Parts of Wisconsin are less “wacko” than I realized…

Dear Rep. Moore of Wisconsin’s 4th District:

Don’t recognize the name?  Why not — you should!  Look (from Wiki, where else?)

Gwendolynne Sophia Moore (born April 18, 1951) is the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin’s 4th congressional district, serving since 2005. She is a member of the Democratic Party.

The district is based in Milwaukee and also includes South Milwaukee, Cudahy and St. Francis, and part of West Allis. She is the first woman to represent the district. She is also the second woman and the firstAfrican-American elected to Congress from Wisconsin.

You REALLY  got my attention this morning.  Thank you!

Now, may we mothers get yours also?

How it happened:

On some early -morning channel posting House Debates, these were supposed to be about 2 minutes each, I watched while half awake as various people discussed the pros and cons of the Republican Defeat of the Single-Payer Healthcare what not.

Seriously, to me, that’s almost about how it goes.  Since I married decades ago, the primary time any health care was actually in process was when I managed to work FT, and sometimes for a short period after that.  This also applies to about the entire time I’ve been stuck in the family court system, which means for most of us, no job stability, and a lot more.  So while we are AWARE of other major political issues nationwide, there seems to be always some real pressing ones in our faces, year after year.  It really is an alternate lifestyle.

I was stunned!

So, I sat bolt upright with a true shock…

when an authoritative, black, woman elected U.S.Representative, even pronounced the word “WOMEN” in connection with HEALTHCARE.  And she knew what she was talking about, too…

I’d watched black and white, male and female, and most notably, Democrat and Republican, trade comments and soapbox (restrained at times, admirably by Madam Chairman).  I was more focused on the procedures than the contents.  I have long ago figured out that alternative health care is my route, and with the unbelievable chronic and longterm stress [can you say, “PTSD”) this cause has put upon (women like me, if I may, and our children), health care is secondary to staying alive, period, and housed.  Like so many other things (such as “Career development” and “long-term planning”) it rarely gets to the foreground.

Why I couldn’t sleep — I’d just uncovered more details in the extent, scope, (and how to track down) the financial fraud that goes along with the federal programs sent to the courts supposedly to help poor, single mothers, and poor low-income fathers, well, these are supposedly related to helping children through welfare reform.  YOu know the routine (or, should, by now…).  I literally, transfixed to the information, sat on my behind for 12 hours and fell asleep on the couch.  WIth the TV on for noise .  Noncustodial moms sometimes just need noise in the room, ya’ know…my brain had been taken to a new level of whassup, and somehow some mothers had contacted me for help.  Partly on the basis of information in this blog, which it’s known I developed from NAFCJ.net, and personally continuing to pay attention, look, and some other sources.  Geezh, imagine that.

Yesterday, I was all day writing, researching, and communicating with mothers in various states of noncustodial while feeling very homeless, and distressed about some friends of mine who are, and attempting to help another recent MidWestern Contact deal with loss children and having 100% (she claims) of her wages (which are nonexistent — she’s a full-time student) garnished to pay child support to her ex, who has full custody of three children.

Things appear to have changed since Rep. Moore (who is about my age, very close) was a young mother and university student, per her bio.

Path to Power (Whorunsgov.)

Moore, who was raised in Milwaukee, became an 18-year old single mother during her freshman year at Marquette University. She relied on welfare to complete her degree while raising her daughter.

(From her Congress website:)

Born in Racine, Wisconsin in 1951, Congresswoman Moore was raised in Milwaukee. The eighth of nine children, Rep. Moore’s father was a factory worker and her mother was a public school teacher. Congresswoman Moore attended North Division High School in Milwaukee where she served as Student Council President. After graduation, Rep. Moore started college at Milwaukee’s Marquette University as a single, expectant mother on welfare who could only complete her education with the help of TRIO. Congresswoman Moore earned a B.A. in Political Science from Marquette, and went on to serve as a community leader, spearheading the start-up of a community credit union as a VISTA volunteer for which she earned the national “VISTA Volunteer of the Decade” award from 1976-1986.

Obviously, she hadn’t learned of the great risk that female-headed households pose to the nation….

Nowadays, Rep. Moore, alas, it would not play out like that, I fear. Feminism, feminist backlash, and what not has put the government into the Designer-Family mode.  Perhaps, with your solid family background you might have gotten away with this, On the other hand, depending on who the father was, and who he got in touch with, perhaps he might have ended up raising your child, and you paying him, and dropping out of school to do so. This, as I’m sure you know, is called “welfare reform” and came in around 1996, after the Fatherhood Executive Memo, and much more.

I have to THANK you for this.  Perhaps someone else mentioned the word “women” if not “mothers” — but no one could miss that you did, here:

Congresswoman Moore statement on Health Insurance Reform Repeal Vote

January 20th, 2011 by Robert Rosati

Congresswoman Gwen Moore made the following statement after the House voted to repeal the new health insurance reform law that will help more than 30 million Americans afford health insurance, give small businesses tax credits to help insure their employees and implement necessary consumer protections:

“Republicans have the chance to walk the walk, but they are walking away from it. All throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republicans said they supported consumer protections like the ban on pre-existing condition denials or charging women more than men for the same coverage. Where’d the support go over the past year?

“As chair of the Democratic Women’s Working Group, I led 45 of my colleagues in outlining to Speaker Boehner what’s at risk for women if this new law is repealed. Women were among those who gained the most, and now they’re among those with the most to lose. If this law is repealed, once again, a woman could be denied insurance because she’s been the victim of domestic violence. If this law is repealed, once again, a woman could be denied insurance because she’d been pregnant. If this law is repealed, once again, women could be charged more money for the same coverage as men.

“Just today, I met with a father who told me the story of his 25 year-old daughter who is going to school. She needed emergency gall bladder surgery. Without reform, they would have had to pay out of pocket. Repeal has real consequences.

“When Congress passed health insurance reform, I said that it wasn’t perfect, and that we’ll have to work to make it better. Recent polling shows that only 18 percent of Americans want the law completely repealed. Can we make this law even better? Yes. But should we take away the new protections? Should we repeal the security families now have — knowing that they aren’t one diagnosis away from bankruptcy? No way!”

Information used in this article was retrieved from a press release on Congresswoman Gwen Moore’s official website.

Tags: Congresswoman Gwen Moore, wisconsin

I know, I think, maybe why you are sensitive to the domestic violence issues and women’s issues to the point that you can get up there and even SAY “women” when (that I heard) it seems to have not even occurred as a category of people affected by, say, healthcare issues?  (can anyone say “maternal” “pregnancy” “birth” “Prenatal?”  Does anyone out there still remember that getting beat up might just occasion a trip to a hospital emergency room?  which is “healthcare”??? )  Rep. Moore remembered.  from “WHY SHE MATTERS” (and you do!) on “WhoRunsGov” page:

Why She Matters

Moore, a former community activist who served in Wisconsin’s state legislature for 16 years, now represents Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional District, an urban area that covers all of Milwaukee.

A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and of the Congressional Black Caucus, Moore urges that more attention be spent on the needs of the lower class and of minority groups. Her political priorities – poverty issues, health care and civil rights – have been shaped by the hardships she encountered as an 18-year old single mother, as a welfare recipient and as a victim of sexual abuse.

Moore leans left on both domestic and foreign policy. In arguing that more attention be turned to poverty issues, she has proposed raising unemployment benefits, championed government-run health care and introduced legislation to help low-income workers acquire cars. A fierce opponent of picture-ID requirements, she joined the “Out of Iraq” caucus in support of a military withdrawal. In 2006, she was arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy during an anti-genocide protest.

And, on the page (same site), “The Path to Power”:

In 2003, after she faced criticism for the intensity with which she unsuccessfully defended an amendment requiring background checks for employees at private schools that participated in Milwaukee’s voucher program. Moore sought to explain herself through an emotional speech delivered on the state Senate’s floor. She revealed that she had been repeatedly molested as a child and had been raped twice as an adult.⁽³⁾

I am so curious whether you went the way of Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau of Kansas, and voted to support Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage Promotion (and all that) and “bought” that the true purpose of this was to help po’ folk. Or, children.  If not (I haven’t checked yet), will you please have a word, someday with Ms. Faust-Goudeau.  I did, on-line, a while back. …

I am not sure (didn’t find out yet), if you, like Rep. Tammy Baldwin, voted apart from other members of the Black Caucus on the bold issues below, per “on the issues.org/Welfare and Poverty”

---

Tammy Baldwin on Welfare & Poverty

Democratic Representative (WI-2): Click here for 8 full quotes OR click here for Tammy Baldwin on other issues.  Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009) Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003) Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001) Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999) Develop a strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. (Dec 2007) Support school breakfast for low-income children. (Mar 2009) Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality. (Nov 1999)

 

Or, in more detail — YES, Rep. WI-2 “Tammy!”  These were the right votes.  And to make that vote in 1999, before the various states’ (United States’ individual state legislatures) got their copycat “fatherhood commissions” into law, took awareness and foresight.  I like to think.  (I was just about ready to break out of an abusive relationship around then.  AbusIVE was the weakest description of it, too — it was violent, dangerous, and injuries and destruction had occured, and were on the increase.  Why?  Because I was protesting it.  Few other people were – not my faith organization, family, pastors, employers, friends, colleagues.  Mostly they observed (the “Tsk., Tsk” factor).  It took something more to put a temporary (at least) stop to it:

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Welfare Reauthorization Bill: Vote to pass a bill that would approve $16.5 billion to renew the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal 2008 and call for new welfare aid conditions. The bill raises the work requirements for individuals getting assistance from 30 to 40 hours per week. States would be required to increase the number of recipient families working from the current level of 50 percent to 70 percent or more in 2008. The bill also provides an additional $1 billion in mandatory state child care grants and provides $200 million annually for marriage promotion programs.Reference: Bill sponsored by Pryce, R-OH; Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2003-30 on Feb 13, 2003

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

Vote to pass a bill that would allow religious organizations to compete equally with other non-governmental groups for federal funds to provide social service, and provide $13.3 billion in tax breaks for charitable giving over 10 years.Bill HR 7 ; vote number 2001-254 on Jul 19, 2001

Contrast THAT with President Obama’s Administration’s current policy at fatherhood.gov and Office of Faith-based Whatnots.

Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations.

Vote to establish a program that would promote more responsible fatherhood by creating educational, economic and employment opportunities and give grants to state agencies and nonprofit groups, including faith-based institutions.Reference: Bill sponsored by Johnson, R-CT.; Bill HR 3073 ; vote number 1999-586 on Nov 10, 1999

While I may not have thought it through exactly like this, I’d have to think that it makes some real sense, and identifies a significant problem, and it’s absolutely clear that the above policies (the Marriage Promotion, and welfare structured as “hours per week” rather than seeking to work in some other non-hours-based manner are promoted and founded by major wealth that often does NOT work a per-hour salary, or apparently want certain populations to figure out that this is even an option.

Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality.

Baldwin adopted the Progressive Caucus Position Paper:Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America’s economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities.

The Progressive Caucus could take the lead in the formation of a national leadership steering committee to put this dramatic issue before the public through coordinated media campaigns and local education and action forums. The political program should be concerned with:
• Reducing wage inequality: We are proposing initiatives to both raise the minimum wage floor and prevent the tax code from subsidizing excessive compensation.
• Asset-building initiatives: The government has historically given land to citizens. Unfortunately, the programs were discriminatory toward people of color and kept a whole generation of people off the asset-building train. We are proposing a universal asset building approach that will dramatically reduce the number of “asset less” households and reduce the disparity of wealth for all Americans.
• Addressing the over concentration of wealth and power: The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our at our social and cultural fabric. Too much concentrated wealth leads to too much concentrated power and begins to undermine our participatory democracy.

After a decade of economic prosperity, the moral question remains: if we can’t address the persistent economic divide in our nation today, when can we?

 

Please go from this post, to fellow-blogger “www.Randi James” blog and look up OCSE, HHS, and, recently,

“Marketing To Survivors of Domestic Violence,” an eloquent post.  She “gets it.”  I trust you, too, “Get it” regarding the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood grants system agenda (it’s not about helping women, children, or families, though that’s the pretext).

Some people, when they get all progressive, or all conservative, or all successful in politics, forget who gave birth to them, apparently.  Single motherhood is NOT dishonorable, and it’s not a failure sentence on biological basis, or on financial basis, unless the math is based entirely and only on wage-earning -minus childcare, and don’t dare get more creative than that (in this internet business-based era, and it’s truly possible).

However, THIS post, “Marketing,” is about a certain pricey book marketed at the BMCC conference (see my previous post) and practically any other major DV organization these days.  Like Evan Stark’s “Coercive Control,” it’s supposedly new, innovative, and the latest thing in the field.  However, as mothers, custodial or non, we have in interest in eliminating that field as a viable industry, and as a practice upon other human beings.  And we are the majority of the population, at least in the United States.

I just wanted to say thank you for saying “Woman,” in 2011, and for saying with confidence and authority, the words “Domestic Violence” in the House of Representative (or wherever that was broadcast from) and I will find out another day if you vote with, or not with, Rep. Barbara Lee (from my state), and Rep. Danny K. Davis, or against in these matters.  I say, against is better.

As you may know, I’ve spent a lot of time around databases and looking up “Categories of Federal Domestic Spending” (CFDA’s) from the famous Health and Human Services department of the majestic U.S. Government.  Therefore, I’m well-aware of how many of the DV program grants are labeled “Discretionary” or lump in actual money to shelters with “capacity-building” or “technical assistance,” etc.  All in all it’s quite fascinating.

Recently, enough mothers have apparently gotten through to someone from on high (i.e., our prayers/letters worked?), that there are some serious problems within the domestic violence and custody fields.  This would seem obvious to newspaper readers, but is not to conferencers, thinking about the next curriculum, toolkit, or training seminar to market to categories of people who may, or may not, be entirely coachable.

For example, the words Violence against WOMEN would seem to indicate a problem with a gender basis.  Similarly the “Fatherhood initiatives” would, I’d just have to say, indeed entail a bit of gender focus.   However, undaunted, there are yet more conferencers ready to undo both of these, and say (in a sunny spot, of course, and likely at a nice hotel), “What’s Gender Got to Do With It?”  (AFCC conference end of january, 2011).

I understand that the NCADV (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which means a lot of people that are “against” domestic violence and think it is very bad…) and DVLEAP (see “Joan Meier,”) another professional well known in these fields (search my blog) have received another government grant to address the custody problem.

I wonder sometimes how many of these professionals (as, when it was a true grassroots, and not top-down operation) actually have experienced what they are professing?  I know many have, but it doesn’t seem the majority of the leadership does.
Meanwhile, here’s yet another newspaper in midAmerica saying there’s a crisis of actual money reaching the shelter.  More on the Community Crisis Center in Elgin, later — I’m on the way back from the Battered Mother’s Custody Conference (which IS gender-specific), and reflecting on what the heck it was actually about, and why the percentage of presenters who were actually the “target clientele” to those who were working in the field was a little skewed.  The heirarchy thing is a little disturbing..

The idea for this post began with the first and third posts, found recently.  To put a context, we needed to hear the women’s parts as well — as they are remarkably absent in the other ones.

The “But First, Four Women” post — well I just felt I needed to put their voices out in public before continuing with this one.

Because time is short now, I will post links and wish a happy new year, for those on this calendar, and don’t do anything foolish if you are on the “outs” with the family at this time of year.

Another inspiration for this post was watching a travelog by PBS’s Rick Steves, on the customs of Christmas (in Europe and elsewhere) combined with a trip to Iran, and watching the men walking around western style, and the women, with their hairs covered, plus his response to them.

We need to be more sensitive to other cultures and histories (MOST people have some “other” to relate to, even people with two or three or more backgrounds in their immediate parentage, I would bet (I wasn’t blessed with that…).  Because we live somewhere.  I have noted with distress that when too many cultures feel themselves “other” it’s easy enough to demonize women in their own, as we saw in the last post when a former Muslim tried to speak about human rights at some liberal — in fact, Ivy League– universities and a college.  I think “Now they call me Infidel” should be required reading:  a religious culture in reaction to perceived secularism and corruption (as if there were none within its ranks) is going to become more adamant, more stringent, and often more dangerous.  this is why we had checks and balances, and separation of powers.

With technology, these are easy to erase, and have been.  We need to address this.  Technology delivers ideas, and rhetoric.  The technical divide between rich and poor absolutely still exists, and affects the overall climate we live in.

Understand that I’m not too familiar with these sites myself, but believe they are worth posting.

OK:

Why Shariah?

Author:	Noah Feldman

March 17, 2008
New York Times Magazine

Last month, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state. The archbishop noted that “the law of the Church of England is the law of the land” there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women,** it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.

Then all hell broke loose. From politicians across the spectrum to senior church figures and the ubiquitous British tabloids came calls for the leader of the world’s second largest Christian denomination to issue a retraction or even resign. Williams has spent the last couple of years trying to hold together the global Anglican Communion in the face of continuing controversies about ordaining gay priests and recognizing same-sex marriages. Yet little in that contentious battle subjected him to the kind of outcry that his reference to religious courts unleashed. Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams’s mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word “Shariah” that was radioactive.

View full text of article.

ANOTHER ONE, same site, a “BACKGROUNDER article.” Recommended reading:

Islam: Governing Under Sharia
(aka shariah, shari’a)

Authors:	Toni Johnson, Senior Staff Writer Lauren Vriens

Updated: November 10, 2010

• Introduction
• What is Sharia?
• Controversy: Punishment and Equality under Sharia
• Sharia vs. Secularism
• Modern Economies and Sharia

---

Introduction

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. “There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily,” says Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies. Sharia’s influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity.

What is Sharia?

Also meaning “path” in Arabic, sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna–the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Precedents and analogy applied by Muslim scholars are used to address new issues. The consensus of the Muslim community also plays a role in defining this theological manual.

Sharia developed several hundred years after the Prophet Mohammed’s death in 632 CE as the Islamic empire expanded to the edge of North Africa in the West and to China in the East. Since the Prophet Mohammed was considered the most pious of all believers, his life and ways became a model for all other Muslims and were collected by scholars into what is known as the hadith. As each locality tried to reconcile local customs and Islam, hadith literature grew and developed into distinct schools of Islamic thought: the Sunni schools, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanafi; and the Shiite school, Ja’fari. Named after the scholars that inspired them, they differ in the weight each applies to the sources from which sharia is derived, the Quran, hadith, Islamic scholars, and consensus of the community. The Hanbali school, known for following the most Orthodox form of Islam, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban. The Hanafi school, known for being the most liberal and the most focused on reason and analogy, is dominant among Sunnis in Central Asia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. The Maliki school is dominant in North Africa and the Shafi’i school in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and Yemen. Shia Muslims follow the Ja’fari school, most notably in Shia-dominant Iran. The distinctions have more impact on the legal systems in each country, however, than on individual Muslims, as many do not adhere to one school in their personal lives.

Controversy: Punishment and Equality under Sharia

Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge’s discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses–flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution–get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. “In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments,” says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient.

Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments, vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one’s family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic). Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs and predate Islam. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. “With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people’s problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events,” says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.

Sharia vs. Secularism. . . .

Another article states how this just might work out in practice.  (Again, a google find).  Its dealing also with the intense anti-homosexuality laws reminds me of the Ugandan situation as sponsored by some right-wing evangelical organizations based in the US, which it seems I did blog on earlier (N.A.M.E., Rick Warren, WAIT, others), or perhaps I just read, and didn’t post.  these are the megachurch reform the country and get the grants-guys that have been practicing on populations overseas, and inappropriately so, it seems.  But (more on topic), whoever this man is, here is the anecdotal narrative of these theories in practice:

Islam’s Double Standard: the evil of Shari’a law

August 21, 2010arthurideLeave a commentGo to comments

Islam has never believed in nor sanctioned equality, human rights, or civil rights from its inception in the seventh century to this day.

This is the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, while her lover received twenty lashes.  Initially her sentence was commuted to hanging after international protests.  She awaited her fate, sharing cell number four with 25 other women–all awaiting execution.

Court records claim that her crime was adultery and merited the death penalty, but her testimony gives another reason. She claimed that she was attempting to find some happiness in a loveless marriage.

Initially, Sakineh was given 99 lashes for her so-called crime. The unmarried man, known as Nasser, was not treated as harshly, and the man who accompanied Sakineh was treated relatively lightly.    Nasser received 40 lashes. The second man, who had accompanied Sakineh for safety sake, received 20.    The Iranian theocracy was not satisfied.  They demanded blood.

When Sakineh’s husband was found dead, . . .

investigators responded to a complaint filed by his children. After haphazardly reviewing the evidence *** they concluded that Sakineh’s lover, Nasser, killed the father. Concluding that there was an illicit alliance between Sakineh and Nasser, the investigators attention was quickly redirected to the children’s mother.

It swiftly was the consensus of the investigators that Sakineh had aided and abetted her lover.  She supposedly had given her husband a sedative so that Nasser could inject him with poison.

When the children realized the gravity of the situation, they chose to protect their mother. Sajjad and Farideh forgave their mother for acting as an accessory to the murder, and forgave Nassar for murdering their father. Their forgiveness, according to Islamic law, reduced the crime’s sentence.

Nassar’s penalty was reduced from hanging to ten years imprisonment.  Although Sakineh was originally convicted only of being an accessory to murder, her sentence was also reduced to ten years–as if she had participated in the murder.

The reduced sentences enraged Iran’s clerical elite.  Zealous fundamentalist Shari’a judges presiding Iran pushed for a reevaluation of the extramarital relationship. Succeeding in obtaining a rehearing of the case, the theocrats accused Sakineh of “zena” — extramarital sex.

Extramarital sex carries the death penalty–by stoning–a verdict that they were determined to render when they passed judgment. All evidence points to the fact that the judges had already determined that the mother was guilty of the murder in order to have a lover (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,711975,00.html#ref=nlint).

Still a problem lingered. World opinion. The most troublesome point in this situation is that the accused was coerced into testifying against herself.   Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, told British reporters from the Guardian after the trial that she had been tortured for no less than two days and threatened repeatedly if she did not tell the court what it demanded it be told (http://iranhr.net/spip.php?article1807).

Since the fall of the shah and with it the end of democracy in Persia came a transmogrification of justice and law. With the return of the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, by referendum on April 1, 1979, and approved a new theocratic constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country in December 1979. From that day on, the Iranian government intensified its campaign of torture, arbitrary arrests, and detentions against political critics since 2004 (Human Rights Watch (2004), Like the Dead in Their Coffins: Torture, Detention, and the Crushing of Dissent in Iran (73 page booklet); cf. http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=5), increasing the number of  public executions (especially the hanging of teenage homosexuals; http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=4403) to a near-daily routine, and enshrining torture as a commandment of their god in much the same way as the Roman Catholic church used the Spanish Inquisition to extract confessions and ultimate exterminate those opposed to its rule and officials.

One of the most unusual innovations installed by the theocracy of Iran, quite different from the more sane days of the Kingdom of Iran (Pahlavi dynasty) under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) came with the redefinition of social culture, customs, and tolerance.  Before the imams and ayatollahs took control, two members of the same gender commonly held hands or kissed as they had for centuries–it was seen as a greeting, not as a sexual exchange, but like Pope Pius IX, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was fixated on homosexuality, most likely to hide his own latent tendencies–for he forged out of redactions verses against homosexuality (citing Qur’an 4:16 and 27:55, which is contradicted by 52:24, 56:17, 76:19) and adultery (17:2-3, 32, and 25:63-71) but stoning is only found in the hadith. Both actions became capital offences and dealt with severely by the theocrats–without any justification for their decrees in the Qur’an, in the same barbaric manner as Pius IX attempted to justify his own phobias.

Today, in Iran, homosexuality is illegal, and those charged with making love (having homosexual sex) love-making

are given a choice of four death-styles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword, or dropped from the highest perch.

Here, the same author talks (pretty straightforward) — sorry to switch topics suddenly — about the history of Christmas.  Worth a little look:

Generally, I’ve gone with the flow, and adjusted, and with others — while realizing that Santa Claus isn’t real (nor, FYI, did we inflict that on our kids, although the presents sure showed up at the season, along with abuse right before or right after…).  But after four seasons of no chance of seeing my own kids — while I as a mother with full physical custody willingly shared even the alternating holidays we were given — I guess that meant nothing because of my gender? — the past oners, not a peep.  Financially devastated time and again, I can’t exactly go do the gifts, plus with contact already (and promptly) cut off, it was quite clear that this was a time of one-upmanship (we have your daughters — and you don’t!) related to some ritual hazing of a The Mom Who Said No! .  …

And I’m certainly not alone in that pain of not seeing my children in any major holiday.  U.S. Courts are creating this phemonenon.

Moreover, other times, families, or parts of them are wiped out by someone who was on the outs.

It’s our civic duty, however, to help jumpstart the ailing economy by shopping (what about ourselves, eh?).

No, thank, you I think that’s enough “Christmas” for my lifetime…  At least that’s how I feel for now…  SO I throw in that little link.  For anyone from these traditions we are discussing (I didn’t discuss Judaism, but you can see that it wouldn’t include this holiday), what we celebrate is basically described in the Old Testament as other gods.    No one likes to bring this out in the open too much, but maybe it’s time…..  It’s not exactly the liberalized separation of church and state (supposedly) time when atheism is celebrated; work schedules and the market revolve around this collated holiday that dates probably back to a Roman Emperor, Constantine.  So why not consider a bit?

hristmas: Origin and Development

December 25, 2010arthurideLeave a commentGo to comments

Four thousand years ago or so, ancient Egyptians celebrated the rebirth of the sun in the twelfth month of each year. Devoted to the holiest of numbers, twelve, the Egyptians (like other people) reckoned most “happenings” in groups of twelve. To this send, the Egyptians set the length of the festival at 12 days, to reflect the 12 divisions in their sun calendar. To celebrate the rebirth of the sun, they used every possible existence of rebirth, and decorated with greenery that was common among them: using palms with 12 shoots as a symbol of the completed year, since a palm was thought to put forth a shoot each month. Sun-worshipping Egyptians had the idea, and having their sun-god ride a “beast” beneath waving palm branches, bearing on his head a laurel crown and even sleeping on a tree and resting and praying in a garden with a young boy to indicate the perpetual youthfulness of their savior sun-god.

Saturn and Ops at Saturnalia 

The Saturnalia, of course, celebrated Saturn—the fire god (represented, as expected, by fire—an element sacred to all gods and thus the source of heat and cooking—a source that the god Prometheus would steal to take to mortal kind), while his son would become in time represented by the sun when he took his place to the right hand of the Father (and ultimately replace him). Saturn’s primary duties, for which he was worshipped universally, was being the god of sowing (planting) because heat from the sun was required to allow for planting and growth of crops. He was also worshipped in this dead-of-winter festival so that he would come back (he was the “sun”) and warm the earth again so that spring planting could occur. The planet Saturn was later named after him because, among all of the planets, with its rings and bright red color, it best represented the god of fire.

….

These were all simply the various names for Nimrod. Nimrod was considered the father of all the Babylonian gods (who, by legend, dined on the flesh of newborn babies–but records suggest that it was a baptism similar to that experienced by Achilles). This horrible practice was associated with the worship of all fire gods, including Saturn, Kronos, Molech and Baal) and is the subject of the still-valid The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, page 231:

(I heard this author later retracted a lot of what he wrote…)

This legend has a further and deeper meaning; but, as applied to Nimrod, or ‘The Horned One,’ (which found its ultimate fruition in the bad translation of the Bible in the sixteenth century

Moses with Horns by Michelangelo (yeah, I wondered about those marble horns, too…) 

as seen in Michelangelo’s portrayal of the mythological Moses with horns) it just refers to the fact, that, as the representative of Moloch or Baal, infants were the most acceptable offerings at his altar. We have ample and melancholy evidence on this subject from the records of antiquity. ‘ThePhoenicians,’ says Eusebius, ‘every year sacrificed their beloved and only-begotten children to Kronos or Saturn.’

We find this same reference in both the Torah and the Christian Bible. For example, in Genesis 10:9 we read of Nimrod, “He was a mighty hunter before [in place of] the Lord.” He actually tried to replace God. The Jewish historian, Josephus, records in Josephus Antiquities important evidence of Nimrod’s role in the post-flood world: “He also gradually changed the government into tyranny…He [Nimrod] also said he would be revenged on God, if He should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach…Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God” (Bk. I, Ch. IV, sec. 2, 3).

Under many names, mankind’s earliest and perhaps greatest rebel has been worshipped throughout what rival theologies would libel as a “false religion.”

Yeah, it’s that tyranny thing that always gets us.  What religion, I wonder, does NOT dispense that?

Well, to keep my promise, here’s that MICHIGAN FAMILY FORUM site.  I post this because not one single hyperlink in it’s four main ones can say any word that could be identified with a woman!  The word “Family” doesn’t.  The word “Children” doesn’t.  The word “Parents” doesn’t.  The word “elders” doesn’t.  But there is a link for FATHERHOOD.  I suppose women make a guest appearance for the purpose of reproducing.  Elderly women (and we know women often live longer than men) are likely to be welcome if they are not too uppity or crotchedty, and particularly if they are widows (not “divorcees”).  I’m just speculating as to much of this paragraph, but take a look at the

• the Language,
• the Links,
• and the photos.

In 1989, a board formed and recruited a probate Judge, who caught the vision.  And they were off and running — thank god, before that nasty VAWA legislation was passed….

(I’ve actually done more research than on the post about some of these liaisons in this Midwestern State.  They are concerned about “family.”  I as a woman who has no place (and no photo, to date, of anyone my age on the site) am concerned about them.).  Remember my post about Oregon Family Institute, and how well-networked they were.  You ain’t seen nothing yet when the network is majority conservative evangelical Christian.  I wish I could talk to both Ayaan Hirsi and Nonie Darwish about this, and I have already mentioned it to Phyllis Chesler.

Remember their stories…

Happy New Year, and may the next one not be “business as usual” for you!

It’s time we talked about Shari’a Law, Family Law, and the Disappearance of the Feminine noun and pronoun in public policy. I am not in a “holiday” mood, nor is this my holiday….I stood up against abuse, told the truth in court, hoped to separate from violence, and I have no family as we speak.  I haven’t committed adultery either, and so far we don’t “stone” in the USA– but this venue does allow for “judicial discretion” which turns a blind eye (or reframes issues) when some husbands and fathers “take the law into their own hands” and sacrifice all for their disgraced honor.  It does excommunicate in a particularly vicious way when a Mother asserts herself as mother — but not to participate in an honor killing of her daughter, rather a protective action towards her children.  We know.

It’s probably time we also stopped playing with things that others consider god(s), while the real one is closer to the state, and money/sales/the economy, etc.

But I am going to talk about it in this blog, quickly assembled on the last day of 2010.  I’m learning as I go, too..  I learned that I’ve had it with this season, taken as a whole.  The workforce is organized around it — always good to keep the religions organized and in one place where they won’t get out of control, or will dilute their fiercer expressions by rubbing shoulders with each other in malls, or around family meals.  Or share the Season of Sharing in a Soup Kitchen, great if you eat there, and rewarding if you work there.

Of course, for those who have families….

But only after some politically correct greetings.  NB:  Is there an atheist greeting?  Like, ‘happy holidays.”   The word “holiday” is a version of “holiday” as surely as is Hallow’een.    So what’s appropriate?

How many greetings should we learn to get through the season without offending someone?

How many did you use?  How many New Year’s Traditions

are you going to observe today?

The TV says they have a specialty “Tipsy Tow” for people whose traditions

includes drinking and driving.  (probably appropriate right after the

Season of Saturnalia, etc.  )

“Asalaam Alakam“

(from “Muslim Voices”

By ROSEMARY PENNINGTON
Posted November 16, 2009)

That’s beautiful….a beautiful photo.

The greeting at least means something, and isn’t seasonal…

Now the other one:

“Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Men:”

The inane phrase (no subject, no verb, no “from whom” and thanks to English’s lack of case endings, a mangled translation out of context, and of course it’s commonly known that the birth celebrated at this time didn’t happen in this season) is repeated ad infitum, as sung for centuries too, although it’s meaning is mangled, not exactly a trade secret of the season.  But an easy springboard for a blog.  I give one woman’s, one PhD man’s, another man’s and a news commentary about how it ain’t exactly peaceful at this season!

From what I understand about Jesus (from the Bible), his birth was quickly followed with an attempt to eradicate him, his first sermon, likewise, and most of his short ministry was not well received, and for a period his family tried to have him “institutionalized” (saying, “he is beside himself,” i.e., a fanatic…).  Finally, his disciples deserted him, the religious leaders betrayed him (and broke some laws turning him over to the political authorities) and finally someone else did the dirty deed, despite a certain person’s wife warning against it.  He never had kids or owned a home, and assuming he perfectly kept the law, never had sex outside marriage, in fact, at all.

“Jeesus! — that’s a hard cross to bear.  Makes you wonder why so much hoopla at his season of supposed birth.”

Therefore it only

ONE WOMAN’s:

• “This Blog is about Life Lived.”

I include this sentiment and jpg because it’s a white-haired woman who maintains women’s blogs…  Why not?

And that’s a beautiful image of a Russian Icon, a single angel, with gold background.  Unlike me, the blog has fewer words and says more ….  Mine is about staying alive female in “the leader of the free world’s” country.

Even though she blogs about women, she seems comfortable with the phrase “good will toward men.”  Maybe after enough decades of life, it’s not worth fighting over grammar or individual discrepancies….

ONE MAN’s.

This one is from a guy, in fact a Ph.D. professor from — columbia seminary, I guess.  It’s also about 7 years (and nearly a month) old, and post 9/11 also:

Peace on Earth?
and
Good Will Between Men?

What Christmas is All About

Well, it’s that time of year, once again, when we will hear people saying, “Peace on earth and good will between men.”

This constant refrain is uttered by all sorts of people from all quarters at this time of year.

However, what’s interesting is that many people don’t know that this mangled quotation is actually a passage from the Bible. And even many Christians, sad to say, don’t know what it really means.

People often chant this statement, “Peace on earth good will toward men” as a way of saying that we should have good will between our fellow humans during Christmas season. We should, so they imply, have “peace on earth” during this time.

Someone will robustly announce, “Peace on earth good will toward men,” and all those around will smile and hug one another or pat each other on the backs showing their “good will” toward one another, and their desire for “peace.”

However, this sort of fabricated, momentary “peace” is not what the Bible was talking about when it recorded the words of the angles who said,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”—(Luke 2:14).

What was actually meant by the angels is obvious if one will take the time to see the context.

Their message was not “peace between men of good will” or even “peace and good will between men.”

Rather it was peace on earth and good will toward men from God for those who accept the babe in the manger.

This is a powerful statement about who Jesus Christ is. The passage shows that for all who accept this babe in the manger as God’s unique Son and as their Savior, there shall be peace on earth for them with God and there shall be good will toward them from God.

Note that it says, “Good will toward men” not “good will between men.” Actually, it is a peace between man and God, for it is through this babe in the manger that humans can have peace with God.

OR, if you would like the less esoteric evangelical version also from 2003, whoever THIS man is:

• From “Tomorrow’s World:  Magazine and Television Program

(I gave home link so you can get a flavor of the topics; the quote is from the link “Peace on Earth?”)

Volume 5, Issue 6

Peace on Earth?

By Douglas S. Winnail

Is world peace really possible? The quest for peace seems endless. It is in the news almost every day, yet our world grows more brutal by the minute! Share

Is world peace really possible? The quest for peace seems endless. It is in the news almost every day, yet our world grows more brutal by the minute! The two world wars fought in the 20th century did not bring peace, nor did the end of the Cold War; they brought only a more divided and troubled planet. Every year at Christmas, religious leaders speak of the Christ-child and peace on earth, yet violence and war continue to escalate! Religious people light candles and say prayers for peace. Idealists sign petitions, stage marches and organize conferences to seek peace. Pragmatists build bigger weapons to enforce peace. Yet all these efforts have failed to bring peace. Is peace a mirage, an unrealistic, unattainable goal, an impossible dream?Why is the peace process so frustrating and difficult? Many in our modern world do not realize that Bible prophecies are coming alive in today’s news headlines. The Bible not only predicts the major challenges of our age, it also reveals whyhuman efforts have not produced peace. Scripture also explainsthe way to peace, and how peace on earth will ultimately come. Few today understand what the Bible says about peace. What Jesus Really Said Preachers often say that the message of Christmas is: “Peace on earth and good will toward men.” But this is a mistranslation of what the angel actually said. Properly translated, the angel’s announcement at Christ’s birth was: “Glory to God, and on earth peace, toward men of good will” (Luke 2:14). It could also be worded: “Glory to God, and on earth, peace among men who please God” or “among men with whom God is pleased“—which gives a very different meaning to the statement (see The New Testament in 26 Translations)

Well, now, that opens a WHOLE can of worms about which men please God and which don’t, obviously.  I’m sure that a subscription to this magazine would inform us properly.  That puts it in a whole different ballpark….  No Ph.D. stuff HERE….  and so far, no women either, even though ain’t it ironic, a birth took place at this season, supposedly….

Whoever he is, his website has at least some social networking going on, to spread the good news that SOME men are pleasing to God.

Then there’s the political springboard on the greeting.  My google search on the phrase put this one near the top, so we get a Chicago Conservative “Examiner” blogger.. (reporter?)….  He also happens to be a white male, guess they’re good with the SEOs…

Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Men:

December 23, 2010

Terror alerts are ramping up this week. It started on Fox, but has spilled over to CNN, MSNBC, and network news. There are something like 1.5 billion people of the Muslim faith. There are quite a few Americans who would like to believe that every one of them is a terrorist. You’ve seen me say, on this page, that there are about 1,500 terrorists on the planet, and when I say that, I am referring specifically to members of Al-Qaeda. We have more terrorists than that in Chicago; they are called gang members, and they are urban terrorists.

You may think that Osama Bin Laden is alive, you may think he is dead, but that is not really germane to what I am going to propose.http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/869.html

In the 1980’s, when the Soviet Union was waging an unwinnable conflict in Afghanistan, what we referred to here as their Vietnam, the CIA funded insurgents in that war, led by Osama Bin Laden. What if the most important thing that Bin Laden learned had nothing to do with guerilla, or terrorist, tactics . . . .

(WHATEVER . . . . )

OBVIOUSLY, I am forgetting “Shalom” — the oldest of the three Bible- based religions.

SHALOM.   in fact, Shalom Bayit.

Shalom Bayit
Ending Domestic Violence in Jewish Homes

P.O. Box 10102, Oakland CA 94610
A project of the Tides Center

Helpline: (866) 742-5667 (SHALOM-7) toll free within the Bay Area
(510) 451-7233 (SAFE) outside the Bay Area
(650) 574-7233 (SAFE) Peninsula office

Business office: (510) 451-8874

I doubt these address the impact of the family law system on the civil restraining order, or criminal restraining order system.  Maybe they do, but let’s not forget, OK?

Jesus’s announcement began at his ministry, see Luke 4:18, not LUke 2.

When He realized the time of crucifixion etc. was nearing, he said, MY peace I leave with you, to his disciples.  Other than that, it appears He took it with him….(John14)…

As I was walking out this morning, in the fresh air, I thought again about all the polemics about how “the basic economic unit of the country is the family.”

Well, no, it isn’t.  The family has now become mainstreamed big business.  I personally found the basic economic unit of the country (at least as to the court systems and social service networks — also most transportation AND many other forms of government leadership) are more united at the COUNTY level.

The word “County” stems from the previous word related to nobility, “Count.”  Having dealt for eyars with this systems (because once I became, as a mother, a NON-family member), it became crystal clear that I was not supposed to engage in life as an individual in regards the best interests of my children without the wider approval (rather than, say complying with the basic community standards, and laws, and functioning independently as  a worker, compliant co-parent, and person where I lived, and our daughters did) — of almost anyone who came by with a theory, an allegation, or a claim.  SOme people could accept I wasn’t married, but enough couldn’t that it became another prolonged version of a religious shunning procedure, and struggle for dominance.

While many are grazing peacefully these days, those who stepped on the landmine of the contested custody with an ex-batterer, or over-entitled and feeling underappreciated (male) nearby know there is no such peace to those who haven’t joined up with the right group in the pursuit of LIFE, LIBERTY, and (thereafter) HAPPINESS.

Sorry to put it that blunt, but I wanted to get these greetings in, and in the next blog (today) post a CFR summary next to a contrary opinion, about Shari’a law, and how it hits the female (and young) among us.  All.

Next month, January, is named after a two-headed God, which seems appropriate…

Faster than the speed of light: one man’s retirement plan becomes the playground of agencies and nonprofits, dispensing, dispensing — say, What are they dispensing, again? Besides contracts to their Executive Directors:

Wow — why do bad ideas travel fastest? And don’t even bother mating before they replicate?

This is certainly one:

Unbelievable: I was looking up one San Diego organization’s name, & Casey Gwinn’s name, and found out that the UK has caught the Alliance Virus…

Family justice centre, Croydon: the first of its kind in Europe

Thursday 01 February 2007 00:00

It was a busy first 10 months for Europe’s first family justice centre where 32 agencies work together under one roof to help victims of domestic violence. Josephine Hocking looks at what makes it unique

It is difficult to imagine a place where domestic violence victims can seek help from 32 agencies under the same roof.
But such a service is running in the London Borough of Croydon where the family justice centre’s mission is to reduce violence and death.
~ ~ ~ ~

I guess dispensing “Justice” just pre-empted stopping wars.
~ ~ ~

It opened in December 2005 and helped 3,000 families in its first 10 months.
~ ~ ~
Define “helped.” Is this like the ones in San Diego helped their own employees? Or the one in Northern California helped a relative of some head honchos to the position of Executive Director, thereafter likely exaggerating figures of “People helped”??

~ ~ ~ ~

The stated aim is to assist 14,000 children and 7,000 adults each year.

Professionals at the family justice centre include an on-call duty and assessment social work service, advocates, police, solicitors, housing officers, Women’s Aid, Victim Support, debt and benefits advisers, and probation staff.

The number of agencies is set to rise to 40, boosting the number of staff from the current 112. All are employed and managed by their own organisations, using existing resources. Referrals come from professionals or direct from service users.

A partnership between Croydon’s council, police and primary care trust, the centre is the first of its kind in Europe and was inspired by a US project (see “In the Beginning”).

Croydon’s social services director, Hannah Miller, is enthusiastic about the centre and is pleased it is on her patch. Her department provides the duty and assessment social work service.

Miller says it would be a poor use of resources to base a qualified social worker full time at the centre, as many seeking help do not need social work input. So she has allocated dedicated social work time and management. Social workers visit the centre regularly and attend case conferences. More social workers can be called on when necessary, and promise to arrive at the centre within 20 minutes of being contacted. The arrangement works well.

The multi-agency working practised at the centre is an idea that many aspire to but clashing professional cultures often preclude this. One way to resolve this is to make them sit side by side.

Jill Maddison, the centre’s director, says: “When professionals really work together you appreciate and understand what others can and can’t do. Social workers might moan they can never get hold of the police and wonder why an officer isn’t answering his phone. But when you can walk over to his desk and see he’s busy in the interview room with a suspect, that’s helpful.”

Maddison’s advice to social workers supporting families experiencing domestic violence is “don’t work on your own”. More can be achieved with a multi-agency approach.

The idea originated in the US. Lawyer Casey Gwinn’s vision led to the opening of the world’s first family justice centre in San Diego, California. He says the reason it was never previously attempted is that “agencies couldn’t get along”.

“The biggest problem is one of power and control from those agencies that see us as a threat.”

Maddison is not surprised that agencies can obstruct each other: “The voluntary and community sector are encouraged to compete for funds and work. It is not in their best interests to co-operate.”

Commander Steve Allen of the Metropolitan Police is a vociferous backer of the centre, telling a recent conference: “The model produces a coherent response. Otherwise agencies do struggle with each other. I have seen a lack of action due to people arguing about whose name is on the poster and who will get the credit. People are dying while that goes on. It has to stop.”

Modest and intensely focused, Maddison is highly regarded by colleagues in the borough and beyond. She trained as a social worker but never worked as one. She has been in the domestic violence field, in the UK and the US for 18 years, in roles including family lawyer, therapist and policy adviser. At Croydon Council, she was asked to find solutions to tackle the borough’s domestic violence problem.

Five adults and three children were murdered in domestic violence-related incidents in the borough in 2004-5. The centre opened in December 2005 and there were no domestic violence-related murders or child deaths in 2006.

Maddison’s energy and commitment have kept the centre on course during an exhausting first year. Her persistence was exemplified by her policy on information-sharing. Conventional practice dictated that the centre’s 32 agencies could not easily share information. But Maddison saw that as a hindrance to successful outcomes.

She says: “I read many lengthy documents on information-sharing but the solution was simple. We ask our clients if they will agree to information-sharing. We explain that it will help us to help them. We’ve only had one refusal so far.” However, child protection concerns can override this freedom to exchange information.

But establishing the centre has been a slog. “The idea is simple. But setting up and running a family justice centre is not easy. The first year is the hardest,” she admits.

Then there is the constant proximity to intense suffering. “It affects me, yes,” she says, “no wonder, when I see children either rigid with fear or racing about knocking things over because of what they’ve been through.”

A highlight of the centre’s first year for staff and service users were lunches for survivors. “Seeing 120 happy families in one room, who are now safe, is amazing,” she says. “My staff benefited from seeing the good effect of their work. Before, we were patching up bad situations now we are stopping the violence. Our approach does not get quick results, but it works.”

In the beginning (back)
The world’s first family justice centre – “where families come first and professionals come together” – opened in San Diego, California, in 2002, under the leadership of lawyer Casey Gwinn. His vision was to be a one-stop shop so that people seeking help did not have to trek between agencies.

Today 27 organisations work out of the centre, and deal with 1,100 families each month.

“Previously, systems were designed for the benefit of service providers,” says Gwinn, volunteer chief executive at San Diego. “Now we run services to suit our clients. They ask what took us so long to do it that way.”

At San Diego none of the 23,000 clients seeking services since 2002 have died. Another important outcome is that more cases are going to court.

Family justice centres are big news in the US. The San Diego centre appeared twice on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show, a major boost in helping spread the word.

President Bush has backed the idea with an initiative that included funding. Today 20 family justice centres are open in the US, with more planned.

In the UK, many local authorities are pursuing the idea but Croydon is the only one running with it so far.

GOOD!

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA’S, SELF-DESCRIBED @ 2009:

When it was founded, the Alameda Family Justice Center was only the second such center in the nation, but within the last few years other counties have begun to copy this model. Funded by the District Attorney’s office, public grants and private gifts, the FJC has helped county attorneys prepare better domestic violence cases for trial. It has also eased social service providers’ efforts to help victims with psychological counseling, job training and onsite childcare. More than 7,000 people—a majority of whom are women with children—have used the center this year.

Define “used” — called for help? Stepped inside the doors? Accessed a website?

All in one place…

The Family Justice Center’s primary innovation has been bringing police, the District Attorney’s Office, and social service agencies all to an office on Oakland’s 27th Street between Broadway and Telegraph Avenue.

“Over the last year or so, we have seen an increase in clients’ repeated visits for varying services,” said Nadia Davis-Lockyer, the center’s executive director. “Not due to new incidents of family violence, but due to their realizing that additional services beyond immediate crisis intervention can help them achieve a happy and healthy home. Wherever you’re at, however you want to proceed, when you walk in our door, we can help you.

In addition, more than 3,000 restraining orders are issued in Alameda County every year, meaning that, on average, nine times every day the county determines someone can no longer be trusted to be in the same space as his or her former spouse or partner.

This implies civil restraining orders with kickout, not criminal with prosecution and serious incarceration JUST THINK! None of these can be required to get enforced (see my “What Decade Were These Stories? post). Then, the offended (kicked out) partner can go a few blocks away to a superior court and request immediate custody of any children, and thereafter it’s no longer this Justice Center’s problem, from what I can tell/have heard. This is called Justice ping pong.

Randy White, the Oakland police officer who serves as a subject matter expert for the domestic violence unit at the Family Justice Center, said these numbers translate into victims coming into the center on a regular basis. “Almost every few hours, every day, someone comes in here requesting services because they were a victim of a rape or domestic violence,” he said.

Which just goes to show you how well spent the Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood funds have been, over the past FIVE Presidential administrations…

In the 1970s, the domestic violence movement started in garages and people’s homes,” said Raeanne Passantino, the center’s assistant director. “This new movement makes a huge difference for clients, who can get many services at one time.”

Oh, I thought they were into “Justice.” … Well, this “new” (it’s not a new idea, just a new application of an old– centralize & control) movement makes a huge difference for many service providers who can access several clients in one place.

Word of good business plans among politicians and public employees does indeed spread fast:

The model has worked well enough that other counties are following suit. Over the last few years, Family Justice Centers have started up in San Jose, Fresno, and other cities around the country. Officials from several California counties, including Contra Costa and Solano, have visited Alameda County’s center site in recent months with an eye toward creating their own centers. “It’s a model that is being reproduced all over,” Bates said.

Funny — were any clients interviewed in this piece? I cannot do it sufficient justice, although see my previous Dubious Doings By District Attorneys post, in which I quote a “Steve White” (never met the guy..), who I see is right on it here. … APpropriately so, too. This is MSM at its “best” — and if I had time, I’d look up the background of every single person interviewed here, above. Oakland has one of the highest homicide rates in the country (4th or 5th, last I heard) and I know that man of those include DV deaths, with or without “restraining orders” on.

The San Diego “Family Justice Center” appears to have been Casey Gwinn’s personal retirement plan. Others have quickly caught on — but then again, conflicts of interest in nonprofits getting referral business from the courts isn’t exactly a new concept. Nor is nepotism or cronyism, which to me, this sounds like more of. They issue restraining orders — which no woman can require to be enforced, nor is she guaranteed any remedies if failure to enforce results in death to children. Generally speaking. I doubt that this is on the FAQ sheet going in the front door. Despite the word “Family” all over the place, I saw no mention of the extensive “family law” system or “Family court Facilitator’s Offices” where clients with kids will likely end up sooner of later. Not their problem. …

Hmm

Why THINK when one can just LINK?

From the Partners & Sponsors website of the home Family Justice Center page:

Partners and Sponsors

 

 

With almost 60 Centers in operation and over 100 Family Justice Centers in the planning stages in the United States and the around the world, the National Family Justice Center Alliance is honored to be working with the following agencies to identify topics and speakers for our annual Conference.

A Call to Men
American Domestic Violence Crisis Line
American Prosecutors Research Institute
AVON Foundation
Battered Women’s Justice Project
California Partnership To End Domestic Violence
The California Endowment
Chadwick Center for Children & Families, Rady Children’s Hospital
Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence
Dress For Success
European Union Family Justice Center Alliance
Family Violence Prevention Fund
Feminist Majority Foundation
FJC Legal Network
Forensic Healthcare Consulting
Gavin de Becker & Associates
Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community
Mental Health Systems, Inc.
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
National District Attorneys Association
National Network to End Domestic Violence
National University
Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice
Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice
Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network
Relationship Training Institute
San Diego Domestic Violence Council
Sexual Assault Family Violence Investigator Course
Taiwan Association of Social Workers
The Verizon Foundation
Vital Voices
Wynn Consulting
YWCA San Diego

Working together, the International Family Justice Center conference is rapidly becoming:

• The primary training venue and learning exchange opportunity for professionals working in Family Justice Centers
• One of the best conferences for substantive training on domestic violence, sexual assault, children exposed to violence, and elder abuse.
• The gathering place for academics, practitioners, policy makers, and national leaders to set the course for the future of the Family Justice Center Movement

And in fact, for just about anyone except those affected by these policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Program

93.647 Social Services Research and Demonstration

Federal Agency

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

Authorization

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

Program Number

93.647

Last Known Status

Active

Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

As described by ADL: (hover)

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

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

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

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

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

Family Court Systems Purposefully Mask Abuse and Abusers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I replied, from my recent understandings & research:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Birds of a feather, flock together“

 

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

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

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

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

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

Here we are:

[PDF]

Position Paper

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

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT — (an oxymoron?)

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

October, 2009

Responsible Government:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image linked from artbible.info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

verbs

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

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

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

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

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

U.S.DEBT CLOCK.org

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

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

William Bradford Shockley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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