Glenn Sacks newsletter

[Brent]

PBS's Review, More Media Coverage
of Campaign

December 14, 2005
 

Some of you have contacted me concerning donations to our PBS campaign. It is certainly true that this campaign has been costly both in terms of money and time. If you'd like to donate to support our efforts, click here. Thanks to those of you who have already donated.

 


An Announcement Regarding PBS's Review

As many of you know, the review of Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories which was supposed to be finished by December 8 has not been completed. As I explained last month, when Jan McNamara, PBS's Director of Corporate Communications, informed me of this review, I offered her the input of fathers' advocates. I explained that I couldn't see how the review could be complete without it.

McNamara didn't seem too interested at the time but to their credit she and PBS's leadership later changed their minds. The completion of the review has been delayed because of this. The input from our side was recently submitted, and we will keep you informed of what happens. Thanks to Fathers and Families for their time and efforts to put the review together.


Public Broadcasting Newspaper Does Front Page Story on Our PBS Campaign

The Public Broadcasting Newspaper Current did a front page story on our PBS campaign last week--see "Fathers' Rights Groups Call Abuse Film Unfair" (12/5/05).

Current Senior Editor Karen Everhart, the piece's author, didn't do a bad job, though her piece gave considerably more space to the film's producers and supporters than to those protesting it. However, there were a few problems.

For example, regarding our campaign's allegation that PBS portrayed a known child abuser as a hero, Everhart wrote:

"Sacks also published court documents from the Loeliger case that report instances of alleged abuse by Sadiya Alilire (Sadia Loeliger). In the film, Fatima alludes to some of these documented injuries as minor."

These weren't allegations--they were court findings. Not only that, but they were by the clear and convincing evidence standard of the Juvenile Courts, as opposed to the preponderance of the evidence standard used in family court.

Also, regardless of what Sadia has convinced Fatima to say as part of her alienation campaign, the injuries and abuse of which Sadia Loeliger was found culpable were anything but "minor." To learn more, click here.

Everhart  quotes Larry Rifkin, executive producer for Connecticut Public TV, as saying that the film's subject is "a very small universe of cases. It is very, very small in terms of batterers getting custody of children."

This is a far cry from the film's statement "All over America, battered mothers are losing custody of their children." It would have been nice if the reporter had noticed.

Everhart also quotes the film's co-producer Dominique Lasseur as saying that after making a 2001 film on domestic violence "we felt there was great denial among mothers about the effect on the kids." According to Everhart, Lasseur & Co. wanted to allow children to speak for themselves--"We set out to tell the individual stories of kids who have been victimized by the system."

This is one of the film's biggest scams--that what we're hearing is "the voice of children." No, we're hearing the voice of only one segment of children--those in what the film's producers now admit is a "very, very small" cohort of children in the custody of abusive fathers. Even this is overly charitable, since at least one of the handful of cases highlighted--the Loeliger case--does not belong to this cohort.


CBS Discusses Campaign, Ombudsman's Report

CBS's Vaughn Ververs discussed the protest campaign against PBS's Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories and PBS ombudsman Michael Getler's reaction to it in a December 5 piece. Ververs notes that the newly-appointed Getler started his job early because of the crisis created by the protests. Ververs cited Getler's view that the film is "flawed" and "come(s) across as a one-sided, advocacy program."

Both Getler and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's ombudsman Ken A. Bode had been critical of Breaking the Silence. To learn more, click here and here.


Fox News Covers PBS Campaign Again

Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy has written yet another column on our PBS campaign and Breaking the Silence--see PBS Continues Probe into Biased Film (FOX News, 12/6/05). In it she speculates that PBS's political partisanship could jeopardize its tax-exempt status. She notes:

"Feminist and domestic violence groups organized state-by-state campaigns around the airing of Breaking the Silence with the goal of changing legal policy.

"Liberal feminist Trish Wilson offers an account of the events in Massachusetts and in Michigan.

"If PBS participated in any of the campaigns, then it is guilty of political partisanship.

"Consider the Alaska event organized by Paige Hodson of Custody Preparation for Moms. Hodson announced, 'We have not yet chosen our date, but since we got the PBS affiliate's (KAKM) go-ahead today, we can now pick any date we want and start planning. The local PBS station has said they will help us advertise and promote our event because we will then in turn promote viewing of their screening date on 10/20.'

"The depth of PBS' (or its affiliates') involvement in partisan politics may be difficult to judge. An internal PBS memo recently leaked and circulated on the Internet instructs PBS affiliates on how to stonewall those who call or email in protest. PBS' final review of the documentary is still pending, but the memo is hardly a propitious sign.

"I believe PBS should lose all tax privileges and funding, but you need not be a radical to want a straight answer to a simple question from a publicly accountable agency.

"Did PBS participate in a partisan push to change the law?"



Public Broadcasting Report Covers PBS Protest Campaign

Public Broadcasting Report,  a biweekly newsletter covering public broadcasting and allied fields, covered our PBS campaign in its December 9 issue. They wrote:

"PBS said its programming dept. would reach 'independent conclusions' as early as next week on the controversial documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. The program got negative reviews from its in-house ombudsman and the CPB watchdog...

"Breaking the Silence, which looked at the impact of domestic violence on children and the failure of family courts to protect them, is a 'flawed presentation by PBS,' Michael Getler said in his first review as PBS ombudsman. Activist groups had attacked the program mainly for its conclusion that 75% of fathers seeking sole child custody have abused their wives or children (PBR Oct 28 p6). They said the program makes claims about child abuse and custody that are refuted by govt. reports. Getler said there's no recognition by the program's producers of opposing views. 'There was a complete absence of some of the fundamental journalistic conventions that... make a story more powerful and convincing.'

"CPB Ombudsman Ken Bode concluded 'there is no hint of balance' in Breaking the Silence. The father's point of view is ignored, as are new strategies for reducing the damage to children in custody battles, he said. 'There is no mention of the collaborative law movement in which parents and lawyers come to terms without involving the court, nor of the new joint custody living arrangements.' The producers, he said, don't seem to believe that 'an argument can be made more convincing by giving the other side a fair presentation.' The program is so slanted it raises suspicions that either the family courts of America have gone crazy or there must be another side to the story, Bode said.

"PBS started a review of the program days after it aired and well 'before any inkling' that the ombudsmen were going to evaluate it, said VP Lea Sloan. Until the review is done, which is expected soon, 'we are respectfully observant' of the ombudsmen's opinions, she said: 'PBS programming will work independently to reach conclusions about the next step.'"




Finally a Christian Author Takes a Stand for Men

I have frequently complained on the radio and in print about the failure of Christians and "family values" conservatives to stand up for boys, men, and fathers and to meaningfully address the issues modern males face. Christians and Christian conservatives are fond of wasting time on marginal issues like gay marriage while ignoring many of the real dangers threatening our families. At the same time they often couch their arguments in politically correct "woman good/man bad" rhetoric.

The man-bashing Christian men's group Promise Keepers is a good example of the problem--the group's ideology is based on the notion that almost all problems are created by men.

A Christian advice show on one of the stations owned by my former network here in Los Angeles is another good example--whatever the problem or situation, the two Christian male hosts always fall all over each other to assure the woman caller and the audience that the guy is wrong. The evil Christian patriarchs of the feminists' imaginations sound more like Women's Studies professors--in fact, they're often worse.

Some of you may recall that I complained about conservatives' failure on these issues on the air earlier this year to conservative writer Phyllis Schlafly, who is one of the very few major conservatives to meaningfully confront many of the problems fathers face in family court. My interview with Schlafly can be found here.

There's another Christian writer who addresses these issues--Paul Coughlin, author of No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice--Instead of Good--Hurts Men, Women, and Children. One of Coughlin's targets is what he calls a "cultural prejudice that shames men for being men." For those of us  accustomed to seeing Christian men blame men first, it's nice to see this "Christian nice guy" cut loose on this subject. Paul writes:

"Men receive a false, demeaning presentation of masculinity from our culture...countless boys have grown up--or are growing up--not knowing what it means to be a man and, worse, ashamed of the limited understanding they posses."

The forward is written by nationally syndicated talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who writes:

"The unisex, anti-male mentality that has infiltrated all our institutions, even our religious ones, has not brought co-operation, love, and serenity to our homes and lives. In order for our children to become happy, functioning, loving, contributing members of this world, they need the support and structure that an intact, happy home can bring. I see No More Christian Nice Guy as a step in that direction."

It is no coincidence that both Dr. Laura and Paul Coughlin supported our Campaign Against 'Boys are Stupid' Products and discuss it in their books.

Another interesting part of Coughlin's book are the sections in which he discusses how Jesus might view the modern Christian "Nice Guy." What he says makes sense, though I'm not very knowledgeable about Jesus' teachings.



It's Always Men's Fault, Part MMMDCLXVI

From Men Warm the Planet, Women Feel the Heat (CNSNews.com, 12/6/05):

"The debate over climate change evolved into a battle of the sexes
Monday at the 11th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference in
Montreal. The spokesman for a feminist-based environmental group accused
men of being the biggest contributors to human-caused 'global warming' and
lamented that women are bearing the brunt of the negative climate
consequences created by men.

"'Women and men are differently affected by climate change and they
contribute differently to climate change,' said Ulrike Rohr, director of
the German-based group called 'Genanet-Focal point gender, Environment,
Sustainability.'

"Rohr, who is demanding 'climate gender justice,' left no doubt as to which
gender she believes was the chief culprit in emitting greenhouse gasses.

"'To give you an example from Germany, it is mostly men who are going by
car. Women are going by public transport mostly,' Rohr told Cybercast News
Service...

"'In most parts of the world, women are contributing less (to greenhouse
gasses),' Rohr continued. But it is the women of the world who will feel
the most heat from catastrophic global warming, she said.

"'At least in the developing countries, it is women who are more affected
because they are more vulnerable, so they don't have access to money to go
outside the country or go somewhere else to earn money and they have to
care for their families,' she said."

I very much doubt that male consumers are creating more greenhouse gases than women are, nor do I believe that women will be more affected than men. But this "blame environmental problems on men" mentality is standard fare on the left, as I discussed in my column Michael Moore, You Used to Be My Hero (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, 2/8/04, Cybercast News Service, 2/17/04). I wrote:

"In your chapter 'The End of Men' from Stupid White Men you cite declining male birthrates as evidence that 'Nature is trying to kill us off' and that men have done 'plenty' to 'deserve this.' Men have 'made a mess of our world. Women? They deserve none of the blame. They continued to bring life into this world; we continued to destroy it whenever we could...how many women have spilled oil into oceans, dumped toxins in our food supply, or insisted that the new SUV designs had to be bigger, bigger, bigger?...(Men) are working overtime to wipe out this beautiful, wonderful home we were given free of charge...no wonder Nature is getting rid of us.'

"On Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher you asked 'how many women have created factories that have polluted this environment?...most of the crap in this world came from a guy' and said '(It's not) female fishermen doing all that extra fishing, ruining the oceans. It's the men ruining the oceans. Name a woman who's ruined the oceans.'

"The central flaw in all of these statements is so obvious I wouldn't bother pointing it out except that it seems nobody else has. Yes, Michael, few women have created factories which have polluted the environment, just as few women have created factories which have produced the staples of modern civilization. You vilify men for large SUV designs without giving them credit for the miracle of modern transportation. You blame men for 'spilled oil into oceans' without giving them credit for the millions of metric tons of oil which are transported by sea each year, almost all of it without incident."

The entire article can be read here: http://www.glennsacks.com/michael_moore_you_FL.htm




A Brief Reflection on Pearl Harbor Day

The 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor was last week. While historians can make any historical event seem inevitable even when it clearly wasn't, one still has to wonder what Japan's leaders were thinking. My teenage son and I sometimes play a war game called "Axis and Allies Pacific." Because I like to give him a built-in advantage, he takes the U.S. and I take Japan. The game starts right after Pearl Harbor.

My tasks with Japan are almost impossible. I'm hopelessly behind in productive capacity, so I have to overrun a good part of Asia and the Southern Pacific in order to build up my resources base. This still leaves me way behind the U.S. in production, and leaves most of my Navy and soldiers a thousand miles away as my son advances on me with the U.S.

My troops are always under-armed and stuck on islands whose sea lanes are cut off. If I engage my son he just wears me down in a war of attrition, knowing I can't match his economic power. If I don't engage, he strangles Japan. On top of that, I have to fight the damn British, who have bases in Australia and India and a not insignificant Navy. I launch Kamikaze attacks but it's way too little, too late.

From a strategic perspective, I wouldn't have wanted to have been Admiral Tojo...


An Amazing Achievement

My parents celebrated their 43rd wedding anniversary this week. My father joked "it shows what the human mind is capable enduring." Growing up I never realized how lucky I was to have two parents who loved each other and stuck out the rough times together.

 

New Column: AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce

My latest co-authored column, AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05), concerns a new bill which will protect children of divorce's relationship with both of their parents by limiting post divorce move-aways. I co-authored the piece with family law attorney Jeff Leving.

To write a Letter to the Editor of the Wisconsin State Journal, Wisconsin's second largest newspaper, concerning AB 400 Will Assure All Parents' Rights, write to [email protected].

As I noted in the column, the bill recently passed the Assembly and now resides in a Senate committee. Wisconsin Fathers for Children and Families is working to get the bill passed--to help support their efforts, click here. The text of the bill can be seen here.

As you know, move-away legislation has been one of the focuses of my work over the past three years. In California, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the non-relocating parent in the LaMusga case in April of 2004. In that case, Gary LaMusga fought an eight year battle to prevent his children from being moved from California to Ohio by a vindictive ex-wife. To learn more about that case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04) . Also, see my radio commentary on the case in which I critiqued feminist arguments in favor of the move-away mom.

As many of you know, in the summer of 2004 I helped lead a campaign to stop SB 730, a bill which would have destroyed the LaMusga decision. On August 16, 2004 syndicated columnist Dan Walters--viewed by many as the ultimate Sacramento insider--wrote a column saying that we had no chance of succeeding. A few minutes after reading that column I received word that the leader of the California Senate had pulled the bill and we had won. It was one of the greatest upset victories in the history of the movement for shared parenting.

Lobbyist Michael Robinson of the California Alliance for Families and Children was also a key part of that effort, as were many family law professionals committed to the proposition that children need both of their parents. To learn more, see California Senate Leader Pulls Anti-Child Bill in Face of Huge Opposition.

To hear me discuss the move-away issue and LaMusga on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate, click here. Feminist law professor Carol Bruch, with whom I clashed on the show, authored the mothers' brief in LaMusga.  To hear Gloria Allred, Garrett Dailey (LaMusga's attorney), and I discuss the move-way issue on His Side with Glenn Sacks,  click here.




Woman Appointed as Editor of The Male Voice

The National Coalition of Free Men of Greater New York has appointed Jen Kuhn to be the editor of its publication The Male Voice. As Jen explained in her introductory letter a few days ago, it is a little strange for a woman to be the editor of The um, Male Voice. My view is that this is a great choice. I met and got to know Jen and her husband Dave at the Men's Equality Congress over the summer, and I believe that she is an intelligent, likable, and committed activist who will do an excellent job in her new post.

One unfortunate reality of our movement is that an extreme fringe has subjected some of the women in leadership positions to incessant stupid criticism for being, well, women. I enumerated my opposition to this sort of thing at length in my column Confronting Woman-Bashing In the Men's Movement (iFeminists.com, 4/2/02) and to a lesser extent in my co-authored column Why Are There so Many Women in the Fathers' Movement? (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 6/21/02). Let's hope that's not the case with Jen.

To receive The Male Voice E-Newsletters, write to [email protected]. Jen can be reached at [email protected].


Hope for the Holidays: Spontaneous Reunification

The Christmas season is a special time for kids and families. But it can also be an exceptionally difficult time for divorced or separated dads who have been driven out of the lives of the children who love them and need them. Cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome--wherein children's minds are poisoned by one parent against the other--are even more painful. I detailed several wrenching PAS cases in my recent co-authored column PBS Declares War on Dads (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 11/1/05).

Last Christmas season we did a His Side with Glenn Sacks show on Spontaneous Reunification--the documented phenomenon in which a child attempts to reconnect with a rejected parent on his or her own initiative without intervention from the courts or by a mental health professional. The phenomenon has been detailed by psychologist Douglas C. Darnall, Ph.D., author of Divorce Casualties: Protecting Your Children from Parental Alienation, and Barbara F. Steinberg, Ph.D. To listen to the show, click here.

Allen Green, author of the powerful new novel Blind Baseball: A Father's War, also joined us and gave some advice that I thought was particularly important. He urged the target parents of parental alienation campaigns to "play for the long haul." In other words, do what you can to stay in your children's lives, but don't destroy yourself and don't give up hope, because alienated children often come back to their fathers as young adults. Green noted that fathers can still have important relationships with their adult children, as well as enjoy their grandchildren.

Given the pain of PAS, Green's advice is obviously not easy to follow, but I believe it is correct. My relationship with my father as an adult has been enormously important to me. Had I never met the man before age 18 and he then appeared in my life, I still would have benefited enormously. I believe that the target parents of PAS--and their alienated children--can still enjoy the many benefits of these relationships, despite what was done to them during the children's childhoods.

Again, to listen to the show, click here.





Violence Against Women Culturally Acceptable?

While researching my column Domestic Violence Treatment Policies Put Abused Women in Harm's Way (Daily Breeze (Los Angeles), 11/7/05), I came across  an interesting assertion in a Texas domestic violence pamphlet. The pamphlet asserted that in America today domestic violence is culturally acceptable. I wondered what planet they were referring to.

While many feminists are at least reasonable enough to admit that there is a strong taboo against domestic violence today, they still often promote the idea that in the past it was acceptable. This was debunked effectively by Christian Hoff Sommers in Chapter 9 of her book Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

Sommers noted that laws against wife-beating predate the American Revolution, one going back to 1655. Sommers explains that many of the dominant religious groups of the colonial era "punished, shunned and excommunicated wife-beaters." She notes:

"Husbands, brothers and neighbors often took vengeance against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them."

Feminist historian Elizabeth Peck points out that punishments for wife-beaters were often quite severe--19th century laws in Maryland and Delaware prescribed 40 and 30 lashes at the whipping post respectively for batterers. In New Mexico, wife-beaters were sentenced to between one and five years in prison.

Recently I was reading a baseball book which discussed players throughout the history of the game and I came upon an interesting passage concerning domestic violence in the year 1902. In 1901 Mike Donlin, an outfielder with the Baltimore Orioles, hit .340 and scored 107 runs--both exceptional figures. In 1902 Donlin, a heavy and violent drinker, assaulted a woman with whom he had been involved in a love triangle. Donlin plea bargained, said he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing, and received six months in jail.

If ever there were a situation where violence against women would be tolerated, this would have been it. Baseball in the 1890s was an exceptionally violent game, and on and off field fights were common. In this era Hall of Fame outfielder Ty Cobb reputedly sharpened his spikes before games and slid into every base spikes high. Donlin's manager had been John McGraw, a highly successful manager who encouraged dirty play. Donlin was young, in only his third year of major league ball, and very valuable. He had served his time in jail, gone to alcohol treatment, and apologized for his actions.

The reaction? American League president Ban Johnson booted Donlin out of the league, and newspaper articles in several major league cities called for Donlin to be banned from baseball. Violence against women wasn't "culturally acceptable."

It is true that today there are players who have been charged with domestic violence and who still play. This is because:

a) many of the incidents are murky, "he said/she said affairs" without criminal convictions. The Scott Erickson case is a good example--see my column Baseball Player's Domestic Violence Arrest Demonstrates How Men are Presumed Guilty in Domestic Disputes (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 8/8/02).

b) whatever the player has done, it is difficult legally to deny someone their right to make a living.

c) the players have a strong union and good lawyers who will work to make sure that off-the-field-transgressions don't prevent players from making a living.

One more note about baseball and domestic violence. When I was a kid I read a book which discussed the famous Marichal/Roseboro fight in 1965. After a series of brawls between the Dodgers and the Giants, Giants pitcher Juan Marichal (then batting) thought that Dodger catcher John Roseboro had intentionally nicked his ear while throwing a ball back to the pitcher, and hit Roseboro with the bat. I still remember that after the bloody fight Roseboro told the newspapers the worst thing he could think of to say--"a guy like that would hit a woman."



McElroy, Sacks in College Textbook

My column Confronting Woman-Bashing In the Men's Movement (iFeminists.com, 4/2/02) was recently reprinted in Thomson Gale's Opposing Viewpoints college textbook. Oddly, my column is placed in opposition to a column by columnist Wendy McElroy condemning man-bashing. In reality, I doubt there is anything in either column that either one of us would disagree with.

My work has been reprinted in several other books, including my column The Teachers' 'Code of Silence' (Los Angeles Daily News, 12/2/01) in Larry Elder's best-selling Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America and my column Stay-at-Home Dads: A Practical Solution to the Career Woman's Dilemma (Newsday,  5/22/02) in the Prentice Hall college writing textbook The Blair Reader.



Therapist Discusses Parental Alienation Syndrome in Advice Column

Therapist Shari Schreiber, M.A., has an interesting discussion of Parental Alienation in an advice column she writes on her website. Schreiber has endorsed many of our campaigns over the past few years. To learn more about Shari and read her other columns, click here. The column is below.

"Q. Shari, I was 'blackmailed into fatherhood' years ago by a woman I never married. My 11 year old son lives out of town with his mother, but I visit him often, am very involved in his life, and we have a close and loving relationship. During a recent visit with him, we touched on some things that he absolutely didn't want to talk about (custody matters, his mom & I with regard to money issues, etc.). At one point he said, 'you were able to build a house for yourself.' This really pissed me off, and I commented that his (now married) mom was 'able to not have to work' (due to my financial contributions). I don't think I should have let my emotions get the better of me--but I feel like I need to put my feelings out there, as opposed to swallowing 'em and making myself sick (or heavier!). My question is, should I try and talk about this type of thing with him or should I drop it? When I left him at school that day, he just turned and walked away from me. He's never done this, but he's growing up a bit. Is it appropriate to attempt to talk about this stuff with him when he won't acknowledge anything, and even gets upset at my broaching the subject? I realize that this is not a simple yes or no question, but if I completely drop it, is that a better or worse course to take, as opposed to forcing him to listen to me try and address this issue?

"A. I'm aware of how 'lit up' this kind of thing can make you feel (outraged, invalidated, frustrated, defensive, etc.) and all your emotions are completely appropriate! Navigating this terrain with someone so young depends on whether he broaches the topic or not. I think adult discussions should stay between adults--otherwise, a child gets caught in the middle and becomes the instrument of torture used by the parents. Women seem especially adept at using their children as weaponry toward their ex-spouses or lovers (particularly if there are borderline characteristics present). PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) is very common among enmeshed/overly attached mothers, or emotionally uneven women who are punishing/vindictive. If your son initiated this dialogue, you can respond in a number of ways that address his specific concerns; but remember that (for now) he lives with his mother, and he's not only torn emotionally (between the two of you), but is constantly exposed to her biases and vengeance. Think of this as brainwashing. He'll likely be able to accommodate a more balanced view of these issues as he matures--but at present, put the conversation aside, but not the feelings. It's perfectly acceptable to let your son know how uncomfortable/hurtful it is for you when his comments seem generated by his mother, "and only reflect half the picture." Convey your hope that "one day" he might feel curious, and be open to learning more about this situation. Leave it at that."
 


ACFC Billboard Campaign Makes Important Point

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children has joined with a group of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois parents to draw attention to issues involving the local family court through a billboard campaign. The billboard features a small child crying and asking "4 days a month with our dad?"

The ACFC and other concerned parents are challenging the head of the local family courts to examine and reform the courts' practices. The ACFC stands for shared parenting, where both parents can play a meaningful role in their children's lives after divorce.

View the billboard here. To learn more about the campaign, click here.


Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

[Brent]

Yes, according to the article, men, not women, to blame for global warming.