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

Page title:

WHY? Should I Stop! Look! and Listen! (to such long posts)? [Page, May 11, 2019]

(with case-sensitive short-link ending “-9Sl“, where that last character is a small “L” not the number “1” or a capital “I”).  

This page was created for link to a specific post being published May 11, 2019.  It’s informal and i impromptu enough I didn’t want it presented as a post.  It also has a wider application than just a single post on this blog.

I’d said:

IF you give a damn about: due process, family courts (or children, families, or public accountability for use of public funds, i.e., representative government by consent of the governed), you should read [this whole post].

That sentence introduces the impromptu exhortation intended for that 11,000-word post:

~> Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (Why my Uncommon Approach is less “Flawed”) (Case-sensitive short-link here ends “-9Qq”) (Produced earlier, moved here to shorten “More about these perspectives and key concepts (and actors)…,” published May 6, 2019. Its shortlink ends “-9MU”).

Getting ready to publish “Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice…” it last night, May 10, after its several weeks in draft, and wishing to acknowledge its length and complexity** but still assert “you still need to read this,” I simply stated my case.

**LENGTH AND COMPLEXITY:

It had footnotes.

Its main body imported from a different post (also named at the top of this page) had references to a separate footnotes post.

It had spinoff post titles (supporting details and drill-downs) with current research.

Yet the post is important.  It summarizes and identifies current situations developing, ongoing, in the “family court reform” field, which some are hoping and trying hard to turn into a field of practice, like some already acknowledged fields of practice (medicine, law, etc.). They are doing this while other “fields of practices” with individualized “practitioners” are being created by known nonprofit associations which the same groups have down-played, historically, as in ANY way relevant to the problems they seek to resolve by other means (means which do not actually address the presence of nonprofit associations, or where they connect to public — that is, federal — funds).

Those federal funds are NOT just “fatherhood” or “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” but (as to this field) also family violence/domestic violence prevention, and child abuse/welfare fields. The funding streams are often aimed at public awareness campaigns, attitude transformations (by the same) and devising and disseminating all kinds of trainings and “technical consultations.”  That is where the focus is going, and the funds follow the focus.  It expands an existing maze where comprehensive accountability to the people is drained off.

That MAZE exists in a space between government authorities and individual citizens both controlled by and financially (and with personal, human life energies and work efforts) supporting the government authorities.  How large should the administrative state become, over the generations?  To the point where it’s ravenous / engorged; feeding constantly on and grinding up people, human lives, in the process of protecting and saving them from each other and the big bad wolves (presumably everywhere).

To the point where this administration so needs to also ensure a constant supply of pliable (and/or desperate) workers that it’s perfected the practice of raising up new generations of taskmasters, reporters, evaluators, and overseers?  To the point of, in general, enslavement?  Those that aren’t being enslaved (abused) are being coached and mentored into enabling this form of enslavement (withholding accountability for funds received)? Making sure that protests against enslavement of each successive demographic is steered away from challenging the overall status quo which is, again, the maze and a tighter and tighter invasion of privacy for all (except those at the very top of this food chain)?

In “Family Court Reform” which is now falling into categories as a sort of “field of practice,” there are observable patterns.  People need to have enough curiosity to pay attention to them, and enough basic vocabulary to talk about them.  As I’ve said throughout this blog (I think), there are different kinds of rhetoric.  Some talk about “causes” (the cause of domestic violence prevention, or marriage promotion, for example).  I talk about that talk, then I contrast with themes which might be summarized:

“Show Me The Money” and Pointing Out Who Isn’t.  

START somewhere, and START by identifying which entity is involved, and whether or not it’s actually an entity.

We already know that that public money includes, overall, money obtained from income tax withholding, tax receipts, a.k.a., public funds.  To know where it ISN’T or is only in part, you have to look at where it ought to be.  This is governed by law within a country.

I’d love to know how the UK accounts for its receipts? Are public charities in the UK required to post tax returns as USA-based charities, those that are required to file, must show the public (and the IRS), their “IRS” returns?  How about in Europe?  How about other Commonwealth countries or in other countries, period?  Are these to be posted on the internet somehow?

People who won’t even get so far as to look for it, “don’t have a leg to stand on.”

They’re going to get run over, “railroaded,” and others with them, should (more) stupidity become law than already has in the current scenario:  privatized government services, the US government trying to save face as to violence against women (specifically) by tossing some funds towards that agenda, a lot more towards promoting the causes of men (referring to their reproductive/parenting functions, i.e., “fatherhood,”) and I have found, openly reframing promoting men’s (i.e., “father’s”) rights and running fatherhood/marriage curricula through domestic violence prevention organizations and as part of child welfare resources — as the basic way to protect women.

The “Show Me The Money” attitude is a Healthy Community & a protective attitude.  

That attitude says:

“We don’t want money-laundering around here, or kickbacks, bribes, or facilitating criminal behavior within or around government.

Looking for that money can be a life-changing process.  Where it isn’t speaks loudly on where we are, now, as a country.  Remember looking for the money should be impartial — groups for as well as against any favorite cause can be looked at or their funding looked for.

We have university centers (unaccountable) named after solving HUGE longstanding problems, such as poverty, child abuse, violence against women and, you guessed it, promoting the cause of men (“fathers”) university-wide, with attention to public affairs (CFRP, LBJ School of Public Affairs), international affairs (Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Well-being & its Brookings/Princeton “The Future of Children” publication, Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs, with the Brookings individuals involve having played key roles in welfare reform (USA 1996), population research Columbia University in New York City:  American universities pairing up with Cambridge University, UK (Applied Psychology)

… and this list goes on and on.)

So I say this because I believe it:

IF you give a damn about: due process, family courts (or children, families, or public accountability for use of public funds, i.e., representative government by consent of the governed), you should read..**

**[immediate reference, this whole post.  Generally, this blog! Until you “get it.” I show and I tell.  It’s “show-and-tell” time!].

So I  decided to add the exhortation below, some “red ink” bordered in red.

If the color red means “STOP” in some cultures and in traffic signals, let it mean that now:  “Stop, Look, Listen!”  Check it out here.  This exhortation might apply to enough different posts (and pages) on the blog, I decided to leave it as a standing exhortation, on its own page, although it was written impromptu.

~ ~ ~ To go back to the original post (Published May 11, 2019), click here: Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (Why my Uncommon Approach is less “Flawed”). ~ ~ ~

To go back instead to the top of THIS page, click on its title again: WHY? Should I Stop! Look! and Listen! (to such long posts)? [May 11, 2019]