Hat tip to RespectableGent for alerting us to these two devastating videos posted at YouTube:





The irony is poignant.  Gollum feeds his lies and garbage to his shills to print and post, hoping to falsely build up a positive Google profile.  But when the truth about his sordid activities hits the net he suddenly lapses into victim mode, whining and stalking.

Somebody posting as "GeorgeDGollin" is stalking the discussion there at YouTube.  Be sure to let him know how you feel about his stalking...and his baby killing!

And let RepectableGent know what a great service he's doing for civilized society by exposing the scurrilous activities of George Gollin.

Sex and the Single Crusader

Quote:A broken heart led Gregg DesElms to a one-man war on prostitution that could result in a tough new set of sex-industry ordinances for the city of Minneapolis.

By Monika Bauerlein Wednesday, Oct 2 1996

Gregg DesElms spills his guts in a hurry. "I have the dubious distinction," he explains five minutes into a phone conversation, "of being probably one of the nation's foremost experts on massage parlors, specifically the Oriental version. I'm one of the few anglo males who has been on the inside of those places. That is because for three years, I was on an emotional roller coaster with a woman who is with one of them. I thought I could help her change her life and go on to bigger and better things."

As you may have guessed, the relationship did not end well. But it did send DesElms off on a quest to put the sex industry in its place--a project that could transfigure the smut landscape in Minneapolis, if he and a colleague get their way with a series of ordinances they're proposing to the Minneapolis City Council.

But back to the story. After having his heart broken and his wallet lightened by $40,000 "just by knowing this woman," DesElms says he sat down in January of 1995 "and realized that even though I had gotten her out of the business, she hated me for it. She despised me for changing her lifestyle. I had her on a whole new track. She was learning to be a dental technician. I thought we were accomplishing something, but it became obvious that we were not."

So DesElms moved on. He transferred his computer-consulting business to Minneapolis from Indiana and, in his spare time, began working on a book on massage parlors. Soon he was up to his ears in the research--interviewing parlor workers and their customers, reading voraciously about the subject, and digging into legal and regulatory minutiae.

It was a trip to northwestern Indiana that sparked the idea of putting all that work to another use. DesElms discovered that Susie Kotts, a onetime Minneapolis massage parlor operator, also had an establishment in Michigan City, a town not far from where he'd grown up. He approached police and prosecutors, offering advice on "how to make their easiest and most successful busts ever." They were less than interested, but DesElms persisted--at one point personally setting up a bust with the help of a sympathetic undercover cop. Finally, an investigative TV producer in Chicago warmed up to the story--sweeps week was coming up--and produced a four-part series on massage parlors with "some amazing undercover video" DesElms helped him get. Not much later, prosecutors closed down all of Michigan City's parlors.

Emboldened, and back in Minneapolis with a little time on his hands, DesElms got on the phone to the Minneapolis Police Department. This time, his interlocutors didn't need much convincing. The MPD, as it happened, had been under political pressure regarding prostitution. Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton--who once worked in the state sexual assault program and has called the fight against prostitution one of her top priorities--was on their case. So were southside neighborhoods and their council members. The MPD's leadership hooked DesElms up with one Sgt. Bill Bjorklund of the vice squad.

What Minneapolis needed, the pair resolved, was a whole new legal approach to the sex industry--one so complex, so precise, so constitutionally watertight it might set a national precedent. DesElms and Bjorklund have been working on the project for six months; last week, the City Council considered the first of their proposed series of ordinances in a study session. It could come to a vote in a few weeks.

It would not be the first time Minneapolis has made national headlines with anti-sex industry legislation. A decade ago, local politicians asked radical feminist scholars Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Mackinnon to draw up a new antipornography law. Sayles Belton, then a freshman City Council member, co-authored an ordinance declaring that pornography promoted "bigotry and contempt" of women, fostered "acts of aggression," including rape, and harmed "women's opportunity for equality of rights in employment, education, property rights, public accommodation, and public services."

With that dogma set into public policy, it followed that making, showing, or selling pornography constituted discrimination against women, and could be prosecuted as such. Women--and, the ordinance noted, men and transsexuals--who had been assaulted "in a way that is directly caused by specific pornography" could sue not only their assailants, but also the makers and sellers of the material. Porn-oriented bookstores, movie theaters, and private clubs (which, the ordinance said, constituted a "conspiracy to violate the civil rights of women") all were potential targets. The amendment passed after a nationally noted debate, was promptly vetoed by Mayor Don Fraser, and faded into oblivion after federal judges struck down a similar law from Indiana.

Since then, Minneapolis has tried more conventional approaches to constraining the sex business--chiefly zoning, which restricts adult enterprises to a small slice of downtown, and the criminal code, under which prostitution is a felony. Neither approach, in the view of antiprostitution activists, has made much of a dent. As a result, those activists (now driven by neighborhood concerns and property values rather than ideology) have been taking to vigilante justice. They've staked out health clubs, taken license numbers from suspected johns' cars, and sent postcards to the owners. Occasionally, all this has resulted in a business shutting down--and promptly relocating somewhere else.

Enter DesElms--"the cowboy," as one observer calls him, chuckling: "He thinks he's riding into town to save us all." But like the new, neighborhood-based protesters, DesElms is remarkably antiseptic in his rhetoric. Gone are the '80s references to the evils of patriarchy, gone the sweeping statements about "civil inequality." The new tack is not to pronounce the sex business immoral, but to regulate it into a corner.

To that end, DesElms and Bjorklund propose a series of three ordinances--one dealing with massage, one with escort services, and the final one with "sex-oriented businesses" including bookstores and movie theaters. The only one drawn up so far is the one on massage; it runs to 25 pages of painstaking detail, right down to which parts of the masseur's and the client's body must be covered with "non-transparent material or clothing."

The basic idea of the new law is simple: Everyone offering massage for money would have to get a license from the city. Practitioners would have to provide ID, a full criminal history, and proof of insurance. "Massage facility" operators would have to similarly disclose their background, which officials figure would help them track potentially shady owners. Only people with at least 500 hours of training in the field would be eligible for licensing, though there's a grandfather clause for current practitioners. And once licensed, practitioners would have to expect random visits by inspectors or police officers, checking on things like whether customers recline on a proper massage table (whose definition alone takes up 16 lines), and whether said table is covered with "a light-colored, solid, or striped material."

The way DesElms sees it, licensing would kill two birds with one stone. It would give legitimacy to therapeutic massage providers--whose trade associations, for precisely that reason, have by and large embraced his efforts. And, perhaps more importantly, it would make the cops' job much easier: Instead of setting up complicated undercover busts, they could simply write tickets. Though license violations would only be misdemeanors, they'd have the potential for serious consequences if they're tied to the state's public-nuisance law.

Originally designed to deal with problems on the order of barking dogs, and more recently expanded to a host of offenses including prostitution and drug dealing, nuisance laws have become one of politicians' favorite tools to deal with undesirable behavior. It was Indiana's nuisance law--which, DesElms admiringly notes, "reads like a RICO statute"--that Michigan City used to close down its massage parlors. Minnesota hasn't gone quite that far yet, but the Legislature has been stretching the law to the point where it can now be triggered by all manner of "behavioral incidents." Arrests, whether or not they result in convictions, can get a nuisance action rolling. So can documented neighborhood complaints.

And so, DesElms figures, could violations of his ordinance. "It basically offers a way to deal with these repeat offenders who just don't care," he says. "The Constitution is pretty clear about life and liberty and pursuit of happiness, etc. You can't go in and storm a place just because you don't like what goes on there. This gives [authorities] a remedy."

Whether DesElms's theory will work out isn't clear yet. Several city attorneys contacted for this story say they're not sure that the nuisance law could be applied to license violations. The law recently passed its first court test in a case involving a Minneapolis landlord, but it's sure to be challenged again--as are DesElms's ordinances. Attorney Randall Tigue, who's fought a number of prominent local sex-industry court cases, says he won't voice specific criticism of the proposals "because I don't want to give anything away. But I'm sure I'll have a client who'll want to challenge [them]."

Perhaps Tigue is right to hold his fire: DesElms's optimism notwithstanding, city officials who've been working with him are publicly noncommittal. Licensing office director Jim Moncur and assistant city attorney Dana Banwer both characterize the effort as "still in its infancy." City Council members contacted for this story said they liked the general idea, but wouldn't make up their minds quite yet. And the effort suffered something of a PR setback when Bill Bjorklund was described in a series of Star Tribune articles as so close to the Deja Vu strip club's staff he was considered "family." When asked to comment on the massage ordinance, Bjorklund said he was on orders from the Police Federation to "keep my mouth shut for a while."

DesElms, for the moment, remains undaunted. He calls Bjorklund a man of integrity and insists that "I can't believe that [the City Council] would do something so dumb and not pass this ordinance on the basis of some rumors and crap." Instead, he says, politicians should take stock of the potential payback: If the proposals pass, and "if licensing, the police, and the courts hold up their end of the bargain, within a year every one of those massage parlors along Lake St. and scattered around the city will be closed. I guarantee you that." Plus, Minneapolis will get bragging rights for having set a national precedent: "This is going to be model language that any city could use. We'll send it to you on diskette. All you have to do is do a search-and-replace on the word 'Minneapolis.'" And one day, the whole thing will become a chapter in his book. CP

Annalyssa Helgeland contributed research to this story.

Armando Ramos Wrote:

rockon Wrote:Goal in life: To have my very own section over at DL

Judging by the windage in some of his posts (e.g., this thread), I suspect he already does.  "Continued in next posting..." ???  There couldn't be more than one douchebag that big on the planet.

Quote:Mighty Mouse, aside from saving the day what is the ultimate goal of this quest? Perhaps you've stated it elsewhere around here, but to save me having to go out and hunt it down in other threads; and also to make this thread a bit more self-explanatory for the casual visitor who might happen to stumble upon it, please tell us what, in the end, you hope to accomplish. If you so do, I suspect you'll get all manner of suggestions from others here for far better ways to get it done... none of which, I'll bet, will require your getting involved with good-for-nothing "schools." And trust me, both the "schools" you've mentioned in your thread-starting post are the very definition of "good for nothing."

And beyond that, the only other thing I'd add is: Ditto what Kizmet wrote.

Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
Actually, I simply directed a question to anyone who might live in that area and who could tell me if the school was still in operation.

And I'm guessing that you'd now agree that by hook or by crook, that question's been responded to... no?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
As a state-approved school, it has a program that would be of interest to me.

And that, too... no?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
As I have posted before, my master's is from the old Clayton in Missouri, so an accredited doctorate would be out of the question, I would be willing to bet.

See what Rich correctly wrote. At that level, many things are negotiable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
Plus, a legitimate state-approved doctorate would likely serve me fairly well.

See what Kizmet wrote; and also how I responded to your 2005 thread to which you linked us in your most recent post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
Going back and doing an accredited master's wouldn't serve me at all, at this point in my life/career.

As explained in my today's post in that older thread, getting anything but an accredited masters (or bachelors, or associates, or PhD) is foolhardy... for a variety of reasons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
I take it from the responses, that the school is neither legitimate (how did this get by Sacramento?), nor still in operation.

You've got it exactly right. And as for how it got by Sacramento (which I sense is an editorial comment, on your part, as much as it is a legitimate question), BPPVE hasn't worked very well for a long time. It's been more like a door lock: Useful, as a practical matter, only to keep out honest people. BPPVE-approved schools which operated with integrity continue to so do. Those which didn't are likely even worse today. BPPVE seemed, sometimes, not to care which was which.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
http://www.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?t=18206

And that would be the other thread to which you linked us, and to which I just now referred (and in which I just made a posting).

So, then, your interest is a PhD in music... religious music, it seems.

And you come to that table with a masters that you fear wouldn't be acceptable to an accredited school.

Hmm. Well... hmmm... I never thought this would ever happen, or could be possible, but given your circumstances, and that you seem to want your PhD to have credibility in spite of them...

...could this actually be a job for GTF and its Doctor of Sacred Music (D.S.M.) credential? Oh, sure, it's unaccredited, yet it dances on the very edge of legitimacy and credibility... and tends to fall down on the credible/legitimate side, in most cases. Oh, of course, it has a checkered past which has been discussed here many times; but it also has many graduates with some pretty impressive positions at some pretty impressive places. Just search these forums on the text string "GTF" and read every single post to get an overall feel for it. (And don't be too intimidated by the zero-tolerance for GTF by such as Steve Levicoff and certain others... who all have valid points, mind you, regarding GTF... but, still, in spite of itself, the institution has some serious supporters and impressive graduates.) Then be sure to seriously read then entirely of GTF's web site -- in fact, request a printed catalog -- before coming to any final conclusions, either way.

Might that be something like what you're looking for, Mighty Mouse? Could GTF save your day?

Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
I don't live near an SBC seminary (the nearest one being at Wake Forest, NC)...

Which, incidentally, just happens to be one of the best schools of its type on the planet... [sarcasm]but, hey... why should that matter?[/sarcasm]


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
As far as legitimacy or rigor is concerned - I would like both, but (and hope this doesn't make me sound disingenuous) I would sacrifice rigor for a shred of legitimacy, if that is possible.

Well, since rigor is one of the things which tends to make a school credible (in addition to being accredited), that would be a tough nut to crack given that unaccredited would be okay with you. But, in this context, as you've presented it (and especially now that I'm convinced that you don't have some kind of trollish ulterior motive), no, it's not disingenuous. Your candor is appreciated. And I'm sympathetic, too. Getting a proper education for second-career ministry can be very tough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
I mistakenly believed that CA approval would give me legitimacy.

It still can. For the longest time, until its recent DETC accreditation, California Southern University (formerly SCUPS) was credible. Oh, sure, it took some (sometimes well-deserved) hits from some around here (just search on the text string "SCUPS" to see what I mean); but, really, by and large, it has always been pretty credible, despite its (until recently) lack of real accreditation.

And though I won't, because I don't have time, I could come-up with a pretty impressive list, here, of unaccredited, formerly-only-BPPVE-approved (soon to be BPPE-approved) California schools which are very credible, indeed. BPPVE didn't do its job very well, so there are some real losers among its approved schools. But there are also some formerly-BPPVE-approved (soon to be BPPE-approved) schools out there that are as serious as a heart attack about being credible and rigorous and legitimate and respectable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
In SC, where we know very little about CA schools other than football and Golden Gate Seminary...

Oh, I'll bet California is [in]famous in NC for a whole lot more than just that!


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
...CA approval might just do it. If the school were a real, functioning school where you could phone them and they would actually answer.

Don't be so quick to assume that. The word about the need for accreditation as a hedge against diploma and degree mills is getting out... to everyone, everywhere. More and more people are learning that if a given school isn't accredited by a USDE- and/or CHEA-approved agency, then the statistical possibility of it being a mill exponentially rises; and so even if it isn't one, it gets a taint. And in some people's minds, "unaccredited" and "diploma mill" or "degree mill" are all synonymous. The last thing you'd want is to get a gig at a church using your unaccredited DSM degree, and then have someone point out that it's unaccredited and millish. Even if it actually isn't, there you'd be defending yourself. Who wants to be in that position! At least with the GTF DSM (just as an example), you could point at all the impressive people with all the impressive positions who have unaccredited GTF degrees as part of your argument. But, again, why put yourself in the position where you even ever have to make it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
Now GTF. As I said, I am a Southern Baptist in SC, with no likelihood of changing ... [and] degree from such a school would not be helpful to me listed on my resume. Most Southern Baptists do not like Roman Catholicism. I was told by an Episcopalian priest once that it is because we are so much alike. If you are RC, I apologize for being blunt.

I'm not RC, but I'm at least a sympathizer. [grin] Still, no offense taken. And I'm puzzled by the "we" in "we are so much alike." Do you mean Episcopalians and Roman Catholics are so much alike? Because Southern Baptists aren't like either of them! So now I'm tripping on "we" in that sentence; help me out, here. And Roman Catholics are liturgically like Episcopalians (Anglicans), but there are some huge theological differeinces... like the RC's salvation through works, just to name one biggie. There are certainly others. But now we digress. Sorry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
I have considered another school, Pacific International Theological Seminary, staffed by mostly Southern Baptists. It is RE (religiously exempted from state regulation) in CA, and so I can only assume now that it doesn't even meet CA-approved standards.

Don't be so sure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
As I posted on another forum, likely I will not go back for a doctorate. My only other interest is getting Microsoft certified in Excel, and I can do that at a local community college.

Or in about a gazillion online (or some other form of distance learning) programs... some accredited, some not... but for that, who cares.


Hmm. Well, please don't you be offended, now, but as for the SBC's turning-up its nose at a sacred music degree with anything other than bona fide Southern Baptist breeding...

...[sarcasm]no wonder Jimmy Carter defected. Though he did it for other reasons, I'll bet if he'd known that a sacred music doctorate from a school with Roman Catholic underpinnings would be treated by his denomination as anathema, he'd have jumped ship a whole lot sooner![/sarcasm]

[sigh] A person with a doctorate-level degree in sacred music is quite likely going to be sufficiently bright to understand his/her audience; and to adjust musical programming accordingly. I'm as far to the left of the SBC as you can imagine, but I'll bet I could chair an SBC church's Worship and Music Committee (or whatever it's called in SBC churches) and get it right, in the church members' minds, every single time. It simply matters not where the degree is from in circumstance like this. Moreover, I don't know about you, but I'd want my church's musical director to be as fluent in Roman Catholic (and/or Anglican, and/or Lutheran, and/or Presbyterian, and/or... you get the idea) hymnody as in SBC hymnody. It's called being "well rounded" in one's education... which is kinda' the whole point.


Now, as for Pacific International Theological Seminary (PITS), it is definitely unaccredited. Further, it was, indeed, religiously exempt from BPPVE regulation (when BPPVE existed); and will likely continue to be so once BPPE starts up.

PITS claims approval by The Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), which is not a USDE- or CHEA-approved accreditor, but which I have, in my travels determined to be quite credible. And one of the reasons (and by no means anywhere near the top of the list of important ones) is that ACSI only claims to "approve" schools, not accredit them. This, I have long argued, is the only thing (in addition to, perhaps, "certfiying" them) that agencies not approved by USDE and/or CHEA should ever do... leaving the word "accredit" (and all its variations) to describe only what USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accreditors do). And ACSI seems to understand this... gotta' like that. But, in addition, though its training is too theologically conservative for my tastes, it does a perfectly fine job of certifying Christian school teachers and other professionals. ACSI is, overall, a pretty okay little operation... worth proudly claiming the association of on one's college web site.

PITS is also fairly clear on its "about us" page that its affiliation with the USDE- and CHEA-approved accreditor ABHE is only that: Affiliation. It makes further clear that it is actively working on going up to the next level with ABHE: Actual accreditation. I also like that... very much, in fact. Some ABHE affiliates use said affiliation to confuse degree seekers on their web sites by mentioning that they're affiliated with ABHE and then simply putting a comma behind ABHE and then adding "an accreditor approved by the US Department of Education (USDE) and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)." These institutions know that most degree seekers don't have a sophisticated understanding of accreditation and are looking for the magic of the word "accreditor" and will most likely miss completely the word "affiliated" and may even make the slip in their minds of adding that all up to mean that the institution is, indeed, accredited. PITS doesn't do that. That's nice.

Plus, if you enroll at PITS, and it gets accredited before you finish, then your entire degree from PITS will still be considered accredited, even if you obtained most of it before PITS became accredited.

Also, I only see a Master of Church Music, not a doctorate. But then again, it seems you're now saying that you won't be going back and pursuing such a degree after all? I'm confused.

But, anyway, bottom line: PITS seems legit... maybe a good choice for you if it suits your purposes; and as long as you understand what its being unaccredited might mean for you in the future. Worth your consideration, it seems to me.

Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
Years ago when I ... [snip] why do they hate each other so much?" His response was that they "are so much alike."

Well, I disagree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty mouse
Really, I am the one confused, and confusion is frustrating, and frustration is exhausting. I am trying to decide if going back to school at 50 is going to accomplish what I thought the Clayton degree was going to accomplish 23 years ago.

I sent an email to PITS, and ... I spoke to the registrar who told me the D Min and the ThD could both be done with a concentration in Sacred Music and at a distance. The consideration now is this: an unaccredited degree, maybe achieving applicant or candidate status by the time I finish, and a D Min program at $140/hr x 60 hrs, or a ThD at $160/hr x 72 hrs. Do I raid the 401(k) or not? And in that, lies my confusion. I have no intention of buying myself a cheap piece of paper with Gothic lettering on it. But if I do go back, how long until those rights and privileges kick in?

I feel your pain... and frustration... and exhaustion.

Having read what you just wrote, even though PITS looks at least superficially okay as unaccredited seminaries go, I simply could not advise you to spend what is clearly very precious money on an unaccredited degree.

Also, regarding that credibility, I might have spoken too soon. Now that I've finally downloaded the PDF of its catalog, I can see that though PITS has apparently removed it from its web site, it is, on page 5 of said catalog, claiming bogus accreditation, to wit:


Pacific International Theological Seminary has registered by the state & federal revenues service 501c3 as non-profit organization. The school has been approved by BPPVE as Religious Exemption Institutions and is a Christian institution, in Southern California, that is accredited with ACCTS (Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools) and now is seeking accreditation status with ABHE (The Association for Biblical Higher Education).
Well, of course, ACCTS is is not a USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accreditor. And pretty much everyone who values accreditation and abhors diploma and degree mills -- and, in this case, accreditation mills, too -- agrees that claiming bogus accreditation is way worse than not having accreditation at all. So, right there, just with that, I'm able to take back my words about having a sense that PITS is probably credible despite its being unaccredited. If it's going to claim bogus accreditation, then it's flat-out fraudulent; and so I hereby withdraw my suggestion that it may be right for you.

But it gets worse...

Note how it worded its BPPVE-related language: "The school has been approved by BPPVE as Religious Exemption Institutions..." Well, that's just bunk. If a school is exempt from state regulation, then it's even exempt from the state's agreeing so. Exempt is exempt. BPPVE never "approved" any exempt schools for anything. It simply ignored schools which the law clearly stated were exempt. That's how pretty much all states do it. At most, PITS might have sent a letter to BPPVE and asked if it agreed that PITS should be exempt, and BPPVE may have sent a letter back confirming that it was, but in that case that would be nothing more than a state agency clarifying something as part of simply answering a question... which is a far cray from "approval."

The troubling thing about this is that that's how many unaccredited religious schools and seminaries do things... and nearly all who do are either millish or flat-out, full-blown mills.

So, then, I want to hereby do a one-eighty on what I earlier wrote. Based solely on these two things (bogus accreditation, and slimy and misleading BPPVE religious exemption language), I hereby no longer believe that PITS is credible. It is not... at least not if it's going to pull stunts like that. And shame on it for being just one more good-for-nothing religious school that clearly just doesn't get it.


Just FYI: Do you know what is one of the most credible unaccredited seminaries on the entire planet? Columbia Evangelical Seminary. And talk about affordable: Only its doctoral-level degrees break a hundred bucks per credit hour. Unfortunately, none of its doctoral degrees are in music. But visiting its web site and, specifically, reading its accreditation page, might be a good exercise for you... and anyone else who's a little confused about accreditation and religious schools. Rick Walston, who runs the seminary, has long been a foe of diploma and degree mills; and he's none too happy about the fact that so many fraudsters use state religious exemptions in law to operate with impunity. He's writeen several books, and has the respect of even the most rabid anti-diploma mill activist.


Continued in next posting...

Quote:...continued from previous posting:


So, then... back to your problem...

Before you go much further, just to make sure you've dotted your i's and cross your t's, have you inquired of absolutely every school on both the ABHE and TRACS web sites? I mean every single one.

Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS)
http://www.tracs.org/member.htm (accredited schools & candidates)

The Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE)
http://directory.abhe.org/default.aspx?status=Member (accredited schools)
http://directory.abhe.org/default.aspx?status=Applicant (applicants)
The reason to check-out ABHE applicants, too (or, in the case of TRACS, its "candidates"), is that, as earlier alluded to, if you begin a degree at an applicant or candidate school, and then it becomes accredited while you're still working on the degree, then the degree is considered accredited because the school was accredited at the time you finished. What matters with the "when" of accreditation is the completion date of the degree, not its inception date. So if you're fairly convinced that any given ABHE/TRACS applicant/candidate will earn its accreditation before you can complete the degree, then you should not hesitate to enroll there even before it's accredited.

Either ABHE or TRACS is probably a longshot for a doctorate in sacred or church music via distance learning... but it's worth checking-out.


Oh, yeah... and I probably should have proffered this Google search earlier in this conversation. Sorry.


[sigh] So, then... the pain of yours to which I earlier alluded, which I wrote that I feel, is because I know a lot about second career ministry; but also because I know a lot about ageism. At 50, you're entering the beginning (and, actually, in certain fields, like high tech, you're about 15 years into it) of a period in life when you'll not be considered for jobs just because of your age. It's illegal, but it happens all the time.

Since second-career ministry is pretty common, it doesn't happen in that quite as much as in other fields... but, believe me, it's there, too. That, I realize, doesn't help much... you might even be wishing right about now that I hadn't pointed it out. But it's better, I think, to have eyes wide open about these sorts of things.

The upside, though, is that ministers of pretty much all types are in short supply in many denominations; and one can even search on the word "church" in places like Craigslist in almost any city and find lots of church music director positions. So, of all the second-career ministry jobs in which you could be interested, it seems like maybe this one has possibilities.

The answer, though, to your question about how to realize a sense of having recouped your investment in a DSM, or a DTh in Music, etc., is a hard one. But I'm not sure that's the way to look at it, in any case. If ever an occupational/career area called for the proverbial "leap of faith," prima facie, it's this one.

One of the nice things about the discernment process which ordained clergy are forced to endure -- and in which you, too, should be engaging -- is that it helps to separate the practical from the spiritual among one's concerns. You're 50 years old. You didn't come-up with this notion last week. If you're like most second-career ministers, this has been nagging at you for years; and that's spiritual, not practical... the very nature of "call."

We are reminded in James that faith without works is dead; but how to discern between those works which are merely a part of a living faith and faithful living, and those which are a proper pursuit of Chrisitan vocation... well... that's no small thing.

"I do not know who -- or what -- put the question. I don't know when it was put. I don't even remember answering. But at some moment I did answer 'yes' to someone -- or something -- and from that hour I was certain that existence is meaningful and that, therefore, my life, in self-surrender, had a goal."

- Dag Hammarskjold, Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1953-1961
Micah 6:8 calls on us all to simply "do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with [our] God." Colossians 3:23 certainly invites all Christians to think of any task as work done in the Lord's service; and 2 Thessalonians 1:11 and 1 Corinthians 1:26 drive home the point that each Christian is called, simply, to be a servant of God in all of life. Amidst the seeming commonness and mundanity of all that, it is easy to worry, also, about such as one's 401(k) and/or educational investment payback.

However, beyond that common calling of all Christians, at the point where our work best meets the legitimate needs of God's world, vocation begins. The discernment process helps us to separate out from the many voices calling upon us that which is the whisper of God... the almost imperceptible breath of the Holy Spirit across the hairs on the backs of our necks, urging us to that which is both what we need to do, and what the world most needs done. The place where God calls us is the place where our deep gladness and the world's hunger meet.

You are at the place in your journey through the discernment wilderness where you have hit the wall of success motivation which stifles our desire for faithfulness, raises the denial of our gifts, and breeds an unwillingness to trust God and a temptation to ignore our calling. When you say you are confused, and frustrated, and exhausted; and wonder about your 401(k), you are Sarah, who laughed at the seeming impossibility of God's promise in Genesis 18:9-15; or Isaiah, who was overwhelmed by his own sense of unworthiness in Isaiah 6:5. When you wonder about the payback, you are like the rich man who is admonished to "go, sell what you own ... then come, follow me" in Mark 10:17-22. At that moment, best is heard the promise of God as found in Isaiah 41:8-10: "Do not fear, for I am with you. Do not be afraid, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you..."

As you further discern your call and response thereto through thoughtful and prayerful consideration, and if the work of that call really is at the place where your deep gladness and the world's hunger meet, then you will sense God's presence and power, and will be able to claim God's call and say, as in Isaiah 6:8, "Here am I; send me."

And then you will not worry about 401(k)'s or paybacks.

At that point, all that will remain is avoiding the embarrassment, later, of being challenged for your having gotten a degree in preparation for the fulfillment of your call which is anything short of beyond reproach. At that point, the shred of legitimacy for which you once contemplated sacrificing rigor will, in retrospect, seem ludicrous. At that point your will be ever mindful of that integrity means doing the right thing even when no one's watching.

Among my struggles with unaccredited religious schools which play fast and loose with both impression and truth is how it so deeply dishonors the tenets of the precious very faith they claim to the point that they become as the false prophets as in Jeremiah 28:1-16 or 1 John 4:1. They sully the good name of Christianity, and make a mockery of its very teachings.

Among my struggles with those of their students who would settle for that -- who would trade their shred of legitimacy for rigor -- is that they do the same.

Do not be attracted to their empty promises "but test everything; [and] hold fast to what is good" as in 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Recognize what you're going though as simply a step in the process of your necessarily difficult discernment. Until you do, for as long as it feels to you merely a pointless struggle, with all the confusion, frustration and exhaustion you've described which attends it, I will keep you, and it, in my prayers.

Good luck, and Peace.

Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Randell1234  
This may be way off but have you looked at NationsU? They applied for accreditation through DETC, 100% online, and only $100 per year. That is worth the risk even if hey do not get accreditied. They offer a Master of Religious Studies and Master of Divinity.

I don't think it's one bit off... it's an excellent suggestion; and I had thought of recommending it because it, too, is credible but unaccredited (though perhaps not for long on the unaccredited part).

But it offers no doctorate in church or sacred music. In fact, since it's going for DETC accreditation, it likely won't be offering any kind of doctorate for quite a while.

There's the rub.

Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Randell1234  
I understand but thought I would throw it out there. Sometimes "almost free" can really add to the appeal.

Yep. No argument, there.

Why aren't the Klones whining about this little "resume embellishment"??  A lie is a lie, no matter who is lying.  Dear Leader gets caught (again) lying about his past.

'Professor' Obama? Title never granted

Quote:'Professor' Obama? Title never granted
Barack, Michelle not licensed to practice law

Posted: April 10, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Michelle Obama became "voluntarily inactive" as a lawyer in 1993, one year after her marriage to Barack Obama

Are attorneys Barack and Michelle Obama currently licensed to practice law?

Was Barack Obama ever a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago?

In recent days, these questions have once again gone viral on the Internet.

WND has traced the current controversy to Doug Ross and a March 1 posting on his DirectorBlue.blogspot.com asserting the Obamas are no longer lawyers registered to practice law in Illinois and that claims President Obama was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago are "a sham."

This current round of the controversy harkens back to the 2008 presidential campaign when Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton made nearly the same charges in a March 25, 2008, "Hillary for President" press release entitled "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements."

After stating Barack Obama was not a law professor at the University of Chicago, the Clinton press release insisted: "He (Barack Obama) is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there's a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter. Professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

Obamas registered to practice law in Illinois?

On March 1, Ross examined the record at the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, or ARDC, and found out that Barack Obama "voluntarily retired" and is not currently authorized to practice law.

As WND reported last year records at the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois show in 1993 Michelle Obama's status became "voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law."

Jim Grogan, spokesman at ARDC, confirmed to WND that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama is currently licensed to practice law.

He further said there was no information at ARDC that would confirm the accusation leveled by Ross that Barack Obama voluntarily withdrew from practicing law to avoid charges that he lied on his bar application by stating he had never used an alias, including the name Barry Soetoro.

Grogan further said there was no information at ARDC that would support insinuations Michelle Obama voluntary surrendered her license to practice law to avoid ethics charges involving government grants obtained through the influence of her husband, when he was a state senator and she was an administrator at the University of Chicago Hospitals.

"If there were serious ethics or criminal charges against either Barack or Michelle Obama, voluntary surrendering their licenses would not have been sufficient to escape legal consequences of the charges," Grogan said.

Was Barack Obama ever a law professor?

Ross wrote on his blog that he "spent some time" with an unnamed professor who was "the highest tenured faculty member" at the University of Chicago who claimed Obama "applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered."

"A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find [Barack Obama] an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach," Ross continued. "The board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct."

Ross further claimed other professors "hated" Obama because "he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool."

On March 28, 2008, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Lynn Sweet wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times that Barack Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school between 1992 and 1996 while he was an attorney at the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. In 1996, Sweet wrote, Obama was appointed senior lecturer, a position he maintained at the law school until 2004, when he resigned to run for the U.S. Senate.

Sweet further noted that during his first year of teaching, Barack Obama taught only one course and that in 1996, his teaching load increased to three courses a year, "less than the load of a professor."

Sweet also quoted Marsha Ferzigner Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and a lecturer in the law school, who insisted there is "a major distinction" between lecturer and "senior lecturer," though both are not full-time positions.

Nagorsky, Sweet wrote, "said the status of a senior lecturer is 'similar' to the status of a professor and Obama did teach core courses usually handled only by professors. While Obama was also part of the law school community, his appointment was not part of an academic search process, and he did not have any scholarly research obligations which professors often do."

As the controversy over Obama's faculty status developed during the 2008 presidential campaign, the University of Chicago published a statement on its website claiming that from 1992 until 2004, "Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School."

While "professor" was not capitalized in this statement as "Senior Lecturer" was, the University of Chicago further stated: "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

"The University of Chicago did Obama no favor by saying he was a law professor when he wasn't," Sweet wrote. "The parsing is not necessary. There is nothing degrading about being a senior lecturer and bringing to students the experience of a professional in the field."

The distinction between the not capitalized "professor" and the capitalized terms "Lecturer" and "Senior Lecturer" in the University of Chicago statement was intentional, University of Chicago spokeswoman Sarah Galer told WND

"Barack Obama's official titles were Lecturer and Senior Lecturer," Galer said. "These are adjunct positions on the University of Chicago faculty, not full-time tenure-track positions."

As if nationalizing the student loan program wasn't enough, now Dear Leader wants to destroy college student intern programs as well.

Quote:Obama eyes interns
Democrats move to deny useful job training to young workers
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Obama administration's top law enforcement officer at the Labor Department, M. Patricia Smith, is targeting companies that give young people unpaid internships. She claims that internships are rife with abusive practices and that serious violations of labor law are widespread. Arguing that interns should get paid at least minimum wage, Ms. Smith and the White House risk destroying a valuable steppingstone that gives many young Americans training they need to get jobs they want in the future.

Unpaid internships are valuable for many reasons. Most simply, they help people test whether they are a good fit for a particular industry. If interns like the type of work at particular companies, internships can help them get the training and contacts they need to make their career aspirations a reality. The short time that interns spend at jobs - often just two to three months - makes it difficult for firms to both train these young people and get much work out of them. From manufacturing to nonprofits to media companies such as The Washington Times, hands-on opportunities open through internships are almost endless.

Basic economics teaches that if the price is raised, demand falls. If companies have to pay wages, they will take on fewer interns. If these youngsters were actually benefiting companies more than it costs to train them, companies would pay them. Profit-seeking companies compete against each other for employees. If untrained students were such valuable workers, firms would gladly offer money to beat out the competitor next door to get them.

Some statements by the administration suggest that their actions are not simply motivated by the welfare of the kids who get internships. The O Force worries that unpaid internships might disadvantage less-affluent students, who might not be able to afford to spend their summers at unpaid jobs. But the administration's solution risks eliminating many internships at for-profit companies so that no one gets them.

The Obama administration, which is full of rhetoric about improving education, actually views education extremely narrowly. In the real world, people gain a lot of practical knowledge on the job. Eliminating training opportunities will only mean worse careers and lower future earnings for those President Obama's team is claiming to protect.

Quote:All Dr. Jerroll Dolphin wanted was to bring doctors and medical care to the poor, sick and dying of Liberia, an African country in the throes of violent chaos and civil war.  Against all odds he nearly succeeded, opening St. Luke School of Medicine, obtaining government accreditation, and even graduating medical doctors who achieved an excellent 88% pass rate on national medical board exams.

Thanks to Dr. Dolphin’s efforts, for the first time in ten years doctors brought medicine to hundreds suffering in refugee camps. Twenty-five new doctors were licensed, many of whom paid nothing at all in tuition for their education.


All leftist college professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) wanted was another line to add to his 29 page resume. Gollin, employed as a physics teacher at the University of Illinois, desperately craved recognition as an “expert” in higher education accreditation, despite having no education or experience in the subject.  Stuck in a dead end career, and with his wife earning 60% more money than he did at the same school, Gollin urgently needed a trophy to establish his credibility.


His opportunity came when the rebels controlling the education system in Liberia began demanding a $6,000 a month bribe from Dr. Dolphin and St. Luke.  When the school refused to pay, George Gollin saw his opportunity.  Acting as a “consultant” to the corrupt Liberian regime, court documents allege that George Gollin began a campaign to slander St. Luke as an illegal “diploma mill” operation.


As a result of George Gollin’s alleged treachery, St. Luke School of Medicine could not provide the doctors and medical care that the African people so desperately needed.  And without such care, untold numbers of African men, women and children suffered needlessly and died cruelly.   George Gollin got that extra line on his resume, written in the blood of dead African babies.


Now Dr. Dolphin and St. Luke School of Medicine are suing George Gollin and the University of Illinois in a California federal court. Dolphin already has obtained a $120 million judgment in the country of Ghana against some of the defendants.  But how much are dead babies worth to George Gollin?

Quote:Will a physics professor's "hobby" cost Illinois taxpayers $120 million? University of Illinois physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) is being sued in a Los Angeles federal court for his part in a Liberian shakedown scheme.

St. Luke School of Medicine was a small, accredited medical school that helped to provide doctors and medical care to the poor and sick in war-ravaged Liberia. But when they refused to pay a $6,000 a month bribe, George Gollin began a campaign to falsely portray the school as an illegal "diploma mill" to force them to pay the bribe, according to the complaint.


George Gollin's current employer, the University of Illinois, is also named as a defendant in the complaint. In 2003 university spokesperson Robin Kaler stated that the university did not support George Gollin's hobby of stalking and attacking small Christian schools because it was outside the area of his supposed expertise.


But in the face of these admonishments George Gollin continued with his hobby, aided by gay Oregon bureaucrat Alan Contreras. Contreras was judged to be an anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator in an Oregon court proceeding, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal.


George Gollin and his wife Melanie Loots, who also is employed at the University of Illinois, have been involved in number of scandalous incidents recently.


George Gollin claims to hold a doctoral degree from Princeton University in New Jersey, whose university policy expressly prohibits collaborative dissertations. Gollin admits the document he submitted was a collaboration, in violation of university rules. The dissertation bears a striking resemblance to a research paper purportedly authored by Gollin and 15 other students, and the synopses for both documents are virtually verbatim.


George Gollin used violent imagery similar to that used by the infamous Zodiac Killer to threaten people he believed had posted an embarrassing photo of him on the internet. He also is alleged to have violated federal law by falsely posing as a government official, and has been caught allegedly posting other people's social security numbers on his university web site.


Using the code name "galanga," George Gollin made 1,280 posts on an internet website operated by a pedophile-pandering gay pornographer.


Gollin's wife, Melanie Loots, served as "Conflict of Interest Officer" for the University of Illnois during the conflict of interest scandal that rocked the university and resulted in the sacking of top administrative officials, including President B. Joseph White and Chancellor Richard Herman.


Loots also was cited by the federal Food & Drug Administration for selling 386 mutant lab pigs to the public for food.? In another incident, religious groups demanded Loots' resignation when it was discovered she had made bigoted, anti-Catholic slurs and belittled Catholic religious rituals.


Despite these incidents the pair remains employed by the university at taxpayer expense, with George Gollin receiving a $100,000 salary, and his wife receiving $160,000.


Plaintiff St. Luke previously obtained a $120 million judgment against some of these same defendants in a Ghana court, but so far corrupt Liberian officials have prevented them from collecting. Illinois taxpayers could potentially be on the hook for that amount or more, thanks to George Gollin and his reckless hobby.

Quote:Criminal Charges for UIUC Physics Prof George Gollin?

Neither the office of the Illinois attorney general nor the US Attorney’s office is commenting yet on whether criminal charges will be brought against U of Illinois physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) for his role in a Liberian shakedown scandal.


A civil complaint filed in a Los Angeles federal court on March 11, 2010, alleges that George Gollin was a key component of an extortion scheme that targeted a small Liberian medical school.  St. Luke School of Medicine brought medical help to the poor and sick in war-ravaged Liberia.  The school’s graduates passed their medical boards at an impressive 88% rate overall.


But according to court documents, when St. Luke refused to pay a $6,000 a month bribe demanded by corrupt Liberian officials, George Gollin falsely branded the school an illegal “diploma mill” to force payment.


George Gollin is a physics professor who, without any formal training or experience, began promoting himself as an “expert” in accreditation.  George Gollin’s own resume describes him as a “consultant” to the rebels who controlled the Liberian government.


St. Luke already has obtained a $120 million judgment against some of the defendants in a court in the neighboring country of Ghana, but alleges that corrupt Liberian officials have prevented them from collecting on it so far.  Legal experts agree that defendants George Gollin and the University of Illinois could be at risk for that amount or more.


University officials would not comment on whether they are contemplating terminating George Gollin’s employment to reduce future risk to taxpayers for his reckless and irresponsible conduct.

Quote:UIUC Professor's Role in Liberian Shakedown Scheme
http://www.dltruth.com/attachment.php?aid=96

A UIUC physics professor acted in concert with Liberian thugs to shakedown a fledgling medical school that refused to pay a $6,000 a month bribe, documents filed in the US district court in Los Angeles allege.


George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin), a tenured professor at scandal-plagued University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, aided corrupt Liberian politicians affiliated with rebel groups by spreading false stories in documents and presentations that St. Luke School of Medicine was a "diploma mill" operation, all to force the school to pay bribes, according to the complaint filed March 11, 2010.


Gollin, an avowed Marxist who has been under fire from religious and civil rights groups for his anti-Christian and racist statements, had previously been ordered by the university to discontinue his extortionate conduct and remove his defamatory materials from university internet servers. However, Gollin hooked up with adjudicated anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator Alan Contreras to post his slander on an Oregon government server in an attempt to sidestep his employer's mandate. The University of Illinois is also a defendant in the complaint.


Plaintiff St. Luke School of Medicine previously obtained a US$120 million dollar judgment in Ghana against some of the same defendants named in the current complaint. Legal experts believe that Illinois taxpayers may find themselves on the hook for at least that amount, thanks to Gollin's reckless and irresponsible conduct. So far neither the Illinois attorney general's office nor the US Attorney's office have commented on whether state or federal criminal charges may be lodged against Gollin for his part in the extortion operation.


Gollin's wife, UIUC "Conflict of Interest Officer" Melanie Loots, has been heavily criticized for her part in the recent conflict of interest scandal that rocked the university and cost Chancellor Richard Herman and President B. J. White their jobs. She also was cited by the FDA for selling 386 mutant lab animals to the public for food.

Quote:George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin)

Here’s what people are saying on the Internet about this U of Illinois
physics professor CHEA director Fermilab Guggenheim sack of crap:


BRIBERY!


EXTORTION!


SHAKEDOWN!


STALKER!


DEATH THREATS!


IMPERSONATING A GOVT. OFFICIAL!!


COLLABORATIVE DISSERTATION!


FRAUD! FAKE! SHAM!


DUMBASS!!


LESBIAN DAUGHTER!


MUTANT PIG VENDING WIFE!


CONFLICT OF INTEREST SCANDAL!


ANTI-CATHOLIC!


ANTI-CHRISTIAN!


RACIST!!


ASSHOLE!