Father absent headlines, or my father the gunman

If this were a mother, the term “mother” or “mom” would be in every headline (and would have made national news).

In this case, a husband/father killed 6 people – his wife and her family – and injured 4 – at their son’s birthday party. Some of the articles blame the woman for not divorcing him or filing a restraining order – but, really, folks, a divorce would not have saved her – this is what angered him (and, indeed research indicates separation and divorce are the height of danger for a woman). And, a restraining order? Maybe – if it was enforced by the police.

Another activist brought this page to our attention. Notice out of the 21 articles, only  ONE  refer to him as a husband. Six refer to him simply as a “gunman.” Really? The “gunman” was the father of the little boy celebrating his birthday – and then – witnessing his father kill his mother, her family, and then the “gunman” killed himself.

Gunman =6

Man =1

Husband =1

Father/dad =0

No mention of his relationship to the victims at all =13

Google search

Here are the first three:

Grand Prairie shooting victims leave behind families, dreams

Morning News (subscription) – ‎19 hours
By From staff reports Trini Do worked two jobs and taught
Sunday school, as well as caring for her two children, friends said. She worked
full time doing accounting and grant management at the University of Texas at
Arlington, where she earned a

Police Believe Gunman Planned Roller Rink

Dallas-Fort Worth – Amanda
– ‎40 minutes ago‎
Grand Prairie police said the 35-year-old man who shot and
killed five people at Roller World in Grand Prairie planned his attack. Police
say investigators believe the deadly weekend attack at a Grand Prairie
roller-skating rink was

Family in Shock after Birthday Party
Shooting Rampage

News – Tracy
– ‎2 hours ago‎
GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas – The wounded who survived the shooting
rampage at a Grand Prairie skating rink are sharing their eyewitness accounts of
what happened. Hoi Ta and his family moved to North Texas from Vietnam nearly
two decades ago in search of a

2 comments on “Father absent headlines, or my father the gunman

  1. Ron Haskins thus shows up as a white guy from North Carolina who mis-used his position in HHS to get a mid-night legislation agenda in that gave a steady $10 million/year (access visitation) to be split among all 50 states and US territories, EARMARKED to help noncustodial parents (Thats if they were men) get more contact with their children, which allegedly would carrot- them into paying child support. Alternately, these same fathers could be “Sticked” by threatening with jail if they didn’t participated in the favorite programs.

    You’ve called attention to language on this blog — and in reporting this last act of terrorism by a father (there were probably a few more in the last few days, they are regular).

    I’d like to protest — and can we write some of our legislators? — the continual use of the term “FEMALE-headed families” in association with the word “Fathers.” That’s sexism.

    Females occur in both human and animal species, and is an intentional discussion of real human beings as if they were domesticated animals (which is probably the general idea anyhow). Brood mares, to be specific. This is a few steps — but closer and closer — to sharia law, in saying that children without a man in their lives (and the biological father, preferably — and not her second husband) — are at risk. Grab them kids and boot out the MOm (while pretending to promote “shared parenting”

    Female-headed families have WOMEN (and typically MOTHERS) in charge. THe real protest is that they are not following the typical Christian (etc.) man as “head of the household” standard our society has been typically structured around.

  2. Point made VERY well — she was “estranged” and IT was a “domestic disturbance.” I wonder how the court docket reads, and how short it was.

    One article I saw pointed out that even the Mafia has the decency to do their executions away from immediate family members. (That may not be true, but they said it was terrorism — which it was).

    “Texas Skating rink, “estranged” “domestic dispute” — 6 dead.
    “A man has opened fire at a Texas roller skating rink during a birthday party for one of his children. He killed his estranged wife and four of her family members before turning the gun on himself.” “Others who were killed included Trini Do’s sisters, Lynn Ta, 16, and Michelle Ta, 28; her brother, Hien Ta, 21; and her sister-in-law, Thuy Nguyen, 25. “It appears the suspect targeted his estranged wife and her family members,” police said.”

    This was “domestic terrorism” after a woman had already sought police help for former violence. http://www.inlandiapress.com/index.php/2011/07/25/grand-prairie-executions-amount-to-terrorism/

    “Trini Do had sought police intervention several times after her husband threatened her with violence. She had filed for divorce but had recently withdrawn the suit, hoping for a reconciliation.”
    Two orphaned children included a 3 year old and an 11 yr old whose birthday memories will be tagged with memories of this event….

    – – -I doubt this will phase President Obama’s intention to promote fatherhood and marriage, no matter what following administration policy.

    What’s really sad to me is that BOTH progressive and ultra-conservative groups still push the concept that the real problem with this nation is “fatherlessness”

    I just found out that one of the larger federal contractors/grants recipient promoting marriage and fatherhood (among a lot of other things) — MDRC — is funded in part by a pharmaceutical company that has been caught in –what else — criminal activities and paid millions in settlements (Bristol-Myers Squibb) and that a prime Fatherhood promoter, Ron Haskins — is on MDRC’s board — and of course on the Brookings Institutions, where he ended up after Liz Richards exposed his slipping in the Access Visitation funding (1996).

    {{See: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2007-09-29-bristolmyerssquibb-settlement_N.htm

    Bristol-Myers Squibb to pay $515M settlement
    Updated 9/29/2007 7:07 AM |
    By Denise Lavoie, Associated Press
    BOSTON — Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and a former subsidiary have agreed to pay more than $515 million to settle federal and state investigations into their drug marketing and pricing practices.
    The civil settlement announced Friday resolves a broad array of allegations against Bristol-Myers Squibb, dating from 1994 through 2005.

    “Among them were a charge that the New York-based pharmaceutical company illegally promoted the sale of Abilify, an anti-psychotic drug, for pediatric use and to treat dementia-related psychoses. Neither use is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” …

    “The government also alleged the company paid illegal inducements in the form of consulting fees and trips to luxury resorts to influence doctors and other health care providers to buy and prescribe the company’s drugs. The company’s former generic drug subsidiary, Apothecon Inc., also was accused of giving illegal enticements to induce retail pharmacy and wholesale customers to buy its products.

    Bristol-Myers Squibb misreported its best price for the anti-depression drug Serzone, violating a law that requires drug companies to report their lowest price to Medicaid, prosecutors said. The company was selling Serzone to a larger commercial purchaser at a lower price, prosecutors said.”

    This link (typical for an MDRC report), front matter, acknowledges who supported the MDRC work — and Bristol-Myers Squibb shows up directly and as a supporter of the MDRC endowment, which lets MDRC earn money to support its outreach (etc.) efforts — i.e., marketing http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/oip/IPAC/MDRC%20report%20on%20TANF%20time%20limits.pdf

    “Dissemination of MDRC publications is supported by the following funders that help finance MDRC’s public policy outreach and expanding efforts to communicate the results and implications of our work to policymakers, practitioners, and others: The Ambrose Monell Foundation, Bristol- Myers Squibb Foundation, and The Starr Foundation.” & “In addition, earnings from the MDRC Endowment help sustain our dis- semination efforts. Contributors to the MDRC Endowment include Alcoa Foundation, The Ambrose Monell Foundation, Anheuser-Busch Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation…..”

    MDRC motto is “Building Knowledge to Improve Social Policy.” AMong its subcontractors are other marriage/fatherhood promoters, such as Public Strategies, Inc. (Oklahoma). MANY of these groups, nonprofits or profit– have the US Govt as their primary client.

    Ron Haskins
    He is/was also on the Board of Directors for the Children’s Rights’ Council (“CRC”) and who knows where else.

    I also – and yes, this is gossip, but I trust the source — that he was beating on his own kids, and one of the older ones in HIS divorce case wrote a letter to a judge saying please don’t give my Dad custody of (her younger siblings). Bruises, etc. Figures….

    If you just look at the grants this MDRC doesn’t look so huge:

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    NEW YORK NY 10016-4328 NEW YORK 075258780
    $ 1,688,976
    NEW YORK NY 10016-4328 NEW YORK 185501546
    $ 4,115,741

    But take those DUNS# [the # after “NEW YORK”] and plug them into USASpending.gov — or look at this NONprofit’s filings — and the amounts are in the hundreds of millions $$ It had $50 million in investment income — to write up reports on fatherhood programs!


    Here is Liz Richards’ June 14, 1999 letter to Ron Haskins when he was:

    “Staff Director
    Subcommittee on Human Resources
    U. S. House of Representative
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Mr. Haskins:

    Thank you for responding to my previous communications AND admitting for the record that the subcommittee your direct has sponsored the Access/Visitation
    programs, (not that I don’t have this evidence already) and intends to further fund programs under the guise of responsible fatherhood which will be bad-dads custody switching and pedophila protection schemes….”

    “The AFCC ring of cross-affiliated judges and court professionals routinely, as a matter of law, refer cases and sub-contract program grants to each other while rubber stamping all cases evaluations for the benefit of the co-conspiratorial fathers rights litigants brought into the ring by the community activists who lobby for and act as fronts for programs created for funneling to the entire ring. * * *As a key player in this ring, your role has been to get the funding written into law. * * * * Men get to win their cases, and ring members get a steady stream of federally paid no-brainer/no-risk court-appointed “work” and ring leaders get even more. (You must be aware
    the of 5/28/99 NYTimes story about top Arkansas law makers being indicated for running similar kick-back schemes with children’s programs?)”

    and (one more para)

    “Lawyers litigating in behalf of sole custodial fathers are financed from the programs intended for assisting non-custodial parents; however, here in lies the fallacy and the fraud, the non-custodial parent is the mother who never knows that the program is being used in her case and is forced to pay price gouging court whores appointed by corrupt judges and opposing counsel, who
    harass and block her access with the children – even charging her $100/hr or more for therapeutic relationships counseling sessions when they are already receiving payments from the program which is supposed to be helping the her– the non-custodial parent. ”

    {{MOTHERS now being noncustodial, how come those funds don’t help us, eh?}}

    “Of course, David Arnaudo, Jessica Pearson and
    other program insiders don’t report such case results. They only talk to the fathers and the other AFCC scheme members and deliberately avoid the mothers. I certainly would like to know what evidence HHS officials gave you to justify their assessment that all program funding has been properly spent?”
    (endquote of the 1999 letter to Haskins).

    It’s a scathing letter, been up there on-line for probably 12 yrs now…..which may have something to do with why groups that are still getting federal HHS funding to Stop Abuse CRC-style (put another Dad back in someone’s lives) haven’t been asking Liz to participate in their consciousness-raising projects around DV issues….

    MEANWHILE, this here (date: 10/10/2010) may have something to do with why Fatherhood funding has been moved into Head Start:

    “Ron Haskins is a senior fellow at and co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families; he was appointed to the Advisory Committee on Re-Designation of Head Start Grantees.

    W. Steven Barnett is a professor of education, economics and public policy, and director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University.”

    While I’m here and spouting off some, here’s a 2009 Brookings Institute book, with another MDRC director -in fact the first one listed — ISabell Sawhill. Notice how they want more contributions from the “affluent elderly” to “disadvantaged children and their families.” (In this worldview, DISADVANTAGED = primarily FATHERless):


    “Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill propose a concrete agenda for increasing opportunitythat is cost effective, consistent with American values, and focuses on improving the lives of the young and the disadvantaged. They emphasize * * *individual responsibility* * * as an indispensable basis for successful policies and programs.

    {{That must be why Ron set up a program of federally-funded bribes for Dads– to encourage “individual responsibility”}}

    “The authors recommend a three-pronged approach to create more opportunity in America: Increase education for children and youth at the preschool”

    {{I completely disagree, but of course he now has some say in who gets Head Start funding and can perhaps screen out any feminists or non-patriarchal sorts}}

    K ;12, and postsecondary levels Encourage and support work among adults {{That’s TANF & the A/V stuff there}} Reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births {{That’s the PROMOTING MARRIAGE/FATHERHOOD component}} while increasing the share of children reared by their married parents . . . ***With concern for the federal deficit in mind,*** Haskins and Sawhill argue for reallocatingexisting resources, especially from the affluent elderly to disadvantaged children and their families.”

    I’m wondering whether this man won, or lost, custody in his divorce many years ago…..

    ***anyone concerned for the federal deficit should start to look at MDRC isn’t content with its’ multimillions off the backs of distressed SEPARATING parents and is now expanding into “interventions” for low-income MARRIED parents. Anything anywhere near a Title IV_A or IV-D program is apparently fair game.

    Should really look at MDRC’s 990-filing. I”m sitting here looking at (2009) 13 key executives — the lowest yearly salary is $100K, the head gets $348K and most of the others, a minimum of $150K.
    I have studied a LOT of 990s — and this compensation range is among the highest. Haskins & Sawhill only get an honorarium it seems (along with about 10 other officers).

    Per USA spending.gov, MDRC got $226million of funding (under one of two identifying DUNS# I found, “075258780”) — and the top grant was $11.5 million for a 5-year {2009 – 2013) “Supporting Healthy Marriage” contract in NY. ($2.5mil/year) which means, in essence promoting fatherhood.

    In ADDITION (I think) to this, it also in 2010 shows a $7,000,000 grant for a “SUPPORTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION” taken from welfare (TANF) funds.

    Contract after Contract is Healthy Marriage” related. If it were working how come in 1999 (See Liz Richards letter) and 2011 (se your post) we are still seeing child-killing in the context of UNhealthy marriages — by fathers — and no slowdown in the funding?

    These people (Haskins, Sawhill, etc.) are less concerned about poor people adn the federal budget, than their own business — which is getting grants and keeping a highprofile so as to steer MORE grants, and then get the job of reporting on their own projects or sub-projects. THAT is the “healthy family” relationship that’s really being promoted . . . . .

    Just take a walk on the wild side (at some places which show who’s backing what financially) and things will definitely look different. It doesn’t take that long to get the general picture — it’s not rocket science, just observation…

    (Thanks in advance if you approve this comment. I want Moms to know it’s not THEM, and it’s not that judges don’t understand — it’s that someone has a $$ based motive).

    Here are RON & ISABEL (2007) admitting that they think POVERTY is a behavioral problem that carrots-and-sticks policy should fix!

    “Welfare reform rewarded work and discouraged self-defeating behavior. What else needs to be done?


    Listen to the rhetoric!…

    “In the last decade, we have seen that an effective approach to reducing poverty requires changes in personal behavior as well as government support. Further, we have learned that by judiciously applying policies that demand and then reward good behavior—what might be called carrots-and-sticks policies—we can induce and maintain the behavior that leads to reduced poverty. Reviewing the record of the past decade suggests the principles that should guide future efforts.”

    “WE CAN INDUCE AND MAINTAIN THE BEHAVIOR THAT LEADS TO REDUCED POVERTY?” (people as dogs to be trained metaphor…. are they serious? ) (yes)… THis article continues to blame poverty on “Female-headed families” (and not “female headed families” on abusive males, or poor single-parent families on pay differentials between men & women doing the same jobs….”

    “Family Factors. A second factor putting substantial upward pressure on poverty was changes in family composition. The poverty rate for mother-headed families is usually four or five times the rate for married-couple families. So, other things being equal, any rise in the share of children living in female-headed families will increase poverty.

    Beginning in the 1960s, Americans perfected every known method of casting children into single-parent families. Marriage rates fell, divorce rates increased until the 1980s, and non-marital birth rates exploded until a third of all babies (and nearly 70 percent of black babies) were born outside marriage. As a result, between 1970 and 2004, the percentage of children living in a female-headed family increased from 12 percent to 28 percent. It’s hard to fight poverty when more and more children are in families of the type that are most likely to be poor.”

    “Ron Haskins, a developmental psychologist, is a senior fellow and co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution.

    Isabel Sawhill, an economist, is a senior fellow and co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution. She is president of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.”
    (AND both on the Board of this MDRC outfit)…

    “… the decline of poverty among female-headed families in the 1990s illustrates the principles that should guide the nation’s efforts. The first is that individuals must change their behavior…”

    Here is this “dude” (and 2 others) from the Bush Institute for Child and Family Policy (UNC) — speaking in 1983 on “Changing Roles of Women” and recommendations for child support policy. The pdf is real scratchy looking but show that even in his home state, he’s the policy expert on “What Women Need.” Maybe he should talk to Mel Gibson (“What Women Want.”) after all, who would know better then men?

    Click to access ED259820.pdf

    Remember, this is the Dad whose own adolescent daughter wrote the judge a note begging the judge NOT to let him have custody of her younger siblings, apparently long ago…..

    Well, I suppose that’s enough for one comment!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s