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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

In About 2,500 Words,** Why I Still Bother… [Published June 29, 2019/#1 of 2]

leave a comment »

In About 2,500 Words,** Why I Still Bother… [Published June 29, 2019/#1 of 2] (short-link ends “-ac4”).

**Post title originally: “In About 1,000 Words…” I had to adjust the title several times but quit, cold-turkey, before 3,000 words.

Then I <>added two image galleries with captions and connecting text and three or four more individual images ….<>expanded one of the early “**” references while copyediting for grammar, then footnoted it… <> added to the very bottom a bio blurb from one of the added image captions for a Mark Rodgers, of The Clapham Group (Charlottesville, Virginia), on the Alliance for Early Success‘s (“AES” in Kansas but legal domicile Nebraska) Board of Directors, which information is fascinating, I’m currently writing on because its a classic example of why we all need better language and to establish the habit of identifying, digging up the financials, and comparing them to the public relations material, even when it shows up at Harvard University (https://developingchild.harvard.edu), or backed by people (with heirs) listed in Forbes if not THE richest in a state, others in the same class.

Please see after this, Footnote “Clarification at the bottom of this post, (Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019) (short-link ends “-ad3″| published the same day).

Here, it does and there are already major discrepancies surfacing. It’s also interesting in its own right.

I have to bite my tongue even now to not add to that information, knowing as much as I’ve just discovered within the past week (but had made mental notes of as far back as September 2016)…

There is there a declared, shared agenda, and there’s an identifiable means to achieve it.  This one,  I’m concerned about both, and the larger the agenda and the entities behind it, the more prone I am to doing drill-downs on the propaganda to see whose interests are being promoted when those at the top universally proclaim they are really concerned about those at the bottom and demonstrate that if consent isn’t just handed over, it can and will be obtained by a combination of Wealth & Stealth — that is, by funding to entities where the details are hard to find, reluctantly admitted to, and even when shown (in this case) don’t measure up to basic, ethical reporting.  This tendency to buy influence in academia and the symbiotic tendency to solicit and accept being “bought” (career curve expansion/fame through backing) is I believe a corrupting, not a healing or healthy, influence, nationwide.  How can we have continuing representative government in this fashion?

It did only take about 2,500 words to state my case.  The rest is “for example” and some examples, details behind the declaration.

Details matter. They reveal who’s involved in which roles in any mass social transformation targeting public institutions (i.e., source of ongoing revenues). Discernible practices discourage fair and open debate before any side has enough backing on questionable methods, or even purposes.

Privately networked, cross-jurisdictional collaborations and layered tax-exempt entities obscure full awareness of how few are at the top. Like any pyramid (marketing) scheme: highly networked, compartmentalized by cause at the lower levels.

… Still under 6,000 words (or so) …

Why I still bother to blog:  Not just for fun!

I write to communicate what I see in fields whose established leadership do see, but have chosen not to say — including in fields developed essentially within the last two decades or so.

I write for those who like me, should’ve had better validation over two decades ago of things which just didn’t smell right in and around the family courts, on-line complaints and media exposes of the family courts.  Those things that weren’t and still aren’t right, if you, like me, have smelled but (unlike me) haven’t yet found the source, know that the “what’s not right” can be seen and identified in objective terms — but not the cause-based rhetoric we are all being fed, constantly.  So there’s a matter of functional vocabulary leading to expression in forms of what is seen — and from there, what to do about it, and only from there, how.

It starts with understanding there’s an existing taxonomy, the scaffolding of any operational support for ANY cause, to be considered.  IS IT PUBLIC or IS IT PRIVATE — IS IT AN ENTITY or IS IT A PROGRAM POSING AS AN ENTITY shows WHERE IT TIES INTO THE ECONOMY.  For collaborations and coordinated programming or any cause, the whole still has parts, and these parts still should be identified.

I also write to show how suppression of functional vocabulary is commonplace, cannot be accidental, it’s nearly universal, and the intent is subjugation of an entire population (and engaging them in keeping others down). In this language and vocabulary are a technology… key tools… leverage.  The antidote is self-education.  It takes some time and practice, but it’s achievable.  One challenge will be time when people’s time is spent fighting to survive economically.

Basic literacy on how we are governed must be in economic terms, and must deal with concepts on submission to taxation in exchange for accountability for use of those tax receipts.  Not just trust in leadership, and not just rebellion without understanding how to govern ourselves.  (The intended level of dissonance with reality seems to parallel with a historic intent for South Africa:  “Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water”).  That’s not the ideal society or a “just and sustainable world” when applied globally.

I write so women (mothers, in particular) might have a choice not just between forms of exploitation or abusing others (& becoming an abuser because it seems safer) or having been driven out of one field, need to make “family court reform” the new one — but walking in without a perspective on the usual guides to “family court reform.”

If what I’m saying is: untrue — challenge it;  true, but irrelevant — show me how*;  If it’s true and relevant — deal with it, which will require making hard choices.

I know that challenging, or proving irrelevance, or dealing with this material would be itself challenging — because you’d have to consider enough of the material to debate it, and then figure out ways to dismiss it.

It seems to me that too many “thought-leaders” have not accepted that the easy route — dismissal, silence, censoring the discussion, encouraging dependency of followers; let them run interference  — won’t work forever.

Cracks in the silence are already showing, but the flow towards social and financial (even publishing) support outside the United States by (self-proclaimed) thought-leaders is evident.  The connections have always been there, but it seems to me are now more blatant.

Yes, I enjoy the investigation, pulling together seemingly unrelated elements which are, in fact, closely — the ‘uncommon analysis’ part: uncommon only because more people aren’t doing (and posting) it consistently? — for a good cause… if I didn’t make some of it like a sport, i.e., fun, I’d probably have quit years ago.  But the driver is the cause — not the sport…  

Here, where perpetual power differential** has been established based on the LCD/lowest common denominator of humanity, i.e., greed and lust for long-term power and importance, facilitating abuse, violation of trust, systemic and chronic harm to others, the cause of doing something, for a change, sensible about it.

Having identified and documented the systems, some of which I was also dragged through, with and without children, for many years (no, I’ve never been in prison or on probation for any crime or misdemeanors, or charged with any that I’m aware of….) I still say would not the most sensible way to stop: abuse, violation of trust, systemic harm to others (domestic violence, child abuse, poverty, homelessness, drug addictions, human trafficking, etc.) be to stop feeding it?

And to understand where it’s being fed, to at least try to understand the (private to public back to private) supply lines, under which we all are supposed to operate, that is, if the intention is to operate legally? Is this not a common enough, or worthy enough cause to occupy some personal time in order to acquire personal comprehension?

In what world is profit not a typical motive for exploitation, personal or systemic?  Was it not the motive for the international slave trade in previous centuries, or this one? Or was that really ALL just a mis-understanding of who is and who is not a full-status human being uninfluenced by the profit motive and grandiose world views which included the benefits to humanity of empire-building? (and the Holocaust, likewise…).

** The (USA) income tax passed in 1913 is portrayed as doing the exact opposite of what it was sold as — a leveling of the playing field and better resource distribution mechanism for all.  It has supported an entire economic sector to exacerbate existing differences in wealth and is now being used to, while providing some services in return for significant reduction of taxation (read any Form 990PF to see), for social engineering.  The obvious corollary is that the business owners behind the (largest) tax-exempt foundations, need happy workers and consumers of their products.

Attempts to control and plan entire communities and all aspects of them (whether Birth to Five, Cradle-to-Career, or Womb-to-Tomb) and all management institutions FROM the private, non-profit sector but IN the public institutions, are further along than we are willing to admit.

Cont’d. on Footnote “Taxation + Tax-Exempt Sector: ‘Not quite the level-playing field facilitator…’ “near the bottom of this post

(See instead Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019) (short-link ends “-ad3″| to be published same-day, right after this one).

Stop the streams that satiate the greed — because it’ll never be satiated!

Doesn’t that reflect some of the massive attempts to stop cancer, i.e., out-of-control growth — cutting off the supply, or cutting out the cancerous tissue or tumor itself; don’t build homes or workplaces (factories, etc.) for others, such as one’s employees, which also cause it (see “asbestos” and other examples).  Search “CRISPR/Cas9” or that phrase with “and cancer.”  (Genome editing). Also searchable on this blog, I posted a few times on the debate (also in the context of the Broad Foundation and Institutes as I recall).

Consider What is Metastatic Cancer? Answers to Six Common Questions (Dec. 2017 article) — harder to stop once it breaks off and starts spreading through the lymph or blood systems:

Many tumors can be eliminated with surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and other treatments. But once cancer spreads throughout the body, or metastasizes, it becomes much harder to stop. MSK’s doctors and scientists are working on new ways to treat metastatic cancer. These are six commonly asked questions about this condition.

What is metastatic cancer?

Metastatic cancer is commonly called stage IV cancer or advanced cancer. It occurs when cancer cells break off from the original tumor, spread through the bloodstream or lymph vessels to another part of the body, and form new tumors.

Nearby lymph nodes are the most common place for cancer to metastasize. Cancer cells also tend to spread to the liver, brain, lungs, and bones. Certain types of cancer are more likely to spread to certain organs. Melanoma, the most dangerous type of skin cancer, frequently spreads to the brain and lungs. Prostate cancer most often spreads to the bones…

We know so much about uncontrolled growth and the behavior of cancer, and that once it breaks off and spreads (replicates throughout the body) it’s in advanced stage.  We don’t want it hanging around killing people off.  I think..  Same with social behaviors like domestic violence, child abuse (and all that)… Again, I think….

What about where opportunities to divert public funds improperly (illegally) to non-existing entities or illegitimate purposes labeled (posing) as something legitimate.  Who WOULDN’T want some way to identify this to compare legit with illegit, and to be able to get a sense of where the whole stands? I’m talking about the economic systems which permeate both public (government entities and their operations, staff, programming etc.) and private (corporate/business entities and THEIR operations, staff, programming, etc.) but are expressed and accounted for differently — even while doing business constantly and affecting each other.

Or is it better to be, overall, extorted and progressively drained over a lifetime (and intergenerationally) — but not forced to face and do something about this today by even admitting it?

Might we not be better focused on the streams that feed the greed, greed intent to be satiated through not just occasional, but systematized diversion:  theft of resources + deception = irrigation of private lands (<~metaphor: lands a fields that produce foodstuffs, commodities, things that enrich the owners; the more fields owned, the less the labor is paid (or required), the greater the profits, than on setting up even more systems with more opportunities for diversions claiming to restructure and reform human nature?

Might we not be better focused on our own participation (silent assent) to feeding those streams as they clearly flow to and through our own government entities, outward justified in forms of services and of course, stewardship of what we ourselves are not deemed competent to manage, developing huge public institution investment platforms.

Maybe.  But instead, we’re barely educating ourselves that they exist, what one looks like, what flows in such streams, and who channels them.


We already have a mega-health system, established most of it through skillful advertising and fund-raising (early 1900s) and with former military hardware, software, manpower and organizational skills (not to mention engineering and communications technology) adapted post-World War II/Korean War (we are never 100% “post-war” in the USA it seems) for mass media campaigns, further expanded post-war into behavioral health modification tactics intended for delivery over a lifetime (intermittently) for all ??  And the “pharma” to go with it.

Plus, each public institution or element seems to have its corresponding association (private, tax-exempt). I’ve blogged this:  “Do You Know Your NGA, NCSC, NCSL…”  That’s what I mean by the “shadowy network” below.  It literally shadows elected governments, but (mostly) in the private sector, and allows special, paid-for access (documented in at least the NGA) to corporate influence, indirectly, over representative governments.

And how many people even have a clue that such types of organizations, let alone the names of key ones, exists? When referenced, perhaps, in some media, does the name go by in a blur (without any peg to who or what it is), or is it understood?

From early (2001) 990 of EIN#310868827 State+Local Legal Ctr Inc.

From early (2001) 990 of EIN#310868827 State+Local Legal Ctr Inc.

re: NGA possible veto power over NASMHPD strategies or policymaking (Sched O detail from a FY2012 return)














[THE THREE NEARBY IMAGES & THEIR CAPTIONS from my existing Media Library (Search “NGA”) were previously posted it seems in 2017.]

Not only are their individual associations named after government authorities (or their occupants:  i.e., whether “Governors” or “Legislatures” or “Courts” is the applicable noun) as you can see in these images, six or seven of them are also consciously self-organized with representation or training (dnr offhand) by another private, tax-exempt (990-filing) related entity, then called (See image) “The Academy for State and Local Government.”  They call themselves taken as a whole “The Big Seven.” The most colorful (my contribution/annotations) image above, caption referring to NASMPHD (National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors) (EIN#52-0784740, per the image (top right corner) seems to indicate that the power (decision-making or at least veto-power) of the NASMHPD resides in the NGA — with individual books not subject to examination by the average person, as it is neither a government ENTITY nor a private corporation.

(And the NGA was responsible in pushing “responsible fatherhood initiatives” at the state level as far back as 1994).  Private influence upon public policy welcomed.  Public response to public policy, often punished or just ignored.

I wonder how much would be ignored if more of the public could show up knowing the names of The Big Seven (and others) and things not commonly reported about reporting “anomalies.”

The NGA (National Governors’ Association) came up again recently in association with an association “Alliance for Early Success” funded by collaboration of tax-exempts (<~Funding partners show it started with 2005 investment by, and probably as a project of, Buffett’s “Early Childhood Fund” but only incorporated in 2008) which I’d just tracked donating, so said its FY2016 tax returns, $1M to one organization over a four-year period.  This tax-exempt organization, per the EIN# provided, which is a key identifier (just 9 digits can tie to a specific organization) was LABELED “Center on the Developing Child” with a Harvard (Cambridge, MASS) street address, but the EIN# pointed to an IRS-status revoked Florida — not Massachusetts — entity, during the period it had not filed for three years in a row, which leads to that Auto-revocation.

There is a University Center at Harvard by that name, but no registered entity.  IF this was just a typo — why did it recur with the same wrong name + EIN# + state referring to a non-entity for four years in a row?  Do we really want entities sponsored by grantmaking like this, positioned to set state policy?

Meanwhile, said “Alliance for Early Success fka Birth to Five Policy Center” (a collaboratively-funded nonprofit with a Nebraska legal domicile) if prominently involved in supporting the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. Only because of the one type of (fraud, or symptom of possible fraud) and grants the same year TO the NGA (and as I recall, NCSL) did I revisit the NGA website again this year (See above, four-image (2-up) gallery.

(Alice Walker Duff, PhD, Bloomberg.com private person snapshot~~>See Prop 10, First-5 Commission connections = powerful connections. The Clapham Group/Who We Are (Virginia-based consulting), Mark Rodgers (principal) link doesn’t display well, I’ll post at the bottom; conservative former-staffer for Rick Santorum (remember Opus Dei?).

I’m posting separately, or just did in June, so not much more on it here).

In the same tax returns were donations to the “NGA” when in fact they were donations (per the EIN#) NOT to the NGA — which is an instrumentality of government — but to the NGA’s very own nonprofit, full name “NGA (written out) Center for Best Practices.

While the NGA do post (if you can find them) financial statements admitting to this, it’s certainly not featured on the organization’s websites, wasn’t mentioned on Alliance for Early Success’s identification of where SOME thousands of its millions of donations went the year in question.

How are people supposed to know, based on the reporting from the philanthropic sector as I’ve been seeing it (for a decade now), where, really, their public institution’s funds are going — and how much “proprietary interest” (influence) in them has been bought without actually registering as a lobbyist, to influence policy nonetheless?


We already have these systems embedded at the highest level (and saturated regionally, statewide, and county/local etc. levels) as demonstrated by the language of systems designed to deceive, and pick winners vs. losers by demographics (race, sex, gender, political, income level, marital status) while declaring the whole time intent to produce a more just, equitable, sustainable (in one political preferred propaganda) or a more legal-rights respecting, independence and private enterprising protecting nation (in the other one).

The language of mass public deception is embedded into describing to the public what is being done on its behalf and even who (or what) is doing it.  Language such as  “philanthropy” or “nonprofit” or as in my recent post, “Misleading, Misunderstood Terms” in common use by shadowy (to non-members) private association-based networks for decision-making named after the corresponding public system elements).

This blog cites in ongoing details, and outlines example after example, showing of how common, shocking in scope (practiced by how many), quantity (the $$ involved), and quality of such deception | diversion | tax-evasion (evasion of accountability supports opportunities to launder money which, if not donated or spent where it was claimed to be is available for kickbacks and bribery, or just added to personal wealth, tax-free when it shouldn’t be).

It’s unbelievable how commonplace is burying the financials, burying open declaration of who or what entity is providing (public) services, WHERE that entity is registered many times, and even when tax returns exist, once you read them, where, in fact the donations are being spent.  Endless accounting tricks seem to exist.

I enjoy reading, and I do enjoy the prospective of communicating what I’ve come to understand intending to connect with others who’ve acquired enough independent understanding of this to give more critical feedback.

But it still work: editing is not optional, and with editing comes in fact much more deletion than addition, with, ideally, checking for the flow if adding or deleting, and that work is my time.  How I spend my time IS my life, too.

So, why would I invest all this volunteer time all these years and not in more selfish activities with a more direct dollar value, immediate “R.O.I” for my time?  Is it because of my past experience in focusing so exclusively on work and parenting that I didn’t see what was coming, i.e., wide-scale facilitated sabotage of both work and parenting?

Or because I think it really may change the world, or even make a difference in the world?  Or, do I just not know how to live in a world with this level of dissociative denial of how hypocritical the social contract of “consent” we live under and submit to, all the time really is?  Why don’t I just give up — shut up — and go away; go back to pretending the facade is the reality — “Pretending for Blending” —  which women were supposed to do all along: submission + silence while serving society? (and hoping it pays rising rents, and that next employees will understand my own life history, including the repeatedly disrupted work life, and why after saying “No” to abuse, I couldn’t reverse course and say “never mind, keep dishing it out!”

I know in writing this blog I want to show in hopes there is or could be a “we” willing to then counteract, near-universal avoidance of even raising certain key points, I know to be important, whether delivered beautifully or in an awkward manner.  I know certain conversations are just not taking place openly in vocabulary tied to any common language tied to data it’s hard to argue with** as a starting point.

By periodically raising such language and noting the response (who, and how fast, attempts to derail any thread, exchange, or on-line comments —  (for example) when I’m blocked privately (Twitter) by a CEO after asking in public (with as few followers as I have there) a truly fair question: “Why hasn’t your [nonprofit] vital organization throughout its history filed tax returns as required by law?”) — by historic investigation (look-ups) of collective strategic omissions (i.e., censorship of key topics) by self-designated “thought-leaders,” often by financially minuscule organizations,  itself a symptom of some collective or less visible backing (promoting interests, I have deduced how important this “Missing  In Action” key discussion is.

**Unlike anything (broad social summaries on which broad social solutions are expected) stated in psychological, even in legal, and certainly in “experiential” terms.  Without a starting point of bottom line facts on which to rest some basic premises, all arguments (rationales) for solutions fail the “solid ground” test and will if continued endlessly by default be settled by force in the name of “dispute resolution” or “resolving conflict,” whether that force is applied suddenly and violently from just one or two places, or incrementally over time, but no less effectively.

That “settlement by default” applied force is harder to resist when its sources are hidden or indirect, but still collaboratively planned.

Not noticing it is no longer a legitimate response.  Not talking about it as if one has not noticed it, shows character and motive, which are up for being challenged when the talk simply does not match even the intended action.  I have witnessed these things developing for now ten years, nonstop, while trying to navigate retaining housing, and even after my own children, who I was not able to protect from being stolen and abandoned by their own father on a court-ordered visitation, for whom due to that key event, with whom contact was cut off, and the only college grad in this marriage (myself) thus prevented from even helping both of them get to and through college — because of a completely unnatural and externally introduced fight for economic survival, AFTER domestic violence intervention.

This happened, to me at least, in 21st century supposedly progressive, developed U.S.A. – but no question the stage was set about fifty years earlier, and parts of it, about a hundred years earlier. The least we can do in addressing this is admit it.

FYI, my “DONATE” links remain up, they are rarely used (and I am not functioning as or running as a nonprofit, so such donations wouldn’t be tax-deductible), but I am again considering crowdfunding to get these basics and connections to current reporting, movements, and developments in certain nonprofits, grants, programs which continue to show up in social media and on the news.  In short, to publish this in a way it communicates better.  Please feel free if you are so inspired (and I’ll double-check those links).

What I write about, generally, is not topic a normal person could look forward to spending another decade or so** writing about solo, without it gaining more collective traction. It is certainly not all I wish to do with the remainder of my life  (**by the grace of God, maybe even two-and-a-half to three more decades –I’m in my mid-sixties. Living this long has been also “by the grace of God,” and against certain odds stacked  to produce the opposite outcome).

But a record of these things should be kept, and an awareness of them broadcast in the public interest.

I don’t see these topics being covered in either academia (university centers) or advocacy including top-level, major philanthropy-backed initiatives, a situation I understand because I’m reporting on both of those as a forced consumer of social science experimentation and exposure to ongoing rationales for it, upon entire populations in the USA and abroad.

Intentions to streamline and standardize apps (applications), innovations, and major “global development industry” media exchange platforms, to maintain necessary workforce, and enough unemployed poor to justify over-taxing any residual middle class** lest they even THINK about changing the caste system status quo, rapidly accelerating “domestically” (from my perspective, in the USA).

[** “Middle class” in the sense that, the direction and examples set were to think and plan a life in terms of employment (professional white-collar encouraged), NOT in terms of learning to develop or even manage, then start a business with a view to developing ongoing passive income (or even investment income) to achieve financial independence, or at least a significant buffer.  I was not hungry growing up, and was raised in an intact (til “empty nest” years) so-called “nuclear family.”   There are pros and cons to that upbringing.]

Nothing in that raising prepared me, nor does it prepare people generally, to comprehend how a post (sic)-war major military-industrial complex turned into ongoing military purposes, as well as managing communications sectors and huge data sets and, essentially, managing the population from afar and without informed consent, was going to (negatively) impact basic human and legal rights, personally, affecting when we can, or cannot, work and support our own basic physical needs, without systemic or personal abuse.

Nothing prepared me for having to deal long-term, up-front and at times in-person with white-collar criminals, some in the family line, others in social services sector knowing full-well their behavior had “laissez-faire” or even more aggressive, active, backing by the public sector, as validated also by groups like Abt Associates, MDRC, “Brookings” and many other organizations, as well as (fiscally untrackable) sponsored university centers — universities functioning tax-exempt and with major institutional endowments to attract corporate investors who, in turn, tend to reduce their own taxation through establishing and sustaining the field of philanthropy (i.e., paying lower corporate taxes through buying influence at all levels, and retaining it among the field). ….

That is a world we now live in.  Someone needs to document it in a logical, and where necessary, appropriately “harsh light of reality” from a user point of view — not a “poster child” user who is brought along to sell more programming (testimonial style — a tactic employed by Mary Lasker, widow of advertising executive Albert Lasker to help build up what is now the NIH (plural) an in general, federal health sector to major grant-making and (with it), career-making status….).

I’ve made recent geographic transition and am in major life transition.  I want to get back to work, and I have been also looking towards any way to get into graduate school:  studying economics, business, and as well as some on technologies I don’t yet understand because they were invented and developed after I was a full decade in an abusive marriage to a man who didn’t want me to have a bank account or transportation, let alone access to the internet or supportive social network that didn’t go through him (only), or to engage in a profession I’d degreed in and demonstrated a lifelong ability for and love of before we married.

Afterwards, and so far that’s been now two more decades, when I was not only back in that profession that would support a household with children, sustainable even as a single mother, and the children were no longer witnessing in-home domestic violence; they were doing well, college-track.  They also saw their father regularly – every single week he opted to see them. Because I filed for protection from violence, the children were no longer seeing him routinely terrorize or assault (physically charge at me with intent to grab, hit with something in his hand, or injure me, inside AND outside the home) or verbally degrade me routinely).

I was just being a decent Mom and reasonably successful in providing within that my chosen profession, too.

That man and other immediate members of my own family, just couldn’t stomach it and went about to sabotage it, knowing that if it got violent again, I would not hesitate to file again.  The sabotage had to and did happen in other ways, and that’s how I discovered that we have two parallel and unequal justice systems, one of which is preferred by sociopaths and batterers with criminal intent to harm — which is the family court system — and the other which CAN be utilized if the harm is dramatic enough, or alleged to be dramatic enough — with law enforcement, district attorneys, and a host of other professionals flipping a coin on the outcomes.

Knowing all the while that access and visitation grants (and the programs the support) had existed (since 1988) but “forgetting” to notify battered women and children who show up asking for help.  The marriage/fatherhood grants were also known about, as well as the existence of AFCC, but deemed ‘irrelevant’ to inform people who really deserved to know.

So why do I bother, still?

I’m not even tempted to “Blend and Pretend” and doubt I’d be an effective worker, employee, or boss in that mode.  So much of our society demands levels of blend-and-pretend to even keep going day by day, or hope for any return on personal energies and efforts expended.

Then, there’s the matter of conscience and that, long-distance or local, even fatherhood.gov can’t eliminate motherhood.

I’m still a mother, and It tends to develop the intergenerational perspective, keeps me aware then, now, ‘up next,’ and which is up, in any situation.

Truth matters, and it deserves to at least said.  Whether or not it’s heard, well… I only own one pair of ears…

I work on writing to keep the record alive, along with myself, every day….

//LGH, 27 June 2019.

PS.  Re: post tags:  I looked at existing “Why” and found also existing “What” tags and included several as asking good questions, not all individually addressed in this post… Click on a tag for other posts which might.

…FOOTNOTES HAVE BEEN MOVED. (Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019) (short-link ends “-ad3″| to be published same-day)

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: