Are any of these corporations nonprofits? [few, other than possibly some linked to healthcare]
Sampling of the perhaps less famous ones from the list:
Back to the original post….
This wasn’t the same article, but gives us a flavor of his (Professor Glaeser’s) upbringing, which is fascinating.
Being quoted in a WSJ article; he is talking about how urban areas better have industrial diversity — Detroit didn’t, and New York right now is concentrated too much in the financial industry. Notice the last paragraph talking about his own upbringing:
|
Wall Street Isn’t Enough
Finance-heavy New York must recapture its economic diversity.
New York City has become too dependent on the financial industry.
In 2008, 44 percent of Manhattan wages were earned by workers in finance and insurance; the following year, even after the financial crisis and economic downturn had battered the industry, that share stood at a still-enormous 37 percent. And the track record of one-industry towns isn’t good. No matter how loudly Chrysler’s provocative Super Bowl ad heralded Detroit’s comeback, the Motor City’s population dropped by a quarter over the last decade and now stands at 39 percent of its 1950 peak. In Russia, Soviet-era monocities like Norilsk, a mining hub, are emblems of urban decline. Economic data, bearing out what those examples suggest, show a positive link between industrial diversity and long-run urban success. New York shouldn’t try to hold finance back, of course, but it should try to reduce the cost and regulatory barriers that limit the growth of other sectors. If Gotham hopes to keep playing its historical role in leading the world’s economy, it needs to welcome companies in other fields—most likely, technology, business services, and a broad range of information-intensive industries. I spent my childhood in Manhattan, from 1967 until 1984. New York’s economy was far more diverse then than it is today. My friends’ parents were hardly a proper cross-section of the city, but they nevertheless represented a remarkable array of different industries: there were editors and philosophers, art dealers and jewelers, judges and doctors. Show-business parents, including Broadway composers and a character actor best known for a modest role in Shaft, added glamour. Developers and landlords added grit. I can’t recall a single investment banker in the bunch |
(It’s also a very well-written article, talking about industrial cities’ concentration, and how NY became overly concentrated in the financial sector.)
I’ll set the stage quickly (quoting some “genealogy” of the author, which is interesting)….
|
|
| Ed Glaeser is the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard, where he also serves as Director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston.
He studies the economics of cities, and has written scores of urban issues, including the growth of cities, segregation, crime, and housing markets. He has been particularly interested in the role that geographic proximity can play in creating knowledge and innovation. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1992 and has been at Harvard since then. |
|
| [from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government site, similar] Edward Glaeser is the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, where he has taught since 1992. He is Director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and Director of the Rappaport Institute of Greater Boston. He teaches urban and social economics and microeconomic theory. He has published dozens of papers on cities, economic growth, and law and economics. In particular, his work has focused on the determinants of city growth and the role of cities as centers of idea transmission. He received his PhD from the University of Chicago in 1992. |
|
Blogger Comment: Another way of phrasing this is, a man (unlike most Americans) receives a private school education and a privileged education, being the son of some remarkable parents (both mother and father — see below), being obviously also talented, inspired, and hardworking. He gets his PhD from Chicago and goes STRAIGHT to teaching at Harvard (bypassing the field of other employment, including corporate, almost entirely, or anything which might produce identification with or exposure socially and culturally to non-blue-blood academia (as to actual participation; obviously the University of Chicago is right in the middle of the city) — and head to Boston to continue along the same lines. Who is the “Rappaport Institute” but another funded center (at Harvard) intending to influence Boston Government through providing Harvard-trained leadership? Perhaps we should be looking more closely at the Harvard Endowments as to who owns whom, globally). Here is the Rappaport Institute, also at Harvard).
Who are/were the Rappaports? Who are/were Fred and Eleanor Glimp? How about Taubman?
The Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston strives to improve the governance of Greater Boston by strengthening connections between the region’s scholars, students, and civic leaders. A university-wide entity housed at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, the Institute pursues this mission by promoting emerging leaders, stimulating informed discussion, andproducing new ideas. The Institute was founded and funded by the Phyllis and Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation, which promotes emerging leaders in greater Boston.
The issue with multitudes of private foundations (with various sources of accumulated wealth, and the ability to retain control of it through the vehicle of NONPROFIT TAX status which would be an entirely different story were not MOST Americans taxed and PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS (and government entities themselves) NOT — is the imbalance of power. Individuals not organized in THIS manner cannot truly compete with, or even protect themselves against “bright ideas” not in the interest of the common man.
Read HUD HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (which I looked up when the Wiki on Jerome Lyle Rappaport revealed his real estate development wealth, specifically mentioning the Housing Act of 1949. We’re talking “slum clearance” and combining federal funds with the housing industry, and should keep in mind that the Fair Housing part didn’t come into play until the 1960s….)
The federal government’s interest in housing conditions can be traced back to the first national investigation of large urban slum areas in 1892. HUD is the successor to a number of federal housing agencies, which gradually evolved following a major effort during the great depression to stimulate housing development. The following narrative highlights major events and legislation tracing the Department over the past decades.
The 1930s
In the midst of widespread unemployment and financial collapse, Congress passed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932, creating the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). This was the government’s first major involvement in the housing field. The RFC was authorized to make loans to private corporations providing housing for low-income families. Also in 1932, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was established to make advances on the security of home mortgages and establish a Home Loan Bank System.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | FORM | PAGES | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rappaport Charitable Foundation, Jerome Lyle | MA | 2012 | 990PF | 26 | $12,565,770 | 31-1485041 |
| Rappaport Charitable Foundation, Jerome Lyle | MA | 2011 | 990PF | 28 | $10,301,417 | 31-1485041 |
| Rappaport Charitable Foundation, Jerome Lyle | MA | 2010 | 990PF | 35 | $11,420,131 | 31-1485041 |
[There are Rappaport foundations all over: NY, CA, MN — but this is the largest. DNK who’s related to whom].
Here’s the Rappaport Foundation
About The Foundation
State and Local Leadership in Massachusetts
Leaders of our Commonwealth are found in the appointed and elected officials who run our cities and towns. These men and women represent the heart of public policy. The Foundation is steadfast in its belief that effective public policy solutions have the best opportunity to rise to the surface if our political leaders are provided with:
- Cutting edge and non-partisan academic research into areas of public concern including housing, transportation, education, crime prevention
- The opportunity to interact with leading experts and the best and brightest our colleges and universities have to offer.
In the years before the creation of the Foundation, when Jerry Rappaport was working in and around political circles, he often thought, “If academics and practitioners had a vehicle in which each could listen to the other and began to problem-solve the tough issues together, Boston and the Commonwealth would be a better place to live and work.”
That germ of an idea is the basis of work being carried out now at Harvard University and Suffolk Law School.
Medical Research
No gene has ever been linked to mental illness. In fact what causes mental illness continues to be a scientific mystery. The nucleus of our well-being is grounded in quality medical research and few other kinds of research carries the same stigma as those devoted to neurologic and mental health diseases. Massachusetts is blessed with several world-renowned medical research facilities focused on understanding and ultimately curing neurologic and mental health diseases.
Since 1997, the Phyllis & Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation has actively promoted the growth of leadership and innovative thinking in the areas of public policy, neurological research and the arts. It has done this by supporting individuals and institutions in the greater Boston area in an effort to stimulate dialogue
Philanthropies are ALWAYS going to want to influence public policy and maintain their leverage over the public (while loving it — “PHIL-Anthropy). What they really love, it is starting to look to me, is treating the public as an anthropological subject matter for wonderful resource — plus of course influence. If you read further on this one, it becomes clear a target is on curing mental illness:
The Phyllis & Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation sponsors the work of new and emerging leaders to increase this region’s capacity for generating effective public policy solutions, breakthroughs for neurologic and mental illnesses, and world-class art. The work is accomplished through strategic partnerships with Harvard University, Suffolk Law School, Massachusetts General Hospital, McLean Hospital, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Cure Alzheimer’s Fund and the DeCordova Sculpture Park & Art Museum. The Foundation’s desire is to connect individuals with demonstrated leadership capability, intellectual rigor, and integrity, who can make meaningful change in greater Boston.
The Foundation fosters innovative thinking, productive dialogue and creative alliances. By valuing and rewarding those who show commitment and success the Foundation provides grant recipients with opportunities and resources to strengthen their careers in countless ways.
Why Public Policy, Medical Research and Art?
Again, the problem of mental illness is framed, which will direct (limit, channel, discourage alternate framings of the problem) the search for solutions:
How Big is the Problem?
The statistics speak for themselves. The National Institute of Health reports that:
“An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders…”
Note: In the U.S., mental disorders are diagnosed based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV).
The Rappaport Foundation is passionate in its belief that it is imperative to focus resources into the root causes of and potential treatments for diseases that wipe out the potential of so many, so often and so needlessly.
Leadership as an Art Form [ETC.]
Wikipedia (which reads like a personal promotion page) on Jerome Lyle Rappaport, b. 1927, Harvard, shows that shortly prior to the 1997 formation of this foundation was some ongoing negative press (and books) about a certain redevelopment/gentrification project:
[WIKI LINK TO:]
Jerome Lyle Rappaport[1] (born August 17, 1927) is a lawyer, developer, political leader, and landlord. who is best known today for his philanthropy in Boston, Massachusetts, and as the general partner of one of the most successful and maligned developments of the urban renewal era, the West End Project from which he created a 48-acre (190,000 m2) urban neighborhood known as Charles River Park.[2][3]
Urban Renewal builder[edit]
Less than two years after the NBC and GBAC disbanded during the summer of 1954, Rappaport, Seon Pierre Bonan (a Connecticut and New York City-based developer) and Theodore Shoolman (a Boston Realtor whose late father had built The Wang Theatre) began a forty-year business partnership by acquiring the rights to redevelop Boston’s West End neighborhood, as part of the national urban renewal program launched by the Housing Act of 1949.
After a sixteen-year construction phase the West End Project was ultimately successful. It launched a long era of luxury housing construction in Boston that slowed decades of decentralization. Throughout the 1960s Charles River Park symbolized the critical early successes of the “New Boston,” the city’s political and economic rebound during the last half of the 20th Century.[14]
Rappaport has been commended publicly and received lifetime achievement awards from the American Jewish Committee and Greater Boston Real Estate Board for being an accomplished real estate pioneer and industry leader, a generous philanthropist, and one of the principal architects of the New Boston. He received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Suffolk University in 1998, for “his career of outstanding accomplishments and public service and for his role in reshaping the city’s West End neighborhood.”[15]
His reputation has also been negatively impacted by a chorus of scholarly and non-scholarly opinions about urban renewal and, in particular, his signature development which resulted from the City of Boston’s decision to gentrify a working-class neighborhood. The most widely known book on the subject is “The Urban Villagers,” Herbert J. Gans critical analysis of the old area’s clearance as an alleged “slum” and the West Enders’ displacement from their neighborhood. The West End-Charles River Park experience has been covered thousands of times in books, magazine articles, newspaper columns, and undergraduate and postgraduate papers.
Today, urban planning students are still asked to consider if the positive value of the thriving 50 year-old community that Rappaport and his partners created—consisting of 2,300 units of skyscraper housing, 500,000 square feet (46,000 m2) of retail and office space, 3,400 parking spaces, and an affordable housing building for senior citizens—is outweighed by the destruction of the old West End, and the negative experiences of many whom the City evicted prior to this seminal political, economic and urban planning event.[16]
For years the West End controversy cast a shadow over Rappaport’s successful law practice, and profitable developments in New Haven, Connecticut and Brighton, Massachusetts. It is not widely known that he was the first developer to rebuild a section of the then-decrepit and now-flourishing Charlestown Navy Yard, or that he served on the Boston Fair Housing Commission and the boards of numerous non-profits and corporations for a period spanning more than half a century. Even after the real estate investment company he formed with two sons, New Boston Fund Inc. became one of the richest and most powerful in New England during the late 1990s, nearly every major article about Rappaport mentioned the West End Project and cast it in a mixed light.(Source: “Controversy is Rappaport’s Middle Name.” Boston Globe, April 11, 1990)
Philanthropy[edit]
[Photo omitted] Jerry and Phyllis Rappaport attending an October 2009 event hosted by the Rappaport Center and the Ford Hall Forum.]In 1997 Rappaport and his wife established the Phyllis and Jerome Lyle Rappaport Charitable Foundation.[17] It has since donated more than $30 million to efforts focusing on public policy, health, and the arts.[18] The bulk of the money has gone to the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston at Harvard Kennedy School, and the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service at Suffolk University Law School.[19]
[Not including the people who died on 9/11/2001 in a vertical tower, those in jails, or those in HUD-tenements or other projects. Or those in certain urban school districts, for which taxpayers and private philanthropy are constantly testing different projects to improve the prospects. I’ve been favorable most of my life to urban areas for similar reasons; I like arts, culture, museums, technology, too. However, what about justice systems? NYC’s Unified Courts have so much private money driving them, that was an “innovation” too.
[Center for Court Innovation: Research. Development. Justice. Reform. This is a nonprofit signifying how the justice system has continued to become reorganized as a corporation, a process begun at least as far back as our entrance into WWII, but facilitated by the earlier INNOVATION of the income tax, the Federal Reserve Board, and various currency control manipulations of the time. How TRIUMPHANT this is depends on what position (role) one occupies in the building of this empire, which also is going to obviously affect where one lives and how much one is able, or not, to eat, protect and raise one’s children, etc.)
see also this blog’s pages “Abolishing Representative Government by Executive Orders/How 50 States became 10 Federal Regions” and “The Social Sciencification of America (Roosevelt’s Reorganization Act (Brownlow, Merriam, Gulick – and Ruml)” and (Sept. 1, 2013, see the chart, this Center for Court Innovation was the third on the list of “Who Is It? Government, Corporation, or Hybrid (“UFO”)
| CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION: | In New York, the Center functions as the court system’s independent research and development arm, creating demonstration projects that test new ideas. The Center’s projects include: community courts, drug courts, reentry courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts.
Beyond New York, the Center disseminates the lessons learned from innovative programs, helping criminal justice practitioners around the world launch their own problem-solving experiments. The Center for Court Innovation grew out of a single experiment in judicial problem solving. The Midtown Community Court was created in 1993 to address low-level offending around Times Square. The Midtown Court combines punishment and help, sentencing offenders to perform community service and receive social services. The project’s success in making justice more visible and meaningful led the court’s planners, with the support of New York State’s chief judge [Justice Judith Kaye?], to establish the Center for Court Innovation to serve as an engine for justice reform in New York. . |
| MY COMMENTS: This is characterized as an experiment arising out of a problem which then was expanded, as a natural growth progression. I don’t believe the collective facts on WHO has been funding the “problem-solving-court” innovations decade after decade [1993 was hardly the start]. the problem-solving court (undermining the concept of civil rights and due process) was the desired outcome, and control of the justice system by people who thought in these terms — which are going to be referring clients/litigants/customers (people) to service organizations — was part of the BUSINESS model. Inherent in this business model was the public funding it, although the idea didn’t come from “the public” but from other sources.. Submit comment if you want to discuss further, or continue reading my sidebar links…
The Center’s mission quickly grew to include consulting work with jurisdictions across the country and the world. The Center has received numerous awards for its efforts, including the Peter F. Drucker Award for Non-Profit Innovation, the Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University and the Ford Foundation, and the Prize for Public Sector Innovation from the Citizens Budget Commission. |
|
Here are the Donation pages for the CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION. It is not even a Nonprofit, but (see below) a project of a more obviously special-interest (especially as to its origins) FUND for the CITY OF NEW YORK! And a Donor-Advised Fund of “Network for Good.”
As influential as this center IS, to have its finances be spread out between other nonprofits, one of which got started with a grant from a major private foundation known (I know, at least!) to have its hands in major promotions that affect individual custody decisions nationwide I dare any single person, or dozen forensic accountants to find and audit books showing there’s not been conflict of interest in the programs being promoted!
These initiatives just so happen to involve further drive towards privatization of government through diverting and accessing the major mountain of accumulated cash represented, in the federal yearly appropriations budget, as “Welfare.” I’m talking about the Ford Foundation’s pushing of the Fragile Families Initiative through multiple fronts (@ Columbia/Ronald Mincy, Ph.D., through Wisconsin- address, Illinois expired corporation, ,”Center for Family Policy and Practice” (CFFPP, David Pate & Jacquelyn Bogguess), through MDRC (another nonprofit combining Ford Foundation funding (i.e., private money) + several federal agencies), research and evaluation testings, through Brookings Institution, The Urban Institute (Ron Haskins and friends), now also entrenched in the social service sector of New York State OTDA (Strong Families through Strengthening Fathers), and in Texas through Michael Hayes (who came to the Attorney General’s Office straight from a similarly named initiative), “Office of Family Initiatives” (Mr. Hayes, whatever his civil servant role within the State of Texas in the “Child Support Division” is, he has been flying around to conferences and sitting on a variety of private association boards — at the same time — most of which are designed to influence how much child support fathers do, or to be more precise, do NOT pay, towards support of children they are not residing with. See NCSEA directors (also note Charles Smith of Texas, is listed near the top). Among other directors is a representative from the private contractor Maximus, a private corporation who has been repeatedly sued and forced to settle (in millions of dollars) for various kinds of fraud, in more than one state, over its handling of child support or welfare-related (Medicaid, etc.) matters.
Here, same website!, he’s not “Child Support Division” but “Deputy Director of Family Initiatives.” In other words, two men from the same office in the same state are on the Board of Directors of the NCSEA. One of them came straight from working for a Ford Foundation Initiative (Texas Fragile Families). Here, under “Fatherhood.gov” (!!! which takes also federal welfare funding, explore the site!) is another webinar with three presenters (Mr. Hayes is one), on “Working with Child Support: “Effective Strategies from MODEL state and Local Partnerships, March 2013. (hover cursor, or read). HERE he is again, mentioned on an OCSE fact sheet (footnotes 14 & 15, in fact, if I were in a custody battle, I’d make a note of ALL the corporations in the footnotes, most of who run some well-known fatherhood programs, i.e., “Parents’ Fair Share,” etc. What’s really going on, if not using the US population for test subject matter in behavioral modification and writing it up for collegial (not participatory) discussions?).
A look at the SCOPE and PERSONNEL involved here tells people such as myself (a mother, who was noncustodial until, and it appears in hindsight, with the encouragement of these programs, my children were stolen and the not-working, not-even-looking (ex-batterer) father’s child support arrears abated significantly, resulting in unnecessarily prolonged poverty for my children (removed from the working parent’s home) and forcing ME back onto welfare in the ensuing mess — we can see just how truly “innovative” it is, compared with what we were previously under the illusion we had — courts, with access to justice SOMEwhere in them based on individual’s legal, or illegal behavior towards society, laws, and their kids or spouses, too.
March 28, 2013 – 12:30pm to 2:00pm
This webinar provided ideas and resources to help responsible fatherhood practitioners understand and meet the needs of non-custodial fathers and their families. It featured an overview of federal, state and local policies, partnerships and initiatives; explained how fatherhood practitioners can partner with local child support offices; and generally explored strategies to help non-custodial fathers and their families. Goals of Webinar:
Presenters
Transcript:
|
1. The Office of Child Support Enforcement wishes to thank Kammi Siemens for her contributions in this area during her service at OCSE through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program. 2. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/work_oriented.html 3. Elaine Sorensen and Helen Oliver, Policy Reforms are Needed to Increase Child Support from Poor Fathers. Urban Institute, 2002. 4. http://www.mdrc.org/project_12_39.html 5. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/1999/news/0125whfs.htm 6. http://www.fatherhood.hhs.gov/Evaluation/index.shtml 7. http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/index.htm 8. Cynthia Miller and Virginia Knox, The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2001. 9. John Martinez and Cynthia Miller, Working and Earning: The impact of Parents’ Fair Share on Low-Income Fathers’ Employment, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, October 2000. 10. See, for example, Irma Perez-Johnson, Jacqueline Kauff, and Alan Hershey, Giving Noncustodial Parents Options: Employment and Child support Outcomes of the SHARE program, Mathematica Policy Research, October 2003. Irene Luckey and Lisa Potts, Alternative to Incarceration for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents, Child and Family Social Work (March 2010), pp. 1-11. Susan Gunsch, PRIDE: Parental Responsibility Initiative for the Development of Employment, Presented at Client Success Through Partnership: 2010 State TANF and Workforce Meeting, Dallas, Texas, July 2010. Jessica Pearson, Lanae Davis, and Jane Venohr, Parents to Work! Center for Policy Research, February 2011. Daniel Richard and John Clark, NEON program marks $10 million Milestone, Child Support Report, May 2011. 11. Texas Workforce Commission, NCP Choices: A Comprehensive Guide, February 2010. 12. Daniel Schroeder and Nicholas Doughty, Texas Non-Custodial Parent Choices: Program Impact Analysis. Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, August 2009. 13. http://www.twc.state.tx.us/welref/noncustodial-parent-choices-program-overview.html 14. Michael Hayes, NCP Choices: Finding Work, Staying Employed, Paying Child Support, Power point presentation, Undated. 15. Reagan Miller and Michael Hayes, Texas NCP Choices: Turning Unemployed NCPS into Consistent Payors, Presentation at 2011 National Child Support Enforcement Association Policy Forum, Washington, D.C. 2011. 16. Daniel Schroeder, Kimberly Walker, and Amna Khan, Non-Custodial Parent Choices PEER Pilot: Impact Report, Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, August 2011. Daniel Schroeder and Amna Khan, Non-Custodial Parent Choices Establishment Pilot: Impact Report, Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, August 2011. 17. Judge Jim Rausch and Judge Tom Rawlings, Integrating Problem-Solving Court Practices Into the Child Support Docket, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, February 2008. 18. Rhonda Zingraff, Extended Executive Summary: The Effects of Differential Court Sanctions on Child Support Payment Compliance, Meredith College, January 2007. 19. Tess Tannehill, Carolyn O-Brien, and Elaine Sorensen, Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative: Process Evaluation Report. Urban Institute, July 2009. 20. Id. 21. Kye Lippold and Elaine Sorensen, Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative: Final Impact Report for the Pilot Employment Programs, Urban Institute, October 2011. 22. Jose Y. Diaz and Richard Chase, Return on Investment to the FATHER Project. Wilder Research, November 2010. 23. Dan Bloom, Sarah Rich, Cindy Redcross, Erin Jacobs, Jennifer Yahner, and Nancy Pindus, Alternative Welfare-to-Work Strategies for the Hard-to-Employ: Testing Transitional Jobs and Pre-Employment Services in Philadelphia, MDRC, October 2009. Cindy Redcross, Megan Millenky, Timothy Rudd, and Valerie Levshin, More Than a Job: Final Results from the Evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities Transitional Jobs Program. MDRC, January 2012. 24. Cindy Redcross, Megan Millenky, Timothy Rudd, and Valerie Levshin, More Than a Job: Final Results from the Evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities Transitional Jobs Program, MDRC, January 2012. 25. http://www.doleta.gov/reports/etjd.cfm |
| Reader Note. Take time to actually read that transcript, and see how the rhetoric goes. And understand why people who want to alter government and influence it gravitate to two governmental fields, frequently (often as attorneys) 1. Health and Human Services and 2. within that, Office of Child Support. A consistent look at where they come from, often finds a major operation (nonprofit) taking private foundation funding, whether Rockefeller, Ford, or Annie E. Casey, etc. It is this “innovative practice” that more Americans need to understand, and scrutinize — and start asking WHY are all the private foundations so obsessed with programming which comes out of welfare (Social Security Act) funding, if they do not understand its size and influence on their own originating corporations’s profits or losses? And, being wealthy enough already to do this (through one means or another, historically, including participating in and funding wars, or supplying the materials for a government to wage war), it only makes sense to also target (fund) major and respectable universities for Innovations in Government as well. For example, Harvard.
This is having a cumulative effect, in part to drive participation away from “the People” and towards corporations, where it basically has remained. At this point, the best antidote to this I’ve seen, or can personally think of, has been suggested by a single man in Arizona, Walter Burien — see CAFR1.com, and the plan to eliminate taxes, and put government and citizens on the same page (same side) as opposed to, as adversaries, which is where, to be honest, it stands now. Link on this page under “See Who’s telling.” or elsewhere on my post. If someone has a better “innovation” to counteract these, I’m all ears… |
|
The Center for Court Innovation is a non-profit, charitable organization that relies on a combination of private and public support. Contributions from individuals are particularly crucial, helping to demonstrate that there is a broad, public interest in court reform. All contributions to the Center are tax deductible.
There are two ways to make a donation to support the Center for Court Innovation:
Credit Card
Please click here to make a donation by credit card. You will be directed to a secure site operated by Network for Good. The Center for Court Innovation has partnered with Network for Good to process your online credit card donation securely via the Network for Good Donor Advised Fund. This transaction will appear on your credit card statement as “Network for Good.”
So as for:
I think the question becomes, who is “Us”? (under what conditions are that statement true?) That said, I’m going to still look to read the book, architects are very smart people and being the son of a major one, I’m sure it’s well-worth reading.
I just want to raise the point that throughout history, empires have created amazing institutions, and monuments, architecture, art, literature, urban creations (roads, aqueducts, etc.), bridges, and mining for minerals throughout the world (including in the US and Africa). In the creation of these monuments, workers have died, and waters, including rivers and lakes, have been heavily polluted through the greed and drive that needed to — create monuments and drive commerce to make some wealthy, and others facilitate it (human capital).
This is possible through enforced and intrinsic inequality. People talking about benefit, innovation, improvement and reform — whose backgrounds comes from the Cecil Rhodes, Rockefeller, Ford, and other industries based on colonizing Africa (and, America), and in general disrupting self-sufficient industries to put them on the national, co-dependent model — should NOT be the continuing “Change-agents’ and leadership for generations to come. In particular, the fruits of the Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Chicago (Yale) etc. model, with strong roots in the London School of Economics, Oxford University etc. (I have blogged this plenty — see http://economicbrain.wordpress.com”) needs an open discussion about a different values system. This cannot happen well when our communities are segregated into subject-matter sectors run from Washington, D.C. and based on this for-profit model of government with the power to mis-manage itself based on its power to tax and incarcerate people who don’t pay up.[[Comment added 3/2014 and will probably be deleted within a week]].
(@ “The London School of Economics and Political Science“)
Cities and Globalisation International Growth Centre public lecture
Date: Monday 20 January 2014
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: New Theatre, East Building
Speaker: Professor Ed Glaeser
Chair: Professor Vernon HendersonEd Glaeser is the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard, where he also serves as director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. He studies the economics of cities, and has written on a range of urban issues, including the growth of cities, segregation, crime, and housing markets. He has been particularly interested in the role that geographic proximity can play in creating knowledge and innovation. His 2011 book, Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier was shortlisted for the Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Business Book of the year. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1992 and has been on the faculty at Harvard since then.
I didn’t realize how young the guy is. Wikipedia (which article contains a warning) shows that before Univ. of Chicago’s Ph.D. in economics there was a Princeton B.A. in economics before which it looks like he attended a private? high school in New York. He looks like first-generation American (from Germany) and his father was a successful architect with also a PhD in art history from the “Free University of Berlin” after which he went to work at MOMA (NY “Museum of Modern Art”), curator of architecture and design. Son was inspired by this passion also.
Not your run-of-the-mill person… Architects and artists are definitely a different breed of thinkers. I also have to note — Glaeser’s interest was in ECONOMICS, obviously a pretty good choice….
In addition, Glaeser’s MOTHER received an MBA (doesn’t say from where, or where; it looks like possibly met in America? [later, I believe it said Columbia]) when Glaeser was 10 years old, bringing him to some of her classes. Here are the two paragraphs:
|
&
Glaeser said, about his father, “His passion for cities and buildings nurtured my own”. Glaeser described how his father supported new construction and change if it met aesthetic standards. According to Glaeser, his father also “disliked dreary postwar apartment buildings and detested ugly suburban communities”, but Glaeser, himself found much to admire in sprawl in so far as it facilitates “the ability of people to live as they choose”.[5]
Yet Glaeser’s work also argues against local anti-density zoning laws and federal government policies that encourage sprawl, such as the mortgage tax deduction and federal highway programs.[1]
Glaeser’s career was also reportedly influenced by his mother, Elizabeth Glaeser, who worked at Mobil Corporation as head of Capital Markets for 20 years before joining Deloitte &; Touche as Director of the Corporate Risk Practice. She earned an M.B.A. degree when Edward was ten years old and occasionally brought him to her classes. He remembers her teaching him micro-economics lessons, such as marginal cost price theory.[6]
More on the mother shows up at Edward’s 2003 NYTimes wedding announcement, including his bride’s substantial pedigree as well. Both were 36 at this time. Given that he has a stepfather, it appears Mom divorced Dad and remarried:
|
Son Edward, our Harvard professor here — was then about 23 when his mother remarried; she must’ve gotten her MBA then in about 1977. Were there any brothers or sisters?
|
In 1995/1996, Elizabeth Glaeser (minus her new last name) is being quoted as a sophisticated derivatives/swaps consultant about town, after 19 years with Mobil, now moving to Deloitte; here’s the article:
Edward Ludwig “Ed” Glaeser (born May 1, 1967)
Mobil’s Glaeser Joins Deloitte
When it comes to picking short lists of the most sophisticated corporate risk managers, one of the most frequently mentioned names is Elizabeth Glaeser. Glaeser, a 19-year Mobil Corp. veteran, spent the last six years developing the company’s interest rate risk management infrastructure and debt management strategies.
In April, Glaeser left Mobil to become director of the Capital Market’s Group at Deloitte & Touche LLP. Her new job is to help corporations follow in her footsteps by developing and upgrading their own policies and systems.
Glaeser credits Mobil’s high level of sophistication to Lou Noto, the company’s former CFO who is now Chairman. “He was a physics major at Notre Dame and was comfortable with swaps,” she says.
“He knew their value and we could engage him in an intelligent conversation about them.” At other firms, she admits, risk managers have a tougher time. “It’s harder than ever to have senior management allocate resources to building a risk management process. Corporations are in an increasingly strict cost-cutting environment right now. If they didn’t make the investment seven or eight years ago, it’s very difficult to get budget money now.”
She believes more companies will have to rely on expertise from consulting firms -particularly when it comes to technology. “It’s hard for firms to make the right decisions because their own information systems people aren’t financially literate,” she says. “They work on internal payroll systems, bookkeeping, not mark-to-market valuations.”
Elizabeth Glaeser Chaitman’s own mother, (with three entirely different names) died in 2005 at age 91, showing HER substantial pedigree, including a degree from Vassar, which appears to include running schools (probably private schools) in Connecticut and New Jersey.
We should speak back to the federal policy of categorizing ALL people as to their “income” levels (“income” is relative term, not the same as “revenues” and relates to what can or cannot be taxed. The following paragraphs, I extracted from my gut-reaction to a Glaeser (Edward) commentary in the middle of a post describing the Chrysler situation, including commentary (as I recall) on how single-industry urban areas are going to continue having problems, even when bailed out.
| When our own government is continually seeking out “low-income” people to lecture about their work ethic and train them to hold low-income jobs which will keep them in poverty (while diverting some of the potential assistance into yet more social science theories that could be summarized as “woman-hating” although it’s called “marriage/fatherhood” promotion) — and encouraging all bidders, no matter how dishonest or incompetent to (if they have a degree in the “RIGHT” sectors) come jump on the bandwagon of interviewing, testing, evaluating, assessing, and writing up the poor — while helping others develop and refine better techniques for HUMAN BEHAVIORAL CHANGE (I.E., “PERSUASION”), in case there’s another war needed to defend multinational corporate holdings by someone in, say, the Bush Dynasty or another ruling aristocracy’s corporate interests…… (which it truly does seem World War II WAS about)) then we have to talk back about the talk about “jobs” and look at how the US Government and its friends actually make THEIR money.The poor are highly motivated, in general, to survive — and can have a very swift learning curve, if what they are learning makes some sense (ask me how I know that). I’m sure at some gut level, the not-poor, but owned by their employers (government, or corporations) but not able to simply quit working and still pay their own bills individuals, probably know this. Which may have something to do with, given a choice between, it’s either THEM (the poor) or US (the employed), I vote for US (the employed, particularly by government).Therefore, SOMEONE has to keep “the poor” from coming into their own, like blaming it on their race, or their gender, or their marital status — and having separate but very unequal public school systems, separate but unequal housing systems, separate but unequal roads and public transportation systems, and a whole lot more.Reading [the original Glaeser article] is like looking up at the surface of the water from a few thousand feet below it, where some of us have been swimming around (for years) as single mothers, noncustodial mothers, noncustodial JAILED fathers (til they get re-entry outreach), in-arrears fathers (til they get help with reducing child support arrears in exchange for engaging in the custody wars) and all this other stuff we have to deal with.
It is a “you’ve got to be kidding,…” and “try again” statement of events which fail to take into account reactionary welfare policy designed to scapegoat SOMEONE for previous governmental screwups, or simply decades of theft at the fiscal level (referring to the warehousing of assets listed in the “Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports” (CAFRs) while pushing and publicizing to one and all, the “Budget” etc. |
Thanks to the internet and certain historians chronicling other continents, and drawing a timeline up to the present, we can now understand that the CORPORATE/COMMERCE model is also an imperialist and racist/colonizing model, as described in the words of some of its founders, like Cecil Rhodes, and others. It’s the mentality that drives the model which counts –and that mentality wishes for a certain race (for him, Anglo-Saxon), to dominate; other countries had to be cleared out to make room for more Englishment. This already had happened and was happening in the United States, as the indigenous people were simply wiped out, “reserved” patronized, and children brought into schools to destroy their own culture.
The same English mentality attempted to wipe out the Irish because they were Catholic, and jumpstarted the Irish slave trade along with the African slave trade.
At all points, it may not be all the people in a culture, or country who think or believe in this manner; but (just as with “domestic violence” issues) if they do not strategize to resist their own leadership’s global goals, when they are immoral and involve excess killing, wasting the landscape, and creating scarcity where it wouldn’t otherwise be — not to mention requiring for its success virtually dependent sectors of cheap slave labor force (we don’t have that here? Guess you forgot about the prison populations, among others: ….)
I’m sure at some level of consciousness, even if it’s not frequently thought of, most people will admit that we have a prison population; that population is put to work “for their own good” (cf. “Welfare-to-Work” lectures), and that they are a true “captive audience” with few bargaining rights. That this is big business and that this business (including the private industry that both builds and RUNS the institutions, as well as those who provide services within the institutions, which is to say, the prisons) as well as those who provide “work opportunities” for inmates — are commercial endeavors, and usually with a very high profit margin for the owners, higher I’m sure than the average job-holder still OUTSIDE the prisons (and potentially with a relative or ex-partner INside).
But to the extent that we don’t do something to counteract it, and change our entire commercialized CULTURE as it has already been changed to this negative state, we are just enabling, or excusing — it’s too large, I can’t change it, it’s been this way, they asked for it — why not stay out of jail to start with? Crime is a choice, etc.
Crime may be a choice (it was a choice also for the ImPath Executives, see “Genzyme” post, and anyone else who engages in money laundering. Laywers also commit crimes and this does not always get them disbarred, or incarcerated; so no doubt to judges, which occasionally makes headlines; sometimes human rights violations, and sometimes economic crimes. But locking up people IS a business, and it’s been privatized, more and more (Corrections Corporation of America — search this blog, or look it up).
So here’s one article which should remind us of this factor: The corporate economy thrives off profit, and what better profit when there’s a population of controlled workers without real access to bargain? Like prisoners:
| Found in: “Tech News: The Student Newspaper of Worcester Polytechnic Institute” [Worcester, Massachusetts. School founded right after the Civil War, 100 yrs later, no females admitted yet; finally they turned it around, apparently. Interesting].Tuesday Mach 27, 2001 “A publication of the Newspeak Association,” Vol. 66 No. 8Prison Labor Cheats Society(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES – It seemed like a normal factory closing. U.S. Technologies sold its electronics plant in Austin, Texas, leaving its 150 workers unemployed. Everyone figured they were moving the plant to Mexico, where they would employ workers at half the cost. But six weeks later, the electronics plant reopened in Austin in a nearby prison.At the same time, the United States blasts China for the use of prison slave labor, engaging in the same practice itself. Prison labor is a pot of gold. No strikes, union organizing, health benefits, unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation to pay. As if exploiting the labor of prison inmates was not bad enough, it is legal in the United States to use slave labor. The 13th Amendment of the Constitution states that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall exist within the United States.”There are approximately 2 million people behind bars in the United States – more than three times the number of prisoners in 1980. The United States now imprisons more people than any other country in the world. In fact, in the last 20 years California has constructed 21 new prisons while in the same amount of time, it has built only one new university. That statistic is even more astounding when we think about the fact that it took California almost 150 years to build its first 12 prisons. Another five new prisons are under construction and plans are in the works to build another 10.The question that needs to be answered is – why? Why are prisons such a booming business? The answer lies in the prison industrial complex. At the same time that prisons clear the streets of those you feel are a “threat” to society, prisons also offer jobs in construction, guarding, administration, health, education and food service.Prisons in impoverished areas often end up with inmates from the local area who had previously worked in the community. Often they were laid off from a factory job that moved overseas and they turned to alcohol or drugs, which ultimately landed them in prison. Others are luckier and get a job in the prison. One of the fastest-growing sectors of the prison industrial complex is private corrections companies. Private prisons also have an incentive to gain as many prisoners as possible and to keep them there as long as possible.
[[Note: same mentality as behind the “Kids for Cash” scheme in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania not many years ago. This was a racketeering scheme which required the participation of judge or two, among others.]] Many corporations, whose products we consume on a daily basis, have learned that prison labor can be as profitable as using sweatshop labor in developing nations. You might have had a first-hand experience with a prison laborer if you have ever booked a flight on Trans World Airlines, since many of the workers making the phone reservations are prisoners. Other companies that use prison labor are Chevron, IBM, Motorola, Compaq, Texas Instruments, Honeywell, Microsoft, Victoria’s Secret and Boeing. Federal prisons operate under the trade name Unicor and use their prisoners to make everything from lawn furniture to congressional desks. Their Web site proudly displays “where the government shops first.” Federal safety and health standards do not protect prison labor, nor do the National Labor Relations Board policies. The corporations do not even have to pay minimum wage. In California, inmates who work for the Prison Industrial Authority earn wages between 30 and 95 cents per hour before required deductions for restitutions and fines. State Corrections agencies are even advertising their prisoners to corporations by asking these questions: “Are you experiencing high employee turnover? Worried about the cost of employee benefits? Getting hit by overseas competition? Having trouble motivating your work force? Thinking about expansion space? Then the Washington State Department of Corrections Private Sector Partnerships is for you.” Prisons are being filled largely with the poor, the mentally ill, people of color, drug addicts and many combinations of these characteristics. They are not reserved for violent people who are extremely dangerous to society. In fact, of the nearly 2 million prisoners, about 150,000 are armed robbers, 125,000 are murderers and 100,000 are sex offenders. Prisons are certainly not filled with corporate criminals who make up only 1 percent of our nation’s prisons…. |
OR, it turns out some of the “tilapia” for a gourmet, pricey organic foods market in (at least) California, “Whole Foods” — are processed by inmates in Colorado. And maybe Washington. How many other products?
Working Prisoners Save Taxpayers Money
States are increasingly using prison labor to plug budget holes, but public employee unions aren’t happy
Russell Nichols May 2011 [in Governing.com. Might want to bookmark..]]The Cañon City Correctional Complex in southern Colorado is a veritable city of prisoners. More than 8,000 inmates are housed in the complex of 13 correctional facilities — nine state and four federal — most notably in the Supermax, a state-of-the-art federal facility known as the “Alcatraz of the Rockies.” But on a recent early spring day, Colorado Correctional Industries (CCi) Director Steve Smith isn’t concerned with inmates. He’s concerned with tilapia.
In a greenhouse in the center of the correctional complex, Smith surveys the fish splashing and thrashing about in a pool of murky green water. “This is their death row,” says Smith, seemingly oblivious to the warm water pelting his gray suit. From here, the hormone-free tilapia will be killed, gutted, cleaned, chopped, vacuum-sealed and ultimately shipped to Whole Foods stores.
This fish-farming program is staffed by inmates, and that’s not the only job performed by the Cañon City prisoners. Across some 6,000 rural acres, low-security inmates also raise cows and goats to produce milk, craft custom fishing rods, train dogs, grow flowers, tame mustangs, recycle trash from nearby counties to resell it, build chairs for state agencies, and more.
CCi receives no tax dollars, Smith says, but the entire operation last year generated $57 million in revenues, which benefits the state economically. “Every inmate that works here saves taxpayers $5,000 a year,” Smith says. “Most states are going away from agriculture, selling land to balance their budgets. We’re trying to expand.”
.
.
National Corrections Industry Association is based in Baltimore, Maryland (Hey — not too far from the University of Baltimore School of Law I keep picking on, because it has an “AFCC” built-in ‘join-our-franchise” center right on campus. [2014update — see Table of Contents page, incl. “Indoctrination Center” and other posts regarding Baltimore topics, and those on Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is involved in some of their projects/LGH]).
Here’s a list (a long list) of their “Corporate Partners.”
However the NATIONAL Corrections Industry Association’s revenues are about 1/10th (per Guidestar) the American Correctional Association‘s, which (per site) was founded in 1870 (Hey — right after the civil war. See? Free the slaves, coordinate the prisons…. just in time for the industrial age….) “the oldest and largest international correctional association in the world. Out of Alexandria, Virginia, EIN# 13-1977456
Somehow (looking up the tax returns on one of my favorite sites) between 2005-2006 their assets almost tripled, also changed locations from Maryland to VA. I’m linking to the tax returns for those years).
[2014 March additions, while I’m correcting some copyediting mistakes that provoked an irritated comment] for other years:
| ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | FORM | PAGES | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Correctional Association | VA | 2012 | 990 | 29 | $14,721,989 | =13-1977456 |
| American Correctional Association | VA | 2011 | 990 | 30 | $13,507,924 | =13-1977456 |
| American Correctional Association | VA | 2010 | 990 | 37 | $12,815,887 | =13-1977456 |
Database Notes on “FoundationCenter.org”
Earlier years, from the same URL — no longer searchable by year on the exact same website as just produced the above chart, showing 2010-11-12. Apparently searchable data on this site (either the database contents, or the part of the data that the input “Search” page accesses) have been sharply reduced between July 2013 (when this post was published) and (I’ve been noticing this for several months now) at latest March 2014. Try it yourself– type in the EIN# and an earlier than 2010 year and see what you get, @ http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/. Possible workaround — type in year wanted on the URL from a more recent year. Or find another source of 990s. MORAL of the STORY. Do we have public access data integrity? Speculation — probably not. Corollary: If so, do we know where as a country se stand financially? Speculation — probably not. For more, read Catherine Austin Fitts, or see top pages quoting her take on it, at Cold,Hard.Fact$
American Correctional Association VA 2006 990 31 $14,275,711 13-1977456
American Correctional Association VA 2005 990 37 $14,901,193 13-1977456
American Correctional Association MD 2004 990 75 $5,576,588 13-1977456
American Correctional Association MD 2003 990 28 $5,491,753 13-1977456
American Correctional Association MD 2002 990 28 $5,059,922 13-1977456
The Alexandria, Virginia Street address is also shared by the American Humane Association and “United States Homeland Investigations,” — beautiful building, looks like (meeting room also for rent there). Well, and the Social Security Administration, it looks like (206 N. Washington).
The very interesting, 37-page tax return (YE 2005, Assets $14,901,193, above) shows only one paid officer, James A. Gondles, Jr. — who’s been President for 20 yrs, unlike the others, who seem to have lasted about two years each, at least immediately preceding (see two-page description, esp. page 2). Coincidental with welfare reform years? Of their income $6.1 million federal contracts, plus over $440K, government contracts. They sold some securities for $1.4 million and managed to accrued “costs” of $1.3+ million, hence keeping their “revenues” figure down. To me, that looks funky (if it cost 90%+ to sell, why sell?).
Overview from an NCCSdataweb.urban.org-related site, I think
Like most associations, this one’s programs show where the money is (or, is spent), in order:
9. Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) 09/2011
10. Total revenue $8,924,756
11. Total assets $13,507,924
12. Purpose () To exert a positive influence on the shaping of national Correctional policy and to promote the professional development of persons working within all aspects of corrections
13. Program 1 () Facilities accreditation – performed approximately 438 accreditations of prison facilities to ensure those facilities meet industry standards endorsed by the Association ($2,198,132)
14. Program 2 () Conferences – two conferences for members to meet & discuss issues, developments & policies of interest to those in the Correctional field ($1,598,724)
15. Program 3 () Corrections today – published issues of the periodical journal which provides members with current information & resources relevant to the Correctional field ($789,562)
16. Program 4 () Publications – disseminated information relating to corrections through 56, 281 publications sold to members ($542,431)
17. Program 5 () Membership services ($406,081)
18. Program 6 () Administration of federally funded programs ($372,096)
19. Program 7 () Correspondence courses ($367,717)
20. Program 8 () Program council ($314,911)
21. Program 9 () Directories ($179,345)
22. Program 10 () Training ($142,425)
23. Program 11 () Certification ($88,817)
24. Program 12 () Online academy ($79,986)
25. Program 13 () Government affairs ($68,539)
26. Program 14 () Mailing lists ($38,188)
27. Program 15 () Compendium ($15,766)
PERSONAL POSITION:
I figured out EIGHT years ago that this system wasn’t going to protect me enough (coming, going, or inbetween) to practice my own profession that supported my household without outside aid, or would’ve if someone had let us alone, and put a wall between me and local psychopaths. I am MOST days on the phone with at least one individual (that is, when I have phone service) who used to be solvent and not have chronic PTSD, and concern for the immediate future, like next week — in re: herself, or her children (either living with her, or not living with her).
For us “JOBS” doesn’t mean a lot if there’s no one to protect us going (a) to work and (b) coming home from work, or (c) while at work, for me many times the only safe place in town.
When I went, as a married mother (abusive relationship) to the only safe place in town for ME, for about 8-12 hours (depending on the shift) and was treated like a human being, not an ant, while working for a large corporation — my children, at home, being young — were in the sole care of their father, who was unreliable to feed them or even STAY home evenings, that is, stay home with THEM, evenings.
I lasted only two years in this job, and because I had to quit (rather than was fired — there was no cause for firing) I got zero unemployment. I did get some minor disability, checks directly written to me, which pissed off the father, and caused further stress. This was right after welfare reform, and if I had stalled any longer on getting a TRO (DV restraining order with kickout) I wouldn’t have gotten it; and would probably be not just unemployed, but also dead.
Prior to that I worked from home in an attempt to appease the guy, while the girls were VERY young. When this work started prospering (and helping our household) he shut it down.
The apparent purpose of forcing me into the FT night job was to get ahold of my credit based on my work, but not made available to me, personally. He also refused to put the utilities in OUR name (only his) and in HINDSight I see that this (man) was planning in advance to “win” when I, predictably, couldn’t take the abuse any more, which I reiterate, had begun with control by assault and battery on a pregnant mother in front of the other child.
I don’t know whether it’s an over-entitled (as opposed to more normal) male thing, or a sociopath thing, but in hindsight, it is clear the level of advance planning done to take over my life, and financially pimp an educated, smart mother with a work ethic. The next phase of the “School of Hard Knocks” was expecting that the legal or justice systems (courts), which had begun by saving our lives in this manner, would continue to respect them. I was to learn, again in hindsight, that there’s always a medium of exchange, and apparently that medium involves minor children.
After some years of learning (as fast as I could and from as many sources as possible — but NOT having the right search strings, or even knowing to look at the business structure of courts in the light of the corporate structures of states to federal government, and put it immediately (and promptly) in some sort of historical context, although it was clear immediately that the family courts did not speak “domestic violence,”) it took some more very hard, and very unnecessarily expensive and dangerous lessons to wake up, reject the rhetoric being publicized and shoved in my (and “protective mothers”) faces, and look at the systems engineering factor.
It only took a few hot leads and staying on them consistently to understand the significance, and begin de-toxing from certain advocacy groups which were, for lack of a better word, heavily engaged (to this day) in censoring, and silencing open discussion of the most relevant factors in custody decisions — the money trail. This blog, essentially, is that learning process.
I think that people who have survived certain traumas and not been destroyed by them, still have to fight consistently for the mental and personal integrity. this is not best done by joining groups, but by being willing to take the “alone time,” and regardless of who else it alienates, rejecting dishonest, or simply doesn’t hold water, philosophies and agenda. Given another chance, I would do it again (only faster, and earlier).
So, the JOBS discussion doesn’t account for the abuse factor. Populations subject to abuse — which is going to continue to be most of us unless major changes are made — cannot stay free based on jobs. The family court system can flip the tables in a 20-minute court hearing, or even an ex-parte order. They have recently taken to simply locking up lawyers, when not disbarring them, and trying to make an example of dissidents (“sending a message” to others to keep their heads down while the “bad people” are punished….)
This is a COMMON story — and yet “welfare reform” will not address it. Common theory about joblessness doesn’t address it, and the domestic violence advocates which originally, I should say, tried to stand up to the status quo — were backed into a corner, forced to compromise, and thereafter (and NOT before)…. “Domestic Violence” became a real, flourishing industry. I’m talking in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Now that I’ve had my say — what This Harvard Economics Professor may know experientially, but may not be talking about — and it should’ve been obvious years earlier — the conversation shouldn’t be only about “EMPLOYMENT” because we already know that certain industries are going away or overseas and certain other industries are higher paid, and who can and who cannot get into them. Also, employment isn’t necessarily the largest profit sector.
It’s all a moot point for people stuck in the family court Archipelago and with real safety concerns on the table. I knew about “the information” age in the 1990s and planned my work life for the sector that required the most human intelligence, and steered away from those sectors which predictably would be replacing women like me with software — and, I did this also very much aware of the factors of being a mother — and being older, meaning if I stayed in those sectors where I could “ace the job” (but the job itself was going to be centralized and high-teched out of existence) — I would be jobless.
I also had to factor in the truth of the matter — I was living with an abuser, with a habit of sabotaging any successful work, and he had access to my credit, yet had curtailed my own access to credit (did I say “RELIGIOUS” yet in this post? Who teaches those guys to do this? Sometimes, it’s the local pastor, or it might be an internet-based, radio-talk evangelist, like James Dobson, who my ex said he liked to listen to).
I did all of this, and when it was made available to me, just under the wire of the full-blown backlash on mothers (not just women, but specifically mothers) post-1996 welfare reform – I GOT OUT.
Then, with all the excess energy and almost boundless hope (you cannot fathom it unless you’ve experienced it) — and with very little “down time” (which I knew was not an option) — I got MY house in order again, and eventually doing so, faced a landlord sale; I took advantage of the challenge to my housing to coordinate any number of factors (and as a mother with children living with me FT except weekends — Dad had not in a few years found housing which could accommodate the kids; and his child support, which didn’t even kick in the first year, was set below welfare level…..): I moved, and got “Let’s Get Honest” (there’s a reason my name isn’t on that blog, but that’s whose meant) — I got it together, networking with some new, some who were aware of the abuse generally, but in general, with a fresh start.
I was solvent before the restraining order had expired, and very happy with a solid work life and children (in my home) doing well, not to mention, not being separated completely from their father — just from witnessing him perpetrate the ongoing DV and terrorism.
But steam was coming out from underneath the opposing side’s ears, who had done some “male bonding” weekends with members of my own family (who’d not stopped the abused or referred me to any help for it, for years, but suddenly became experts on what I needed to do, and how to do it, and with whom, and why I should let this crowd make my future life decisions “in my best interests.” In short, it was communicated to me that, without a man in the home (which was obviously deliberate at the time) my work,my professional life, and the children obviously (which was witnessed) doing well overall, meant nothing. “ALL” that mattered to these (in writing) was my marital status, my profile indicators. These were people who should know better, and did know me better.
I was at this time around 50 years old, educated, and for the most part (except the dark moods of the individuals above) with a very bright future. I was NOT interested, and said so clearly, in further abuse by the same people who lacked jurisdiction in my court case, which at this time, was in a stable position, and informed them so, and who obviously had not yet conceded that their wisdom had not entailed referring me to any (whatsoever!) legal or law enforcement help for years of wife-battering and repeated job sabotage.
It was obvious they wanted me boxed up and my kids farmed out into the standard economic model at which single mothers have a harder time succeeding, and which is more expensive to ALL involved — while producing an inferior income for me, from which income I would have to deduct child care, etc. AND an inferior education for them. There was no legal reason, or cause, to force me back into dependency. The reasons couldn’t be stated openly because they were not moral, logical, rational. They were intent to do the illegal and profit from it, which has, to this date, actually worked well for those involved.
That’s what caused me, year after year, to continue (even while IN the developing situation) to understand that it wasn’t just these specific individuals — it was the entire culture, which has professionalized MOST basic human issues for handling by the experts, while the rest of us go to work and attempt to come out with a net profit larger than rent (or mortgage), transportation, food, etc.
This is why: IN RETROSPECT, given the current climate of the courts (which provide a loophole to continue the abuse) — I’d recommend complete separation from one’s kids, PERIOD, as a deterrent to domestic violence. You want to beat up on adults who displease you? Get away from children, particularly your own.
This is where family court comes in, and what it appears to specialize in: Taking one (or both) parents and forcing back into dependency/onto welfare. Then it turns around and beats the public over the head about the need to keep paying taxes to help (and/or help indoctrinate/evaluate, etc.) poor people.
Since then, I have instead of learning and being able to practice what I already knew — how to support myself, even in a rapidly changing involvement, by making reasonably good decisions, and correcting the bad ones — I was exposed to and forced to deal year after year with the kind of “in your face” destructive, for lack of a better word, “evil.” By “evil” I’m not talking religious — I’m talking, malice.
Malicious destruction of things without cause, for the purpose of creating a scarcity and from there, buying off the family members, real human beings, at fire-sale prices. I know there are dozens if not hundreds of parents (biological mothers and fathers, sometimes) who know exactly what I’m talking about. You are being forced into desperate situations so someone else can make a profit off your children.
As it turns out, being aware of this is a wonderful insight into how both government AND its related business sector works. If you have lived with a sociopath who says one thing, but intends the other, who seeks cover of night to make the plans, and denies them when confronted with the evidence, who has an utterly callous disregard for the immediate and long-term future of others this will be affecting — but IF it will profit them, can cut a deal — you have just analyzed the global business model.
Our own government does this. And it wants MOST people on the “bound-to-fail” train so they can later sell off parts of them or their families; and SOME people (who play the game with the right people) on the, we’ll refer business, do business and exchange favors with you — what technology can you offer?
The profits are made in the transactions and on speculation on future transactions, and in “buying” SECURITIES (the word is understood, right? Someone else becomes indebted to whoever owns the “Security” and if they choose not to pay up, they can lose their assets which those securities were incurred to pay for to start with.
Those with more power are international in scope and kowtow to (deal with) others in power — not with the poor, except for public relations purposes.
So, that bad news is, learning this sucks. The good news is, there may be a moral way to adjust this system, or work with it, for women who are also mothers — but it may require confronting the women in the industries who chose to sell off our kids for their own day in the limelight, not that I don’t respect what it took to get there.
I have spent years attempting to get through to, and ask individual leaders of several major DV organizations, what’s up with the silence on the federal funding? I have also called women who are prominent in the legal profession, either as law professors, or as heads of nonprofits providing (naturally) “Technical assistance and training.” I have asked them, where can I get help for this FAMILY LAW situation of, stolen children? Prior to that, I asked one of them, anyone you know could help me obtain a used laptop for internet access? and was referred to another T&TA provider who wasn’t even local.
I later learned in an audit that some of these groups (I DNR if the same one, but I THINK so) had been audited for buying more computers than their grants warranted. This might have been Aequitas or “Aquila.”
I also talked my way into an “endabuse.org” conference only to find some fatherhood practitioners presenting (although it was a very validating conference, it did not address the problem of the family courts — at all). This conference wasn’t aimed at women like me — it was aimed at the professional sector. I learned what I could’ve done, or asked to be done, ten years ago (re: obtaining medical/dental evidence of physical attacks). However, when you’re being attacked, your primary concern is surviving it and staying clear of the person who engaged in the attack. After years of battering, and no system response after reporting it, some women have figured out, why risk my life further by continuing to report? The same apparently also applies to kids who report, and are not heard. After a while, they quit reporting.
I even sat in on a webinar (inbetween crisis events) which presented to its hearers (intended mostly for VAWA based STOP grantees, but some of us actual battered mothers had slipped in, after all, registration was free) — the benefits (!!!) of the Access Visitation system!! I couldn’t believe it. Yet show me one crisis center or nonprofit DV recipient of largess form a statewide coalition of DV agencies which would tell a mother with children about the same grants system — or about AFCC.
So, here we are, 2013, and I am now reporting on what I feel would’ve been more relevant and helpful years earlier. This information may or may not have been posted on the internet at the time (in the 1990s), but for women IN abusive marriages (or relationships), that’s also a moot point because the partner is going to try to restrict access to unmonitored interactions with almost anyone — and that includes internet access. i only got it through my work, and maximized the learning curve while there.
There is no line of business, practically, that I can think of, which is compatible with, or safe to engage in AFTER one has been involved with an obsessive stalking or controlling abuser — or the obsessively controlling court system which sometimes just won’t let go once its talons and capacity for destruction have been set in the “on” position.
Which brings up the point (as I compare what successful corporations do, including operate with a significant profit margin and service the dominant sectors of the economy, learn how to expand reach, diversify, globalize and raise capital quickly) – that it would’ve been better all along to engage in this type of economy all along, which teaches one up-front economic literacy and the importance of risk assessment.
We could’ve had a different economy — if we’d had different leadership, or a better grip (in the US) on WHO our leadership was. If we were a “we” — however, the technology and skills of “persuasion/confusion/conflict” where left and right collide in the middle to form a new “now” politically — were already in operation throughout society’s institutions throughout the 1900s and globally.
I cannot believe that I should be my age and dependent on government assistance after the same government refused to protect my ability to work for failure to address the attack of my own economic life during and after marriage.
This situation is a “set-up” and it IS funded by taxpayers who essentially pay off their own consciousness, “I gave at the office” and expect either “social services” (which they know taxes fund) or “the professionals” (like, go get an attorney), as society is to be run by professionals, not amateurs — or (a ridiculous proposition when it comes to standing as a female against abuse of onesself or one’s kids) “go find a nurturing faith community,” which I was yet again told to do the other day by a three-generation triad I saw interacting nicely in public the other day. I was sitting alone, writing, and mentioned my situation.
And it was the “faith community” (this one, that one, the other one….) that supported and enabled some of the worst events of my own family’s lives, including the abuse, the saying nothing to stop the abuse, the pastors, not mandated reporting when they should’ve, and the tendency to exclude the legal restraints (while appropriating the tax perks that most churches get) as even a reference point. All in all, hanging around a lot of followers who work well in groups is NOT always a safe place for women to be, at least women who’s prior integrity and body/psychological/emotional boundaries have been personally compromised by others, which is plenty of us.
I was not raised in religious indoctrination and made a mistake many progressives, liberals, agnostics, and atheists do — which is to believe that there’s more logic in the room than there actually is, or that the religious communities are actually tolerant. Of those that are, among the things that they do tolerate, is wife and child abuse, not to mention incest, and in general financial exploitations of the flocks. They still function as economic entities, but with the religious aspect as well, it can lead to some serious economic confusion among the rank and file. Add to this the “missionary” aspect and you have another Project Pierre-Toussaint.
No, I am not looking for a “nurturing community.” I would prefer people willing to work, fight for truth, and systems change, and keep my own social community down to a small enough number of individuals that I know who they are, and whether or not they can be trusted, not to mention, whether we do, or do not, have similar goals or values. This goes for personal relationships too — these days, people who haven’t engaged somewhere on the easily-labeled spectrum (Married/working/childless or empty-nest; married/mother (or unmarried, mother) // single and looking (either gender), or single/NOT looking because of career; divorced/career/ student // midlife back in school for career // working submissively after divorce situation, but not up and trying to change the divorce courts // homeless // institutaionalized because of substance abuse or some disability /// whatever the “label” there is not yet a socially acceptable label called ‘court-screwed, gender-based; in long-term transition; ergo doesn’t fit socially acknowledged labels…’)
Probably didn’t describe that the best way. What I am describing is the cash-based commercial economy with a margin not high enough to take times weeks, months, years, or intermittently days, weekends, and trauma from court hearings that radically disrupt one’s life, including housing, income, social etc.) OFF.
It took me approximately three years into the court process to realize it wasn’t going to end because it didn’t tolerate closure, and to from their attempt to transition OUT of work that required stability which didn’t exist.
Do we have to create an entirely different way of life to accommodate the injustices of the family court system? Is that possible, still? Is it possible to stage a nationwide boycott [a.k.a., “I’ll handle my DV and other issues, including child support matters, myself, thank you — no, we don’t need a court order to settle ANYTHING) , and let parent coordinators go coordinate each other for a change?
If “George Church” (Genzyme post, near the top) can consider whether or not it’s possible to have a surrogate mother carry a Neanderthal baby reconstructed from DNA which, apparently, someone DOES have, is it not possible for me to envision a world where these things don’t afflict such a large segment of society, driving it partially nuts?
I think so.
Our commercial culture has done more to undermine human relationships and create a detached and passive population (well, see “tribalization” on top of this model) — than the less technologically advanced but possibly more humane alternates. After reading up on the depth, extent and breadth of the biotechnology industry supplying the pharmaceuticals helping (or wishing to help) run governments — who of course, enforce the patent laws, enabling the profits — and from time to time also properly regulate the Securities Exchange so shareholders are not defrauded — I think that more local — and a lot less organized — is probably better.
It is saddening, overall…. Nature on the other hand, is not “saddening,” it’s inspiring.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
It is Edward, not Edwin, Glaeser. And his wife is Catholic.
valerie
March 18, 2014 at 10:59 am
Thank you, Valerie, no one (not that I think Professor Glaeser glances at my blog) wants his name wrong in a post’s title. I do have PTSD issues and sometimes I do “word-os” as others may do “typos” and it’s good to catch when a name is involved. I can also tell from the formatting of this particular post that I was using an input device which at the time required to type in “html” mode (you’ll notice, no photos or graphics, such as corporation logos as I can now do again), which takes a long time to assemble.
Apparently you haven’t wasted much (or any) time on this post (such as glancing at what about 9,000 words of it were actually about), but congratulations for finding a copyediting error. I have made it clear, repeatedly, I am not copyediting (or spellchecking) my own work and why.
Perhaps you’d like to make it clear to us why you think Glaeser’s wife’s religion, or anyone else’s, is even a topic of this post, or submit a comment ON the topic. ….For your clarification, I’ve added yellow highlighting and big letters, and the “list” of Companies who are found advising a group called “National Governors’ Association” who was influential in welfare reform — which influenced (and still does) the public’s bottom line. It has affected my children, and if you are a mother, unchecked, will influence any grandchildren too, if they live in the US.
I don’t reveal commenter’s addresses (unless they want, or provide it for the public), however a quick search led me to a Facebook page which makes me wonder if you have a long-distance crush on this professor and are protecting his rep. somehow? Maybe not at all. Anyhow, have a nice day, thank you for finding an error (I have over 600 posts and there are no doubt many more) so I can correct that one (the word “Edwin” appeared twice in the content of the blog too, and while harmless, was still wrong, so thanks for that). This post could also probably have about one-third to one-half of its personal narrative removed, and what’s left would still be relevant, good information. The point is, we are dealing with at least two generations of academic, business, and professional blue-bloods; the other point is welfare reform and actual economics. I also have a link to the “CAFR” topic hidden in there, and now prominent on my blog (since about 2012).
I never stated a religion for his wife in the post, that I can see. Their wedding announcement was posted because their academic and business pedigrees on both side WAS. I figured there’s a reason for getting married in a Catholic church, as there was a reason for his mother having had a wedding involving an Episcopal minister and a cantor. That’s just human interest.
PS. Probably someone you know is in an abusive relationship or having trouble with the courts, and may have been wrapped up into some advocacy groups encouraging them to tell their stories to strangers, or a video camera. I am on the phone every day with mothers, and sometimes fathers, fighting homelessness, bankruptcy, to understand what has happened, and to help each other survive. If you know someone like this, pls. direct them at least to my table of contents and tell’ em not to get in the car with strangers, there are cults in the neighborhood trawling for personal information on vulnerable kids’ families. There are also what I would label as major “cults” running the system, let alone the ones invited in for the pickings through marriage/fatherhood promotion. Also, I have a Donate button for those who would like to use it.
Let's Get Honest
March 18, 2014 at 2:45 pm