Posts Tagged ‘Boyd R. McCandless (1915-1975) [SeeAlso influence upon Michael E. Lamb PhD]’
Caught! Chronically Usurping Communication btw. Government and the Governed, Pushing Back Legal Boundaries Set by Subject Matter and Geopolitical (State and National Borders), Undermining, basically, The USA [Published Sept. 16, 2019].
Caught! Chronically Usurping Communication btw. Government and the Governed, Pushing Back Legal Boundaries Set by Subject Matter and Geopolitical (State and National Borders), Undermining, basically, The USA [Published Sept. 16, 2019] (“-b4j”, about 8,600 words with footnotes). [Over one dozen tags, only added Oct. 2. This post covers key important basics influencing family courts’ purposes & principles]
(Top part — discussion. Mostly prose, my writing. If you want the individual professors’ organizations’ or advocates’ names, more pictures, and links, scroll down! Based on the original word count above, I added about 2,200 words, including those long titles to connecting posts, so that’s not too far. Tags for this post are shown on the previous (“Builders”) one. Publishing as-is, without extensive copyediting and without apology. . //LGH Sept. 16.)
This post continues from the bottom of:
For the immediate context of that discussion, go to the very bottom of that post, which has a link to here. Handling the Blueprints/Builders topic above brought up the topics, and specific university centers, psychologists, and nonprofit government-advising institutions (i.e., Brookings Institution, in the USA) engaged in facilitating the usurpation. I’d also brought up (quoted) an article on the “Transnational Ruling Class, … or Anglo-American Establishment” referring to the historic close, friendly, relations between the RIIA (London) and the CFR (USA). I searched those two terms as symbolic of the ongoing, functional undermining/ bypassing of local (i.e., within national boundaries) representative government in “developed” countries. There’s a direct connection to the family law practices through, Tavistock Relationships (<~~that Wiki, while flagged, is still informative in this context), formerly Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, but also through historic development of the “psych” fields in Europe, what’s now the UK, Canada, the USA and globally. Particularly psychoanalysis (Freud & following) traditions are troubling when entrenched in government practices.
There, I had referenced and quoted:
This undermining of jurisdiction and the effectiveness of geopolitical (national, and within the USA, state, borders) process through perpetually-created crises has been taking place for at least a century, (For example, on the RIIA-CFR topic: Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy pp 189-214,CFR-RIIA Interconnections: A Transnational Ruling Class, Liberal Atlantic Community or Anglo-American Establishment? by Inderjeet Parmar, (“Chatham House” referring to the RIIA factor).
My post title here is generic but the original, specific details on this post cover common recent themes and situations in my blogging. If I were to list them, I’d say: “Psychologists and other Patriarchs, and their habitat: university centers” and then simply name specific ones, calling attention to in which countries they were, the specific (i.e., Michael Lamb, Nicholas J. Cummings, Milton H. Erikson) professionals’ spheres of current and recent operation (also relevant here) and who mentored them, and how (Byron R. McCandless, Frieda Fromm Reichman) — which was the “new to me” part of this post, meaning, it’s not just a re-hash of material I’ve already said, posted, or otherwise covered. There is much review, but it’s not just review!
Also, who mentored those mentors, for example, such as Kurt Lewin, at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station (1933-1945) he ran after emigration from Nazi Germany, and how it influenced funding and directions in American psychology. I’ve also included reminders about what scope of studies are involved in the Princeton-Brookings-Columbia (and now University of Cambridge) connections, as well as the patriarchy behind “Fragile Families” research, ongoing… Just look for the more colorful parts of this post….
FYI: To think you can handle the women’s rights or “domestic (or family) violence (or abuse) prevention” field as somehow separate from all that is mistaken. They are two arms off the same tree trunk. and tap root. The important thing (in my opinion) is locating the root system, its nutrients, and in which direction its growing. Both arms off the same trunk want to treat and train as many people as possible, coordinate and saturate government with their knowledge, and, to the extent possible depending on just how gullible or vulnerable the public is, pretend the other arm doesn’t exist. In addition, they want to get to ALL children as they are being born for proper rearing, and are using “violence prevention” or, alternately, “fatherhood promotion” or “evidence-based child development” (etc.) rationale for doing this.
(Example: Harvard Center on the Developing Child and its extended reach/special sponsors, involvement of “The Frameworks Institute” and so forth). The tangled mixture of participants, if laid out side by side and sorted into their respective categories, including “unidentified” then laid onto a chronology (identified date of origin) would be, I suppose, like a combination of the finds from an archeological/anthropological dig. Except that it’s recent, and the artifacts are being created at the speed of: collaboration, electronic transmission of data, and travel expenses for personal conferences, website expenses for webinars, most of it written off as exercised in some nonprofit format.
I’ve DONE some digs like that on this blog (check out a few posts from April, 2017 on a center at Brown University involving the Annenberg Foundation: yegads!), with the results being characterized — properly — as “dense walls of text.” One recurring challenge — I’m intent to use vocabulary which categorizes according to public or private sector, entity or non-entity (which most centers within universities are), whether tax-exempt or not, and who is in which legal domicile — while the power-players and their hired/sponsored professionals in same sectors (both public AND private!) seek to do, and successfully do the exact opposite — blurred, meldedpersona… and they hire consultants to coach them how to do this! The public, thus the more confused it is (we are) the less able they are to resist sales tactics or manipulations into, if nothing else, ongoing passive consent. This is so much! like the tactics abusers also use on their targets.
I am also Tweeting on this, as it comes up (i.e., most days) along similar lines though of course mostly focused on this subject matter.
IF neither the UK and Canada has, as the USA does (however effective is another question, but we do have) any requirement to disclose their respective charities’ (tax-exempt entities’) tax returns — NOT the same as financial statements, audited or otherwise — that the public, theoretically, anyone with [un-censored by their own government] access to the internet regardless of national origin (it’s on the internet, in other words) could look up and look at, and learn from over time (and specifically as to individual tax-exempt entities which are required to file) then it’s quite possible this might only be dismantled and comprehended from the USA point of view.
Some organizations post “available upon request” or “available for inspection at our offices” but that’s impractical for any overview and financially burdensome to the person seeking it. Some organizations do seem “open and transparent” by posting theirs, but on closer look many are partial, many are not even close to the most recent tax year’s (or the year’s before) and many when it comes to tax returns, may have related entities — with money moving between them — but only post one of the entities’ 990s. There seem to be dozens, if not hundreds, of ways to put off the interested member of the public from getting to the truth of their fiscal operations or even status.
Unless there is some parallel in other countries for developing an understanding and perspective of how their own government revenues are collected, disbursed, and most important — accounted for (invested). (See “Walter Burien” (currently out of Arizona) for more and concise summaries of this type of information on CAFRs, he says, reporting on it since 1989. He has a mailing list and while emails are rare (i.e., your inbox won’t be cluttered with solicitations), when they come they are very effective communication).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Builders and their Blueprints: Who, Really, Designed the Family Courts, How, and Since When? (“The Evidence Speaks”) [Started Aug. 17, 2019, Published Sept. 15].
This post is:
One of my recent posts,
as you can see was in process since May 2, but only published nearly four months later. Why: for whatever reasons, some perhaps relating to my strong emotions dealing with the longstanding topic, it was just not coming together: Adding on wasn’t working. Off-ramping wasn’t working either. Finally I figured I should stick with the original idea, resist the temptation to elucidate so much, and let most of those extras go.
Sometimes obstructions to a smooth-flowing post may also relate to personal challenges which can impact the overall fluency of this type of writing, which requires undistracted focus. (See “Footnoted Feelings 9/13,” “Footnote: Anecdotal Narrative” and “ANECDOTAL INDIGNATION: also FOOTNOTED!” both of which came up earlier in the composition of this post). You will be able to see those footnotes better when I publish them. They are now officially evicted from THIS discussion (post)! to: ‘Anecdotal Narrative | Indignation (Aug. 2019) and Feelings (Sep. 2019) Footnoted (from Builders and Their Blueprints post) [started Sept. 14, 2019] (short-link ends “-b41” and the last character is a number).
As part of that “let it go” effort, I now have this post, which better explains a key theme of that one — common sense says, before choosing Reforms, Solutions, Enhancements** or Adjudication Improvements, ask, and find out who were the builders and show the blueprints which show purpose/design, intent.
**FAMILY COURT PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENTS?
For a general idea and some search strings on existing family court reform movements (mostly but not all in the USA), see these tags from the first post in search results for “FCEP” on this blog That sticky post, near the top, deals with the topic of “Censorship” (although it begins “Welcome To My Blog… Let’s Talk!”).
FCEP seems to have followed up on (but not changed course much from) “The Greenbook Initiative” which was run about 2001-2008. Meanwhile, another joint Wingspread Conference was held on related topics around 2007/2008 (<=nearly a dozen years ago!). Given who was running this, what unspoken, unproven assumptions drive the last dozen years of reforms being promoted by those involved in for example, the “Collective Memo of Concern re: parental alienation” to WHO?” and similar task forces, legislative propositions in individual states in the USA?
LGH tags for post in top position on search results (on the blog only) for FCEP:
“How Freud Got Under Our Skin”, AFCC + IACP overlap, BWJP + CCI (Center for Court Innovation) + NCJFCJ ~~>FCEP Guidelines for Custody, Family Court Enhancement Project, Family Courts as a business model (and possible exit strategies for creators + profiteers from it), H.Con.Res.72 (House Concurrent Resolution #72 on Child Safety in Family Court Proceedings), IACP (Internat’l Assoc of Collaborative Professionals),
Current Family Court Reform Practice doesn’t even acknowledge blueprints or builders exist:
Why not? I can’t say for sure, but I can see why this might be a real problem to some:
- To acknowledge that builders exist would be to identify them, correctly, as nonprofits, a form many of the “family court reformists” also assume for handy references when quoting themselves and/or each other.
- To understand that builders exist and, correctly, identify them as nonprofits is to understand MUCH more about who each of them is, how (honestly or not) they fill out tax returns, where (by category at least) their revenues, if anything much, come from. Looking at organizations as nonprofits and business operations (micro, inactive, medium, or “mongo” — huge) speaks often louder than the graphics, logos, pictures, and repetitive mutual-back-slapping and footnoting (in academic publications on-line) ever does.
- To understand the above is en route to also better understanding our own government, which continues to deal with and heed the counsel of NON-representative NON-elected PRIVATE, purposes of the few who are so intent for application of their programs (developed through and run through, often tax-exempt organizations) on the many at the cost of, mostly, the many for the long-term profit of, mostly, the few. These “few” prefer to utilize tax-exempt format for organization — a format governments also operate within. Governments pay payroll taxes for their own employees BUT their profits aren’t taxed.
There’s a natural affinity between the two sectors and it’s natural to switch employment after terms of office may finish from one sector to the other sector. Former government employees with their developed contacts can be grrrreat for nonprofits who seek contracts and grants from the same.
The US government and from what I can tell the various state governments already operate, despite constant talks of BUDGET deficit, at profit, and holding those investment assets (Topic: CAFR, searchable on and off this blog). The ongoing taxation merely seems to front the long-term-debt on the front end by projecting it forward endlessly. That this goes places it can’t be tracked, ℅ chameleon, MIA, and merging/sub-merging in and out of existence nonprofit I’ve brought up repeatedly throughout this blog, and identified repeatedly in the “marriage/fatherhood” grants, but not only that funding stream.
Similar behaviors found within massive system change in public education (backing of major private tax-exempt foundations and involvement of university “center” or “Institute” for [A,B,C,or D…]” often involved: (AISR/CES** at Brown University<~on this blog, see esp. my April 11, 2017 (<~~Read!!)(shocked/indignant post) and not too long ago, an example in the “early childhood education” field involving a Warren Buffett (i.e., Berkshire Hathaway shares-backed) foundation (Alliance for Early Success) [**Annenberg Institute for School Reform/Coalition for Essential Schools].
Yes, story-telling with bright colors may distract from the fiscal outlines and behaviors of the foundations involved (see next image).
I noticed “Alliance for Early Success” through “Harvard Center on the Developing Child, which again has a lot of graphics, websites, personal profiles of involved people and lists of “investors” but when you go for the “Drill-down” by EIN# of what is registered, what isn’t, that’s an entirely different perspective: I’ve gone for this info., repeatedly, researching specific subject matter as it comes up).
Earlier in 2019 I have some posts on this topic, just referencing it again here, 9/15/2019. Look at the foundation names at “earlysuccess.org” (home page slide-show (with left sidebar stable) continues the story-telling and advertising. Notice “Buffett” is near the top, but Pritzker (Current Gov. of Illinois is a Pritzker), Gates, Casey (big in Foster care and responsible fatherhood also), Heising-Simons (I looked up, you can too); Packard obviously computer-related. etc.
This behavior is more than ‘normal,’ it’s become seemingly standard practice. USA schools (by recall, offhand) where I’ve noticed (in course of writing this blog) include: Harvard, MIT, Yale, Brown, Princeton, Columbia University (NYC), Cornell, SUNY, University of Pennsylvania (<~private) and Duke (<~EastCoast sampler), UC-Berkeley, Stanford, UCSF (public), USF (private, Jesuit), and so forth, West Coast, and plenty more in between.
See next image: screenprint from my 2017April 11 post after looking up/for financials in the school-reform centers backed by the Annenberg Foundation and involving Brown University in Rhode Island (admitted women first time, ca. 1969; immediately diluted the curriculum). My opening statement (not to mention, the title) mentions system parts. This post might be a good review and wake-up: Under this way of doing business (public, private, mass population going through basic government-funded institutions, whether as privatized or as kept under obvious government control), no person could possibly keep track of it all in their “spare time,” and it’s questionable whether people even paid full-time to do so would.
Top portion of my April 11, 2017 post (http://wp.me/psBXH-5gG), search result for “Brown University” looking for the AISR information for a Sept. 15, 2019 post insert..
Getting to this type of information, should doing so somehow cross someone’s mind in the first place between the story-telling, great causes, and brightly colored graphics and slideshows (i.e movement) requires overcoming some obstacles which seem less than accidentally strewn in the paths to that information, which situation increases personal time (which = expense) involved while decreasing prospects of even accuracy of such searches, i.e., discouraging the investment of that time and expense to start with.
Who knows whether existing databases that the public cannot access (due to power required) MIGHT, but I do know experientially that the basic public-access databases (whether state-level or via existing private nonprofits such as FoundationCenter aren’t accurate or functional enough to do so.
(Foundation Center (based in NY) again, just bought out Guidestar and rebranded as “Candid” but — I checked again last night, looking up several nonprofits related to this post via cell-phone), despite brighter colors (Black, white, BRIGHT yellow), more high-contrast user interface, what survived the merger includes the corrupted data practice of getting organizations’ names WRONG, whether by adding or subtracting a “the,” losing an “‘s”” or eliminating spaces between the words, or opting for different and unpredictable shortened versions of organization name in subsequent years.
Searchers won’t even know what they missed until they somehow repeat the search by EIN#, at which point it coughs up the tax returns pinned to mis-spelled organization names, not from the data source (which we’re told is the IRS), but by the database provider, “Candid.” (which is, the privately owned business, Foundation Center, Inc.)
Meanwhile, the one searchable field which is harder to get wrong — it’s only 9 digits and that’s “EIN#” — remains submerged in “other search options” not displayed on the top level of “990-finder” search page. To anyone simply aware that EIN#s are searchable, this is a not-very-subtle message: “GO ahead! But its’s an extra click each time” and those who, perhaps, may not think to or know to find an EIN# and use that only as the search condition, will not be alerted that even if THEIR data entry (search requests) has no typos in organization name, changes are, some are built into the database itself and may not know what they even missed. All this erects artificial barriers to getting what is really, very basic information on organizations.
Perhaps I should start a petition called “OVERCOMING BARRIERS” and show public support to demand tax-exempt organizations claiming tax-exempt status for promoting philanthropy (the tax-exempt field overall) adhere to common decency and minimal copyediting style sheets (how to abbreviate, proof-reading for spelling or spacing errors) in human data entry, or whatever automated software function produces those search result names in all FREE (non-subscription) data searches. I have done data entry, copyediting, and text-processing in professional fields and continue to be amazed by how bad the data results are here, and in some federal and other state government search sites.
If NASA, hospitals, the military, oil exploration and drilling, artificial intelligence, GENE therapy, or any large, hard infrastructure process dependent on accurate software information were that bad, there’d be even more massive failures, levee and dam failures, etc. PG&E was sued in California for failures relating to the wildfires. But somehow when it comes to tracking where government funds go — and they go to and through nonprofits, obviously — NOT even close enough for jazz it seems is just fine…
The contrast between entrancing, colorful graphics and the lack of financial details on the same websites (or, elsewhere where they should be) is often astounding. It’s clear they are learning from each other, and as of the appearance of “The Frameworks Institute” which I mentioned on this blog, receiving coaching in how to translate science into policy-making, user-friendly terms, focusing on conflating project or nonprofit names with parts of government (i.e., name-synchronization) to, probably, catch the public off-guard which sector in fact they are dealing with — and to provide a “unified front” under similar names: “Surrounded!!” Program saturation by sound byte, etc. Public relations/Advertising techniques….
[I’d show this, but I haven’t got laptop to talk to iCloud Photo properly yet. The images aren’t transferred here yet…][End, Sept. 16, 2019 post-publication insert commentary.//LGH]
More, regarding why, perhaps, current Family Court Reform Practice doesn’t even acknowledge blueprints or builders exist:
Business names (association with a university or medical/health system also seems to add to the credibility) of any reformers and alleged** paradigm-changers. Referencing them as nonprofits which have tax-filings (and showing them) might reveal just how many are filing Form 990-Ns or Form 990-EZs to camouflage just how small, really and historically, they have been and still are.
**The overarching paradigm remains public-private-partnerships, no matter what marketed in its various parts, here, as enhancements, solutions, or fixing flawed/unenlightened by the latest “science” (trauma, child development, domestic violence-related, father-engagement, etc.) practices. These PP partnerships can then, incrementally, steer change in the predetermined directions, once connected to “the grid” of decisionmaking on where public resources are spent. Personal associations, connections, and group loyalty are also developed through conferencing, publishing, etc. on each new field, or tweak to established fields…
Drawing attention to the builders organized as nonprofits and issuing “blueprints” reveals that the builders exist and organized (coordinate) as nonprofits; it also put names, dates, places, and potentially funding amount specifics, and how sources of that funding (where federal (the US) or lower-level (state, county, etc.) governments just might be part of the problem.
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 