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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Post Footnotes for “Before WHO’s HiAP… A Closer Look at ICLEI-Local Gov’ts for Sustainability…” post, starting with “NYT Activists Fight Green Projects” [Published Nov. 22, 2017]

with one comment

Ideally, this blog format should be upgraded to a more structured website with options besides Posts, Pages, and Sidebar Widgets (with more links and some accompanying text) so I may leave “supplemental” and more detailed texts or backup facts with clickable links to other parts of the website.

But until then, what I have now is either:  Omit It, Post It, Page It, or (less space, less viable option), “Sidebar-it.”  Or footnote it on the same post.  If I knew how to insert a navigation link (as many websites do — for example, Wikipedia, or academic writings posted on-line often have this) TO a specific place lower in the page, and from there “Back” or “To Top” — I would.  Presently, I don’t.

THIS POST IS: Post Footnotes for “Before WHO’s HiAP… A Closer Look at ICLEI-Local Gov’ts for Sustainability…” post, starting with “NYT Activists Fight Green Projects” (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7T1” started Nov. 2, 2017, published Nov. 22.)

For now, consider this post as although it’ll be published separately (and later) as its own post, as “Footnotes” to:

Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ~ ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published  ca. Nov. 1)

Footnotes, they may be interesting if long or detailed enough, but are still “footnotes” not headlines, and not designed for reading separately to, or before, reading the main points in the body of the text.  So here, if you read what’s below before reading the post referenced above (its main body), you may find it intriguing, but incomplete.  For example in the first section (commentary on a NYT article), the images are back on the main post.  The paragraphs here would add too much vertical space between title and the first image, and so were moved to another place, as important as I consider the points made.

Visual Style:  Each footnote is long — or it’d have been left in place on its parent post.   A new Footnote will be distinguished by Title starting with the word ‘FOOTNOTE’ and separated from each other also by different background-colors.  They are somewhat shorter than normal width to alert readers to the fact this is not attempting to be a normal post with a continuous narrative, but exists as a supplement to a normal one, written in continuous prose (although typically in different sections).

Perhaps I could make a continuous “Footnote page” separated by Post names (like “chapters” as in a book).  Hmm.  But for now, you have these “footnotes”  for just a single post. I also added a “Post as Footnote” tag.  Publishing this knocks of one of ten “in the pipeline.”  Enjoy: it’s under 2,500 words!


Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot 

Here, the article immediately directs attention away from what’s being protested, and towards those protesting, with a smattering of facts not anchored to much of anything but a story line unified by its value-laden verbs and nouns, with periodic quotes.  I don’t know that it could technically be called an ad hominem attempt to refute some unspoken argument against “Green Projects” “Agenda 21” or “community planning to conserve open space,” (and, incidentally, counties or cities paying a $1,200 membership fee (“dues”) for consulting on the same)  because the article isn’t presenting itself as a reasoned argument pro or con.  It’s coming at the issues, referring to them in somewhat vague terms, sideways to reporting instead on those who oppose it, and without saying this directly, implying that anyone who opposes (“Green Projects” “Agenda 21” or “community planning to conserve open space,” (and, incidentally, counties or cities paying a $1,200 membership fee (“dues”) for consulting on the same) must be: Tea Party, conspiracy theorists, possible nutcases, and the enemy of open public discussions at local planning department meetings, and potentially dangerous.

I understand that media needs to sell to survive, and that directing readers to free, and relatively easy to look up public databases (like I do on this blog), for the cost of some personal time and access to the internet, might be counterintuitive to keeping them dependent on the news for insight on major issues.  BUT, this article illustrates many of the same issues I have with anecdotal reporting for family court/custody case fiascoes.  “If it bleeds it leads,” …if it’s outrageous, frightening, anything which stirs the emotions… so much the better.

And when it comes to “DemocratsAgainstAgenda21,” and earlier lookup I did last as I recall in 2016, it turns out that the fiscal agent for the collaborative nonprofit with “DemocratsAgainstAgenda21” (Edward Charles Foundation in “SoCal”) was obviously for it — i.e., the public was being “snookered” on who represented which side of the protest! The moral? When in doubt, look it up, and keep looking!  and:  “financial statements and tax returns (especially when combined with not posting them, and using fiscal agents unnecessarily) often speak louder than “About Us” “History” pages — except as the backdrop to the financials and character indicators on “how honest is it?”…

Here, an attempt is made to equate ALL who might oppose “Green projects” as Tea Party, and with that negative (to some) or positive (I guess, to those involved), the scene is set for “all or nothing” choices, by political party, and no common “lowest common denominator” comparison of both sides of the issue.

This seems possible only in the current information-processing climate where — face it — most people do not seem to maintain an ongoing issue in knowing which nonprofits are out there, and how they interact with government policies (including planning policies) — let alone, how goverment itself works (i.e, by reading its financial statements (“CAFRs”), or how to navigate the connections between those financial statements and specific accounts, and eventually figuring out that the accounting practices conceal actual assets — including income-producing assets, not to mention lines of business (enterprise activities) many government entities engage in.

We just don’t realize how high the stakes are and how much effort has been expended to keep the public IGNORANT of the financial basics of government itself, or the pros and cons of having public/private partnerships, MOUs (memos of understanding), agreements, and non-territory (jurisdiction)-based authorities handling, over time, more and more of the aspects of human life.  But the public is to be kept thinking itself informed, cognizant, up-to-date and able to converse intelligently with each other, for social purposes and (let’s face it) “ego” in personal interactions.

FOOTNOTE “Ownership of the NYTCompany – Then and Now”:

{Footnote includes some overlap with post. I left a quote from the first link in the main post}
Reminder who owns the NYT, at least now: It’s by majority of controlling shares, although only 19% of actual shares, the Ochs-Sulzberger family (who took over the paper in 1896 and formed the NYT Company, per “Wiki”) (ABC News:  “ ‘NYTimes’ Parent gets $250M from Mexican Billionaire In Search Results it shows Jan. 2015 date, however, the article on-line linked to bears no date, not even a year…)

Oct., 2016, a Sulzberger becomes Deputy Director.  This article contains a graphic family tree and discusses the younger man’s report on innovations (including reducing the size of the newsroom) for the NYT to compete in the digital age.  A.G. Sulzberger Vanquishes His Cousins, Becomes Deputy Publisher of the New York Times By 

August 1, 2017, in Forbes, “Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim Sells Part of His New York Times Stock” by Dolia Estevez.  Read the last paragraph (he bought the warrants in 2009 during a financial crisis, and exercised them, apparently, in 2015).  The Ochs-Sulzbergers paid him back in 2011.

The earlier NYTCompany history can be looked up (I just did.  Timeline not that smooth reading and interspersed with famous world events, but I did learn that it predates (as “The New-York Daily Times”):  The Civil War (and was the sole recipient of official government news for that war), the invention of both the typewriter and the telephone, and (by just a few years, and with one of its founders on a director) the AP (Associated Press) (1951, 1956, respectively).

I also learned that Adolph S. Ochs of Chatanooga, TN, obtained control of the company in 1896, and that when he died in 1933, control passed to his son-in-law, Sulzberger (so now you know where that hyphenated name comes from…). I also see that their present board of directors has:  few from before the 21st century; and only two women (and, judging by the appearances only) not one person of color:

1861: The Times as a leading member of the AP, is official receiver of (Civil War) news from the gov’t. (crowding out others)

NYTCo timeline detail, 1896 (Ochs involvemt.

1935: Adolph S. Ochs dies; son-in law Arthur Mays Sulzberger takes over; 1937 crusades against FDR “packing the Supreme Court.”

NYT Company Bd of Directors as viewed 11/2/2017

FOOTNOTE NRA On the RECORD, but Not Us” (Yours Truly, the Center to Stop Gun Violence)

This footnote in part my reminder to follow up, but not now for sake of originating post.  Title of with link to the post in the pipeline with more details and outlining my concerns about the situation shown below. Also, and as reported on yesterday’s (11/21/2017’s) post “Six (At Least) Posts in the Pipeline,” regarding this one, (but not repeated here) a primary funder seems to have been the Joyce Foundation.

I posted some on the Footnote above, but this is looking like a separate post, based on what I’m finding and too many unidentified, possibly unregistered and/or misleadingly labeled groups promoting the policies, while complaining loudly about unregistered firearms and seeking increasing excuses to remove them from those whose mental stability is deemed (by family members or others) “unstable.” 

Spin-off / “in-the-pipeline” post on this subject waiting separately for completion and posting:

The footnote text commences here:

They hate conservatives and republications, apparently, not just the NRA.  That’s fine — but tell the truth in self-reporting, please!

Well-connected boards of directors with Congressional or respectable professional backgrounds are wonderful — but at the end of the day, a website representing any tax-exempt organization should describe itself, not just its board of directors — because that’s how the platform is soliciting and that’s the name used as a “tag” or verbal handle when its directors are lobbying, publicizing, or educating others.

The most immediately obvious characteristic of both CSGV and its related EFSGV is the reluctance to post their own records which would, probably, show that as an organization (either one) neither are not that large — just long-standing, and under the control of others who, except perhaps paid executive director Joshua Kanter (who’s still got other sources of revenue, obviously) — are independently self-sustaining apart from the unpaid board positions.  There are few employees shown, generally.

“No documents are available to the public” (beyond the Forms 990, which the public can go find itself — we’re not posting…)

CSGV is the 501©4 (not that large) and EFSGV the 501©3, both in Washington, D.C., and from (per website and Forms 990 viewed) 1974, 1978, respectively.  Neither is that heavily funded, but what I object to is declaration at the bottom of ‘NRA on the Record” website that it’s not affiliated with any organization, when it clearly is — as the 501©3/(c)4 combo.

Having looked up the website and tax returns (not linked to on the site, either), I see some well-connected board members, but the organization itself is “lean and mean” (0 or few employees). Board members in fields of law, “health care venture capital,” (Joel Kanter, Chairman)*, investment (capital) for major genetics firms (David Beier) and Clinton Admin,** and a Rev. Jim Atwood, of a church which experienced a “charter member” being shot with a Saturday night special, and attorney (Bob Cheek) in his own practice ***  They push for GVFRO (whereby family members can temporarily have firearms removed from a family member “undergoing a crisis,” etc.)

CSFV has $109K “Due to affiliate” on tax return, but on a public website NRA on the record says isn’t affiliated with any organization…

*Joshua Kanter “He has been involved in the gun violence prevention movement primarily because of the time he spent on Capitol Hill working for then-Congressman Abner J. Mikva (D-Ill.), a champion of firearm regulation.” ** “David Beier, JD is a Managing Director with Bay City Capital… with the firm since 2013. …senior officer for nearly a decade in each of the two largest biotechnology firms, Genentech and Amgen…Earlier in his career, he was Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to the Vice President in the Clinton Admin…. has been a partner in a large international law firm as well as Counsel to the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary” …***Cheek “Chair of [CSGV’s] sister organization, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence [former] board member of NARAL Pro Choice America and Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington..” + Bob Guberman, more than 35 years working in the global electric utility industry. His primary focus has been managing the design and implementation of complex computer systems to support power and competitive electricity market operations.  (And others, incl. some women, people personally impacted by gun violence, and I noted Hilary Shelton, instrumental in passage of several acts including the VAWA and Civil Rights Registration Act (see image below):

(The (501©4’s) CSGV website features blood-red banners and footer; even highlighting (selected text) shows up white-on-blood-red theme.)

CSGV Hilary Shelton bio blurb, see VAWA and Civil Rights and other legislation referenced. The image also shows the effect of selected-text (color-reversal) / highlighting.

Here are profiles of “Our Team” (Top two shown), i.e., Staff as opposed to Board:

CSGV “Pres. Emeritus” Mike Beard (see other involvements)

CSGV “Our Team” #2 (2nd from top of page @ Nov. 2017) Joshua Horwitz, Exec. Director. Click image to enlarge and notice 2013-2014 California activity and results…

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    November 22, 2017 at 3:47 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: