed) the praise might be just towards one’s own wisdom, as seen in the philosophy of “Responsible Government” enabling Social Engineering of poor people without their input. It’s just so dang egotistical!

5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

6 Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

We can’t see “the handwriting on the wall,” too often, because some of us are oppressed and stuck in the institutions, and other times becuase there are few guideposts to the websites and boardrooms where policy is actually being made. We don’t recognize the footprints.

Anyone with the least, even casual acquaintance, know that empires come and empires go, and change. And that the true nature of empires generally entails both religious zeal, an exaggerated sense of destiny, plans for the empire to last forever, demonization of the “other” bad empires, and — always — rationalization of slavery. Rather than having to continually physically enforce this slavery and caste system, it has to be bred into the populace as dogma, doctrine, religion, social theory — almost anything will do. History has to be carefully monitored and censored, or (see “Tea Party”) retroactively revised. Typically, the ruling classes are not innately smarter about life, but innately smarter, and have grown to understand, collectively, certain skills about how to consolidate and perpetuate wealth, and restrict that knowledge from getting out. Hence control of educational access is key. Dual-track or triple-track (one for rulers, one for those who will be employed by them as administrators, overseers, and slave taskmasters [roughly speaking, the white-collar professionals of the world], and a third for those at the bottom, whose time will be least free, when it comes to obtaining food, housing, and clothing for themselves and their families. Speaking of families, there is also a dual-track as to who gets to keep their own offspring. Hence, “a nation and ITS children” language.

To me, this seems SO obvious — but, maybe in part after years of dealing personally with individuals who appear to have viewed me as a surrogate mother to my own children, and as a child among adults after I took a very adult stand on the concept of legal and civil rights, and self-determination. This is where I found out how torn the fabric of society is, even though had historically worked across a spectrum of populations in my field(s). Nothing like a personal lesson in how one or another profile characteristic can make one suddenly an “outsider” and second class.

Those who reject such labels have an uphill fight, but a real good one, and a vital one.

Women, mothers, per se, rarely make the political theory equation. They didn’t in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence.

DOES wealth predict the future? Or does what one does with it, or how one acquires it, play a factor? That’s a ridiculous statement: “A nation’s wealth and thus its future” in the context of the USA. Look how the Declaration of Independence was signed!

For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Liberty first priority, wealth secondary. They declared independence, or life was not worth living: they refused to be colonized by a distant empire. (We should, too!). This is how it went for those signers, per this link:

What Happened to the Signersof the Declaration of Independence? Five signers were captured by the British and brutally tortured as traitors. Nine fought in the War for Independence and died from wounds or from hardships they suffered. Two lost their sons in the Continental Army. Another two had sons captured. At least a dozen of the fifty-six had their homes pillaged and burned. What kind of men were they? Twenty-five were lawyers or jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers or large plantation owners. One was a teacher, one a musician, and one a printer. These were men of means and education, yet they signed the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured. In the face of the advancing British Army, the Continental Congress fled from Philadelphia to Baltimore on December 12, 1776. It was an especially anxious time for John Hancock, the President, as his wife had just given birth to a baby girl. Due to the complications stemming from the trip to Baltimore, the child lived only a few months. William Ellery’s signing at the risk of his fortune proved only too realistic. In December 1776, during three days of British occupation of Newport, Rhode Island, Ellery’s house was burned, and all his property destroyed. Richard Stockton, a New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice, had rushed back to his estate near Princeton after signing the Declaration of Independence to find that his wife and children were living like refugees with friends. They had been betrayed by a Tory sympathizer who also revealed Stockton’s own whereabouts. British troops pulled him from his bed one night, beat him and threw him in jail where he almost starved to death. When he was finally released, he went home to find his estate had been looted, his possessions burned, and his horses stolen. Judge Stockton had been so badly treated in prison that his health was ruined and he died before the war’s end. His surviving family had to live the remainder of their lives off charity. Carter Braxton was a wealthy planter and trader. One by one his ships were captured by the British navy. He loaned a large sum of money to the American cause; it was never paid back. He was forced to sell his plantations and mortgage his other properties to pay his debts. Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he had to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Continental Congress without pay, and kept his family in hiding. Vandals or soldiers or both looted the properties of Clymer, Hall, Harrison, Hopkinson and Livingston. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Thomas Heyward, Jr., Edward Rutledge and Arthur Middleton, all of South Carolina, were captured by the British during the Charleston Campaign in 1780. They were kept in dungeons at the St. Augustine Prison until exchanged a year later. At the Battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the family home for his headquarters. Nelson urged General George Washington to open fire on his own home. This was done, and the home was destroyed. Nelson later died bankrupt. Francis Lewis also had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife for two months, and that and other hardships from the war so affected her health that she died only two years later. “Honest John” Hart, a New Jersey farmer, was driven from his wife’s bedside when she was near death. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. Hart’s fields and his grist mill were laid waste. For over a year he eluded capture by hiding in nearby forests. He never knew where his bed would be the next night and often slept in caves. When he finally returned home, he found that his wife had died, his children disappeared, and his farm and stock were completely destroyed. Hart himself died in 1779 without ever seeing any of his family again. Such were the stories and sacrifices typical of those who risked everything to sign the Declaration of Independence. These men were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” Are there any among us who would do likewise? Author Unknown

What a far cry, in ideas, we have come since then,and the critical questions of which men are fully human, and whether this includes women, are as relevant today. Now, as then, the intellectual and life continues in degradation of ideas, and principles. Wealth is something we give to a centralized government in hope it will give something of value — besides debt — back.

The full detachment from the institution of economic slavery hasn’t happened. The more I look at public institutions, whether fantastic museums, or depraved law enforcement, and repeatedly downgraded state-sponsored schooling, or those attempting to re-instate theocracy overtly (as opposed to “covertly” through the Executive Department Faith-based initiatives..) — the more I tend to go with it’s time to fast and pray for a slow-down of people’s lives to rediscover some common SENSE.

While in our Capitol, elected representatives watched a coronation and didn’t protest in principle, let alone after they realized that someone else was self-appointed the “true Messiah.” Now, as then, detached intellectual discussions of blacks, households, and poor people have one character in the back room, another in the “Town Halls,” and yet another in press releases shortly before elections. Or in polemics shortly before someone at the House Ways & Means Committee appropriates some more alms to the favored causes.

verbs

strong verbs are important, inspiring, they should conjure up images on which actors can act, which will sway the emotions and transform understanding of the hearers – — that is, IF the hearers (1) come from more than one persuasion and (2) are possibly thinking critically and logically about the presentation.

Given the oh-so-few-people who managed to get “opposed” testimony into the last fatherhood funding hearing, in the full week (nationwide) some of us were alerted to the thing, I’d have to say, probably not in this case. Anyhow, traditions are important, and it takes the tradition of explaining WHY millions of $$ are going to be expended (again, along the same or very similar lines) when the public might want to go back later and find out WHY. So here’s the strong, vivid, symbolic, and visual imagery VERB chosen. . .

“A nation’s wealth and thus its future can be measured.. . .”

WOW. what a passive nation, waiting to have its wealth measured, MAYBE. (See last post, about the National Debt clock posted — at least in 2006 — in Times Square).

At least, despite all that uncertainty (IS this un-named nation’s wealth going to be measured? Or not? Because last I heard, the DEBT already is measured, and increasing as we speak. Brace yourself for this link, which is rather more specific:

U.S.DEBT CLOCK.org

Thanks to computers, and high-speed statistical calculations, many things can be accurately measured nowadays. Also, thanks in part to this gentleman’s brilliant career:

One of these is the Internet. In today’s post, I’m going to “profile” one of the men who helped instigate “Silicon Valley” through creative brilliance — originally developed as military advances in World War II. that was the instigating motive for this research. Towards the end of his life, he “crashed and burned” taking profiling to an extreme case, probably for sensationalism. He appears to have been an entirely egotistical, arrogant, and obnoxious individual, driven, and treating people like subject matter to be manipulated and measured according anachronistic ideas. … At least, if these ideas were OPENLY shown, average, non-megalomaniac people would object and not be caught in public forum acknowledging them. Hence, the ideas, which never did completely “die” lie submerged, like abuse does if we are to continue pretending our social institutions protect us and are still worth propping up.
Welcome to William Bradford Shockley, creative whiz and descendant of the Mayflower colonists, it says:

William Bradford Shockley

Born: 13-Feb–1910
Birthplace: London, England
Died: 12-Aug–1989
Location of death: Stanford, CA
Cause of death: Cancer – Prostate
Remains: Cremated, cashes in family’s possession

Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Physicist
Party Affiliation: Republican

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Co-Inventor of the transistor

Military service: Anti-submarine Warfare Operations Research Group (WWII)

American physicist William Shockley led the team of scientists that developed the first amplifying semiconductor, the transistor, on 23 December 1947. He shared the 1956 Nobel Prize for Physics with John Bardeen and Walter H. Brattain, two of his colleagues at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. Though the device was largely conceived by Shockley, he was only peripherally involved in developing it, but as supervisor he was credited as co-inventor. Exactly one month after their accomplishment, however, Shockley alone developed the junction transistor, a three-layer sandwich-style miniature mechanism in which a small electrical charge signal on the inner layer modulates the current as it flows through. It was another important breakthrough in the developing electronics era, but after their transistor project Bardeen and Brattain, rankled at what they perceived as his hogging of the credit, both refused to work with him again.

On his father’s side he was proud to be directly descended from the Mayflower pioneers, and he was home educated until he was about ten years of age, factors which perhaps contributed to his difficulty getting along with supervisors and co-workers. Doubtless, though, much of Shockley’s frustration with others came from years of being the smartest person in the room, in whatever room he entered.

Being home-educated, and before the 7-Lesson Schoolteacher had been fully streamlined, it seems he hadn’t learned those 7 lessons: intellectual, emotional dependency, class rank, apathy (well, maybe), and in general, conditional self-assessment, conformity, etc. He wasn’t dumbed down, and as a result, we get technology like this. Ironically, the above entry is on a site called “NNDB” with the motto “Tracking Everybody in the World.” Shockley, here, seems to be person 000026028 of section 106.

If his spirit did go upward to God and is hovering around somewhere posthumously, it would realize that, despite the magnificent concept that led to Silicon Valley, and the flattening of this world through electronic chips, his life has indeed been weighed in the balance, and found sadly wanting: in later life, he descended (or turned) to overt racism, and eugenics. What’s worse, a group that funded him calls itself The Pioneer Fund, and he’s not the only one still in this business.

An acquaintance of mine said that this man was a racist. Not being originally from California, or in the social sciences in general, I just had no idea. I think a moral is in here somewhere, that expertise in minerals and hard physical sciences should NOT be turned to humanity. Remember, Fairchild SemiConductor wouldn’t have happened without this man and without him being impossible to get along with. Here’s the record. Warning: it’s offensive:

At Stanford he became intrigued by racial questions and population control, and began publicly claiming that blacks are less intelligent than whites, by genetics and heredity. When his comments were criticized as racist, Shockley doubled down and reveled in the controversy, stating that humanity’s future was threatened because people with low IQs were having more children than people with high IQs. He was basically espousing eugenics, an idea that had been routinely accepted by scientists in the early 20th century but was well debunked by Shockley’s time.

At least in Town Halls and general public discourse. Research likely has only slightly changed its language:

He sought expert status in genetics, a science far outside his training and experience, and soon became a pariah in the scientific community. In a 1980 interview, when asked if his views amounted to racism, he famously answered “If you found a breed of dog that was unreliable and temperamental, why shouldn’t you regard it in a less favorable light?” In 1982 he ran for the US Senate on a platform calling for sterilization of people with IQs lower than 100. In his latter years, at any event where Shockley spoke he was greeted by picketers.

His first marriage ended in divorce, with Shockley leaving his wife as she battled uterine cancer. Months later [!!!] he married his second wife, a psychiatric nurse, who became virtually his only friend in his later years. He was estranged from all three of his children, and died of prostate cancer in 1989. There was no funeral service, because his wife was certain that no-one but she would have come. His name remains controversial even in death — his wife died in 2007, leaving 28 acres of land for a park in Auburn, California, with the stipulation that it be named The Nobel Laureate William B. Shockley and his wife Emmy Shockley Memorial Park. Minority and civil rights groups have objected, and the city has not yet decided whether to accept the gift.

Yeah, it can be. How important is it, though to measure this exactly? And by what standard? By the Constitution vs. the quantity of jails full of people who, supposedly, don’t respect its laws voluntarily? (on that basis, we flunk). By its human rights record? (on that basis, there are already complaints to an international body on the basis of egregious human rights violations to women in the family law system. Among the people complaining is one mother who sought the police to listen when her three children were kidnapped; they didn’t, the kids died. The U.S. Supreme Court said, essentially (yawn), “So what? You thought the existence of police force to enforce laws meant you had some right to enforcement? Think again!”

But then it switches from third person symbolic* singular to first person plural, “we.”

[*I think we’re supposed to deduce that by “a nation’s” is possibly meant coast-to-coast & Canada-to-Mexico North America, plus Alaska, plus Hawaii collectively, plus — Puerto Rico, Guam, and U.S. V.I. and apologies to any new acquisitions or deletions, including militarily, I may have unintentionally omitted. Minus of course any banks, land, properties, or people, or other investments owned by foreign corporations or countries. Unlike Lincoln’s specific references, this one is sort of noncommittal, “a nation’s wealth.”]