3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

3rd From Sol

Category Archives: Ethics

The Quality of Respect

04 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Politics, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Depth of Relationships, Friendship, Human Interaction, listening, negative relationships, positive relationships

Respect determines the quality of relationships

Respect determines the quality of relationships

I have had a few instances of being told I was right. These typically come years after the fact when the acknowledgement is almost meaningless regarding the original idea, issue, or choice. The irony is that the issue discussed years ago is irrelevant, but how the person responded to my idea or concern established the quality of our relationship.

Years of interactions with people through work, social, and personal experiences has taught me that relationships are defined by the quality of respect the two people have for each other. Communication is about sharing information and being correct or not about an issue is secondary to the quality of the relationship. We are not taught that in school, but it is something learned as patterns develop with the people in our social circles.

The way a person responds to our ideas and concerns defines the quality of respect they have for who we are as a person, and that defines the relationship.

Dismissive Response
A dismissive response is the lowest form of respect to a person. Adults often are dismissive of children, and that is a valid description of the relationship between two adults when one is dismissive or condescending to another person. The classic, “Let’s just agree to disagree” is a great example of a dismissive response. If this is happening in a work relationship it means that your value to that person is nonexistent and that you should be seeking a different work environment.

In a personal relationship it means that you are a pet or child to the person and you should take action to get them out of your life. Once a person treats you as an inferior, others will model that and everyone around you will devalue your relationship with them.

Deflective Response
The next lowest form of respect is when someone is deflective or derogatory to you when you express concern about an issue. This behavior can be recognized by responses that begin with or include the following:

“You’ve always disliked. ..” or “You don’t know for sure that…” or “Here you go again…”

The point here is that the person is not responding to your concern, just devaluing you and anything you have to say. It is a close cousin to a dismissive response, but the person feels a need to answer your concern, even though the answer is actually an insult to your intelligence.

Illogical Response
Another close relative of the Dismissive Response is the Illogical Response. It is the type of response that has the appearance of a discussion of two people who mutually respect each other; however, the response is often a desperate attempt to suggest Point A is negated by Point B, but in reality Point A has nothing to do with Point B.

An example of this is if Ryan is saying that a school’s quality is on the decline because some of the best teachers in a school are leaving and Barbara counters by saying the school has a great reputation for the quality of education. Barbara’s argument is based on past performance, but Evan’s argument is talking about current and future performance.

Respectful Discussion
The hallmark of any valid discussion is the respect the people involved have for each other. When both people respect each other every attempt will be made to reach a reasonable solution because the relationship is more important than the argument.

Finally, when someone comes back to you years after a discussion and tells you that you were correct, it really is about admitting the lack of respect they had for you, and they are attempting to recognize their error. Never assume that they have found a new respect for you because respect is not a quality that returns once it has been lost.

Paul Ryan: A Loser’s Legacy

02 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government, Politics, Public Image, Religion, Taxes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

anti-American, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, Congress, Congressional Districts, Failure, House Freedom Caucus, House of Representatives, Jack Kemp, Janesville, John Boehner, Loser, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, political masturbation, Senator Bob Kasten, Speaker, Wisconsin District One

Paul Ryan can now add Speaker of the House of Representatives to the list of failures. His new position is a trap with no exit and in six to eight months he will realize the mistake he has made, but it will be too late.

Paul Ryan, helped Mitt Romney lose in 2012

Going with a loser for Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan

Representative Ryan has a history of association with failure:

  • He joined Senator Bob Kasten staff as a legislative aide in 1992. A few months later Senator Kasten failed to be reelected.
  • He was the speech writer for Jack Kemp, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate in 1996. The Bob Dole/Jack Kemp ticket lost.
  • In 2012, Ryan was selected to be the Republican Vice Presidential candidate for Mitt Romney. He was noted to be the farthest from center of any Vice Presidential candidate, conservative or liberal, since at least 1900. The Romney/Ryan ticket lost.
  • Ryan has been a Representative for Wisconsin since 1998. In that time he as sponsored over 70 bills of which only two have been enacted into law. He was successful in having a Post Office in his District renamed and he was able to have the excise tax reduced on arrow shafts.

Ryan has enjoyed comfortable wins in all of his election wins since 1998, although in 2012, corporations built him a $5.4 million campaign chest, (as of July 25, 2012,) the largest of any congressional candidate, and though he won with 55% of the vote in the district, he only garnered 44% of the vote in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin. His district is 90% Caucasian, and has elected the Republican candidate for the last twenty years.

Ryan is also a disciple of Ayn Rand, a writer, philosopher, and playwright that was born and raised in Russia to a aristocratic family that fell from privileged life after the Russian Revolution. Her philosophy of Objectivism assumes that only the people who are currently successful should enjoy the spoils of life and everyone else should not have access to the opportunities of the privileged. This concept is eagerly accepted by the wealthy conservatives who fund campaigns of candidates that seek to substitute our nation’s founders concept of ‘All Being Equal’ with Ayn Rand’s philosophy of a society ruled by privilege.

“They (Native Americans) didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.”

Ayn Rand, 1974

There is no doubt that Ryan will continue to be loyal to the extreme right. He is immune to his record of failures in carrying the flag of conservative ideology. 

That makes Ryan the wrong person to put in charge of the House of Representatives. Former Speaker John Boehner was pushed into a corner by the House Freedom Caucus that has paralyzed the House. The Freedom Caucus is a anti-United States band of Representatives from rural districts of Caucasian majority, anti-education, ultra-religious, government-hating voters. The caucus has less than forty Representatives pushing an agenda that is sometimes racist, often disgusting, and always wrong.

Speaker Boehner failed to put this collection of misfits in their place and that led to his resignation. By not accepting the reality that Republicans are in the minority, and that by adding the House Freedom Caucus to gain a majority, Speaker Boehner allowed a third-party of Representatives to pull down the GOP to the level of political masturbation.

Enter Paul Ryan. Speaker Ryan will cater to the House Freedom Caucus which will continue to be a drag on the support of the Republican party. Eventually, Republicans will have to decide whether they can afford to be associated a party that creates a public image of clowns and buffoons. As the 2016 election approaches Speaker Ryan will likely be the leader of an angry mob of Republicans who will be fed up with the shenanigans of a handful of Representatives that he has allowed to ruin the party.

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House 2015 to 2016.

If I Were Speaker of the House of Representatives

28 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Education, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, Honor, Politics, Religion, Respect, Taxes, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Congressional Districts, Democrats, House Freedom Caucus, House of Representatives, Neo-Republicans, Paul Ryan, Republicans, rural

House of Representatives

This House is Out of Order

It seems that Paul Ryan (R-WI,) has the bid to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives sewn up, but before anyone makes a significant mistake, allow me to offer myself as the alternative choice.

As Speaker, I can guarantee you that the dignity of the United States House of Representatives will be restored. To accomplish this, the following steps will be taken on Day One:

  1. The 38 members of House Freedom Caucus will be declared to be a neo-Republican party, independent of the Republican Party. Anyone joining their caucus will also be declared to be neo-Republicans.
  2. The House will be divided into three parties. The Republicans, the Democrats, and the neo-Republicans. Each will have their own leadership.
  3. Congressional committees will be all be reorganized with the two largest parties determining who will be given a proportional number of members on all committees If a third-party caucus has enough representatives to equal or exceed fifty percent or more of the of the second largest party, the majority leaders of the two largest parties will vote to select one Representative from the third-party to sit on that committee. 
  4. When Congress is in session, the leadership of the two largest parties will meet the first day of the week for breakfast to determine the agenda and issues to be addressed that week. 

That’s it. Four steps to put the House of Representatives in motion again.

The House Freedom Caucus:  The Rotten Apples in the House
The problem in the House is not bad politicians. There have always been bad politicians and always will be in almost every form of government. The problem is that the Republicans have let the worst 38 Representatives to determine what does and does not get done. The have let the House Freedom Caucus bring down everyone to their level because the Republican leadership knows that if they lose the support of these 38 members, they lose their majority.

What the Republicans don’t understand is that they are on the verge of allowing the House Freedom Party destroy the GOP if they don’t rid themselves of these 38 members (36 according to the Pew Research Center.) Here are the members according to Wikipedia and the Pew Research Center:

  • Jim Jordan of Ohio, Chair
  • Justin Amash of Michigan
  • Brian Babin of Texas (Not on the Pew list)
  • Rod Blum of Iowa
  • Dave Brat of Virginia
  • Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma
  • Mo Brooks of Alabama
  • Ken Buck of Colorado
  • Curt Clawson of Florida
  • Ron DeSantis of Florida
  • Scott Desjarlais of Tennessee
  • Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
  • John Fleming of Louisiana
  • Trent Franks of Arizona
  • Scott Garrett of New Jersey
  • Paul Gosar of Arizona
  • Morgan Griffith of Virginia
  • Andy Harris of Maryland
  • Jody Hice of Georgia
  • Tim Huelskamp of Kansas
  • Raúl Labrador of Idaho
  • Barry Loudermilk of Georgia
  • Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
  • Mark Meadows of North Carolina
  • Alex Mooney of West Virginia
  • Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina
  • Gary Palmer of Alabama
  • Steve Pearce of New Mexico
  • Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
  • Ted Poe of Texas (Not on the Pew list)
  • Bill Posey of Florida
  • Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania
  • Matt Salmon of Arizona
  • Mark Sanford of South Carolina
  • David Schweikert of Arizona
  • Marlin Stutzman of Indiana
  • Randy Weber of Texas
  • Ted Yoho of Florida

Rural Districts Running America

Congressional District map for Freedom Caucus membership of the 114th Congress

Congressional District map for Freedom Caucus membership of the 114th Congress (Credit: Wikipedia Commons)

These 38 are Representatives of primarily rural Congressional districts that often feel impotent in the political arena. Residents of rural areas find that their simplistic, socially conservative, sometimes racist, ultra-religious, anti-education view of the United States of America is often ignored because it is contrary to the Constitution and laws of our country. Despite this, residents of rural areas often see themselves as superior to urban residents, even though they lack the knowledge to make informed opinions. This makes them easy targets for unethical politicians to win their vote because rural voters typically listen only to what they wish to hear.  

NEXT:  Paul Ryan’s Legacy of Failure

2016: Oil Prices Near $5/Gallon?

12 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Ethics, Government, History, Management Practices, Politics, US History

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

alternative fuel, big oil, Bush, Clinton, crude, electric, fuel, gas prices, gasoline, margin, oil, oil prices, OPEC, President Obama, profit, Reagan, solar, Supply and Demand

Oil prices have more excuses than a meth addict. Demand in China, oil refinery fires or in maintenance, OPEC restricting supply, Saudi Arabia flooding the market, etc. Reality in oil pricing is elusive; however, despite what some experts say, next year will likely see the price at the pump jump based on current factors and on politics.

Minor Influence:  Supply and Demand
We have always been told that supply and demand rules the capitalistic market. Most people mistakenly assume that free market means the market can’t be manipulated, but a free market is ripe for manipulation, especially for the unethical business person.

A prime example of market manipulator is Saudi Arabia. Big oil producers are constantly seeking a bigger piece of the oil market, and fracking in the United States has revitalized US oil production. The Saudi response has been to flood the market with oil to bring down the price/barrel, leaving US producers with increased expenses and less revenue.

World oil supply carefully follows demand (Graphics credit: Yardeni.com)

Graphic 1.0:  World oil supply carefully follows demand (Source: Yardeni.com)

Despite temporary manipulations of the oil supply, the ratio of world supply and demand has not significantly changed in recent history. Demand has steadily increased (See Graphic 1.0,) and supply has increased just slightly less than demand. In fact, the supply of oil carefully follows demand so perfectly that it seems unnatural. It’s almost as if oil companies knew that an over supply would force oil prices down and oil shortages would lead to high gas prices, which would stimulate the development of alternative fuels.

Monthly imported crude oil price (1980 to 2014) Source: Energy Information Administration (eia.gov)

Graphic 2.0:  Monthly imported crude oil price (1980 to 2014) Source: Energy Information Administration (eia.gov)

There is no obvious correlation when comparing the wild deviations in crude oil price (See Graphic 2.0) to the world supply and demand (See Graphic 1.0.) This raises the question: If supply and demand doesn’t control the price of oil in the United States, what does?

US and Europe Oil Demand

Graphic 3.0:  US and Europe Oil Demand. The 2008 recession-triggered a drop in demand (Source: Yardeni.com)

The Game of Oil Pricing
World oil demand has been on the increase, but not in the United States and Western Europe (See Graphic 3.0.) The Recession of 2008, pushed demand down in the United States and Western Europe, but as the world economy collapsed, the price of crude oil rocketed up, then dropped dramatically for six months, then returned to its pre-recession price and resumed a steep climb for the next five years. The price of crude oil didn’t coincide with pre-recession, recession, or post recession demand.

Interestingly, retail gas prices (See Graphic 4.0) make even less sense than crude oil prices, as the price at the pump spiked while crude oil prices dropped. This deviation between crude oil prices and retail gas prices would be repeated, in 2012. The common denominator? The Presidential election. 

2016
Some experts are saying oil prices will remain low in 2016. The problem with these predictions are that the demand for oil is increasing, Republicans are self-destructing, and the economy is in good shape. Low prices at the pump in 2016, would be death to Republicans, and that is not what conservatives in the oil industry do in an election year.

October 2008 and 2012 pricing show a dramatic deviation from past years

Graphic 4.0:  October 2008 and 2012 pricing show a dramatic deviation from past years (Source eia.gov)

Since 1980, oil pricing just prior to Presidential elections in the United States follows an interesting pattern. According to the Energy Information Administration (eia.gov) the average retail regular unleaded price has a strong correlation to the  imported crude oil prices; however, during the last two Presidential election years, the October retail price jumped dramatically, while crude oil prices fell (See Graphic 4.0.) The rare deviation in the price of retail regular unleaded gasoline just before an election again indicates that the market was influenced by political, not free-market, forces. 

Oil pricing during Presidential election year follows a consistent pattern

Graphic 5.0:  Oil pricing during Presidential election year follows a consistent pattern

As 2016, is another election year, and as the Republican party is in deep trouble, the conservative leadership in the oil industry will likely follow the past pattern of attempting to create an economic crisis through manipulation of retail oil prices. Based on the Presidential election years since 1980, the average at-the-pump price of regular unleaded (See Graphic 5.0) will be about $270/barrel or around $4.91/gal.

(NOTE:  Personally, it’s hard to believe we could see $4.91/gallon next October. Despite what the trendlines suggest, I would expect the price to be closer to an average of $4.50/gallon. However, I’m confident that the average price of regular unleaded gas will be over $4.25/gallon.)

GOP Presidential Race is Over

27 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government, Health, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Religion, Respect, The Tipping Point, US History, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2016, America, conservative, Conservatives, Elections, GOP, House of Representatives, House Speaker, John Boehner, Marco Rubio, Pope, President, Republicans, resignation, right-wing extremists, Tea Party, United States of America

Marco Rubio basking in the glow of Boehner's resignation

Marco Rubio basking in the glow of Boehner’s resignation

House Speaker John Boehner’s resignation last week has brought reality to the Republican party. The smallest minority in Congress is the right-wing extremists and they have been the tail wagging the GOP dog. House Speaker Boehner has been attempting to keep up appearances that common sense conservatives and right-wing extremists all want the same thing, but they don’t. Boehner’s resignation was the showdown between conservatives who believe in the founding principles of our country and conservatives who want to dismantle our country.

Senator and Republican Presidential candidate, Marco Rubio announced Speaker Boehner’s resignation to the cheers of a political group that desires to overthrow our 240 year-old government and replace our Constitution with Taliban-like laws based on mythology. Rubio then went on to say that it is time to “turn the page” on a government that sees all people as equal and install a government that dictates who people can love, what women can choose, and how people can worship.

House Speaker John Boehner takes the high road

House Speaker John Boehner takes the high road

Senator Rubio’s victory speech is premature. Boehner’s resignation exposes the Republican party’s festering wound and the hysteria of the mob mentality of right-wing extremists. The Republicans have two choices. They can either capitulate to the right-wing extremists and select a Presidential candidate that will not be electable, or they can finally stand up to those people who seek to overthrow our government and find a moderate conservative that might draw some support from left leaning voters.

In either case, it is unlikely that any Republican candidate can rid themselves of the poisonous environment created by extremists in their party. The right-wing extremists have devolved into a group that has lied and deceived so much that their social media posts are only propaganda for incestuous consumption of other extremists.

However, the right-wing extremists are not an unstoppable force. Their lies and deceit may entertain them, but disgust intelligent, loyal citizens. Right-wing extremists are parading stupidity as if it is something to be proud of in a country of highly intelligent people. The only question is whether common sense conservatives will stay on the right-wing band wagon until it goes off the cliff.

Rebirth of the Liberal

25 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Education, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Green, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Religion, Respect, Space, Taxes, Technology, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-American, Bernie Sanders, conservatism, Conservatives, Elizabeth Warren, Liberal, liberalism, liberals, Pledge of Allegiance, President Barack Obama

Liberals, Inc.

Liberals, Inc.

The values and traditions of liberalism in the United States of America is experiencing a Renaissance. This is a not a time for a cautious return to a government by and for the people.  It is a time to boldly stand up for intelligence in political office.

The disastrous policies of George W. Bush, coupled with decades of conservative efforts to put our country in retreat have met with consistent failure. Those failures have forced conservatives to put up artificial issues that appeal to a distinctly anti-American segment of the population, but that has only driven them into a corner.

Conservative politicians strain to win applause from the stupid and the ignorant, but the United States needs and deserves smart, not stupid. Liberals must now step up and engage our citizens and remind them that politics in our country is not to be entertainment for small minds. We have to expose the absurdity of 2015  “conservative values:”

When everyone has guns in public, innocent people die. Gun ownership without rules is anarchy. Laws protect people from those who are too stupid to know better. It’s not about taking guns away; it’s about protecting the innocent from the stupid.

Our government is a blessing, not a curse, and we pay for the privilege of living in this great country by paying our taxes and doing so without complaint.

Unregulated business is the playground of the unethical and immoral. Business is motivated by greed and destruction of competitors. Without government, ethical businesses can’t survive.

If a group of people on an island were running out of fresh water, the liberal mind would determine how to obtain more water, and the conservative mind would begin planning on who they can kill.

The confederate flag is the symbol of racists and traitors who tried to steal part of America away from then attempted to overthrow our country. The confederate flag is a heritage of losers and has no place among a nation of winners.

Government is not a place for religion, nor a country where a majority religion is to dictate the beliefs and morals for all citizens. America is a country that offers freedom FROM religion, not slavery to a religion.

War is the opium for the 2015 conservative. When in doubt the conservative wants to wage war, but war never results in a quick and easy peace. War devastates all involved and it is rarely the leaders who started the war who pay the heaviest price.

The time to coddle the wealthy is past. Money is not the measure of a human, nor does it give special privilege to a person in a country where all citizens are created equal.

For 35 years conservatives have been shouting down common sense and intelligence with false accusations, deceptions, and biased fear mongering. It’s time that loyal Americans regained their voice.

To be liberal is to be an American that loves our country and our government. We believe that all humans are created equal. We believe that our country becomes stronger, not weaker through diplomacy and respect for other countries. We believe that education is the foundation to a better life and schools should be more than a cheap training ground for dead-end service jobs. We believe that when government spends money it provides jobs and needed infrastructure that helps grow our economy.

The call of liberalism is not for everyone, nor is it restricted to one party. Our country’s founders were liberals who broke away from conservatives who wanted to stay loyal to the English King. Republicans were liberal when Abraham Lincoln stood up against domestic enemies that sought to defile our Constitution. Franklin D. Roosevelt was liberal when he made our citizens believe in the greatness of our country. Dwight D. Eisenhower was liberal when he made the Interstate Highway System a reality. John F. Kennedy was a liberal when he said we could go to the Moon and back.

Elementary school children can grasp the values of conservatives. The egocentric concept that everyone else exists to serve their needs is a common attitude of children and conservatives.

However, it takes significant maturity and intelligence to understand liberal values. It requires the person to see themselves as part of a greater society. A liberal knows that respect, cooperation, humility, and honor cannot be compromised for a free society to function. Our original 1942 Pledge of Allegiance reinforced these values:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the UNITED States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE,  with liberty and justice FOR ALL.

We are a republic, not an oligarchy. We are one nation that shall not be divided. We shall have liberty and justice for all, not just for those with the most money, nor the most guns. 

We are a nation founded by liberals, built by those who believed in “Yes We Can.” Liberal ideals have been a part of every great achievement in our country. Conversely, conservative leadership has maligned and crippled this nation. It’s time we took our country back.

Stupid In Kentucky

04 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, History, Honor, Politics, Relationships, Religion, Respect, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-American, Conservatives, County Clerk, gay, gay marriage, GLBT, Jeff Darcy, Kentucky, Kim Davis, lesbian, marriage, marriage license, Rowan County, Supreme Court, US Constitution

Kim Davis cartoon

Cartoon by Jeff Darcy on Cleveland.com

Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, is not a surprise. There are a lot of political offices out in America to be filled and it is not surprising that an ignorant, unqualified person is elected to office. It is not even surprising that the ignorant, unqualified person ran as a Democrat, considering how anti-American conservatives bully anyone who applies common sense and intelligence to politics.

What is surprising is the depth of stupidity exposed by those who think she is a hero. Our country was founded, in large part, to escape a government that imposed a single religion on its people. Thomas Paine, in arguing why the American colonies should form a government elected by its people, said this about religion:

For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us. It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness; were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation…

Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Anyone with knowledge of our country history and Constitution knows that our government was established with the understanding that no one religion, nor set of religious practices should be imposed by our government. The very definition of who we are as Americans is defined by freedom FROM religion, not servants to a religion. Kim Davis’s claim that she, as County Clerk is allowed to deny marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples because her PERSONAL religious beliefs has no merit in the United States of America. Her actions are a disgrace to our country and Constitution.

That is why anti-Americans celebrate her and her actions. Those who seek to end our nation that is by the people, for the people, and of the people, want to destroy the foundation of our country. On June 28th, the Supreme Court reached the obvious conclusion that gay/lesbian marriage was protected by our Constitution, that was the end of the debate. Religions can’t impose their beliefs on anyone else. End of story.

The fact that it is over two months later and Rowan County, Kentucky is just now abiding by our Constitution and the law is a testament to the power of stupid people.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate stupid people. They are entertaining and YouTube couldn’t exist without them. But when stupid people interfere with the legal right of the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness of intelligent people we face a threat to who we are as citizens of the United States of America.

Kentucky should have never let Kim Davis become the hero for anti-Americans.

The Trump Card

21 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government, Opinion, Politics, Public Image, Religion, US History

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

2016, Alaska, Bernie Sanders, Democrats, Donald Trump, GOP, Hilliary Clinton, Jeb Bush, nominee, Paul Ryan, Presidential election, Republican, Republicans, Sarah Palin

Donald Trump: The anti-American candidate

Donald Trump: The anti-American candidate

Why is Donald Trump running for President? This American version of Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein is making no attempt to appeal to intelligent voters, and acts as if he is running for President of the Student Council by being anti-school.

The answer is that he is probably not running for President; however, Trump is vital to the hopes of the Grand Ole Party (GOP,) that consists of a vocal white, ultra-religious, anti-American group, and a smaller group of intelligent traditional conservatives.

In the Spring of 2015, it was chaos in the Republican party. Every day another new candidate was announcing his or her run for the White House. Each of them desperately sought the favor of the anti-American faction that would give them the nomination. As each candidate carved out smaller and smaller slices of their party it began to look hopeless for Republicans. None of them could win the Presidency because winning anti-American support would be poison to them in November 2016. At the same time, the GOP candidates were dividing up the party, making reconciliation with a legitimate prospect almost impossible.

Enter Donald Trump. Trump’s role in the party is to be the Pied Piper. He is to gather up all the misfits of the anti-American movement in the GOP and gain their trust. He can be as outrageous as he wants because it will only serve to help him in his role of winning the loyalty of those who love to hate America.

As he solidifies the anti-American vote he will force other GOP candidates out of the race, and Jeb Bush will continue to chart out a more moderate course that will give him the best chance of winning a majority in the general election. Next summer Donald Trump and Jeb Bush will likely be the only two viable GOP nominees. It is at this point Trump will ask his supporters to “fall on their swords” for the party. He will explain that if they don’t vote for Jeb Bush, the Democrats will win…again.

Trump As Vice President?

3rd Place in Miss Alaska, attended five different colleges in four years (one of them twice,) and 1/2 term Governor of Alaska (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Sarah Palin:  3rd Place in Miss Alaska, attended five different colleges in four years (one of them twice,) and 1/2 term Governor of Alaska 

Paul Ryan, helped Mitt Romney lose in 2012

Paul Ryan, helped Mitt Romney lose in 2012

A fair question is whether Trump will be the Vice President candidate for the Republicans. That deal may already have been brokered with the Bush campaign, or it may still be a decision yet to be made. The problem is that Trump may bring too much baggage to the ticket. Attempts to use the Vice President as material to sew together a conservative coalition has failed in past elections (Sarah Palin in 2008, and Paul Ryan in 2012) as each made the Presidential candidate less appealing to moderates and intelligent voters. 

Regardless, Trump’s ego is overflowing with the attention he is currently receiving from supporters and detractors. It is likely that he would see political office beneath him, but he loves being the center of attention. This is a win-win opportunity for him.

Republicans Deal With The Devil

20 Thursday Aug 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, History, Opinion, Politics, Religion, Taxes, US History, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

anti-American, civil war, confederacy, Confederate Flag, Conservatives, GOP, hate, President Lincoln, racism, Republican, Southern Democrats, the Confederate States of America, The South, traitors

Confederate flag

Republicans have a major problem. They are not the majority in the United States. They have managed to win congressional elections, and lesser political offices by convincing true conservatives and anti-Americans that they have the same goals. That strategy has worked because the anti-Americans originally were silent partners in the alliance and were easily led by true conservatives.

The problem is that the anti-Americans have managed use the Republican party to legitimize their 150 year effort to take over America and remake it in their image. That effort started when the white Southern Democrats were determined to make slavery the law of the new territories and they declared that if Abraham Lincoln (a Republican, ironically) were elected as President they would abandon the United States of America. The white, male, landowners of the South said they would disgrace our flag, country and Constitution by creating a new country where all men would not be equal all because their candidate lost the election.

What many Americans do not know is that the Confederacy lied. They were not content with stealing a handful of states and declaring themselves as a new country. Had that been their goal the Civil War would not have occurred. Lincoln was ready to let the six states abandon our country and be done with them.

However, after seceding, the Confederate States of America began attacking our country and sought to destroy the United States of America. Their intent was clearly to conquer us and put our citizens under their autocratic rule.

To defend our country, President Lincoln moved troops in to protect the capital but they were attacked in Baltimore by anti-Americans who attempted to disrupt the our military by operating inside our country. The result forced us into the Civil War.

The Confederate States of America incorrectly assumed that we would surrender rather than fight. That miscalculation not only caused them to lose the war, but also left them without a country. After the war the white, anti-Americans continued to behave as if they were not subjects to the United States of America, nor did they recognize African-Americans as equal despite laws that demand it.

One hundred years after the Civil War the anti-Americans were confronted by citizens who would no longer tolerate their lack respect to our Constitution and the rule of law. They continued to defy and disgrace our country and we were once again required to send troops into the South to force their compliance.

Making violent threats is part of anti-Americanism

Making violent threats is part of anti-Americanism

Today they still maintain their defiance against America and our Constitution. They retain loyalty to the defeated Confederate flag, and seek to end American government. For the most part, our country has tolerated the anti-Americans and allowed them to use their right of free speech to disrespect our government and our country. 

But over the last four decades Republicans, defeated by scandals and failed leadership, have sought to lure the vote of anti-Americans by promoting white supremacist ideals. Among the concepts promoted by Republicans have been a hate for minorities, claiming a religious doctrine that enshrines white males as dominant, pushing for absolute gun ownership that puts military weapons in private hands, interpreting the Constitution to use militias as a means to overthrow America, and promoting an ultra-patriotism that ironically claims that people who seek to overthrow America are patriotic. By using these tactics the Republicans have been successful in capturing the loyalty of the anti-Americans and that has kept the party viable. 

Unfortunately, true conservatives have lost control of the Republican party to the anti-Americans. Now, a candidate has to practically pledge allegiance to the Confederate flag to be a viable candidate. Republican candidates must also pledge to bankrupt the government of the United States through no-taxes promises. 

The result has created chaos in the Republican party. Like a shark feeding frenzy, anti-American candidates are leaping into the political arena sensing that this is their moment to be the Jefferson Davis of the 21st century. 

Yet, America is still not ready to be overthrown. The last two Presidential elections have demonstrated that loyal American still have a majority, Now the Republican party is faced with two opposing facts. A true conservative cannot win the nomination as the Republican Presidential candidate, and an anti-American candidate cannot win the election. Republicans have to find a way to thin the frenzy, eliminate the anti-American candidates, and find someone who can appeal to moderate voters, conservatives, and anti-Americans.

Next:  The Trump Card 

Panama’s Historical Struggle For Self-Determinism

28 Tuesday Jul 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Education, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, History, Honor, Panama, Politics, Public Image, Religion, Respect, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Columbia, independence, Panama, Panamá Canal, Simon Bolivar, Spain, United States, USA

_DSC0805Panamá has been the victim for most of its history. Because it is the narrowest land division between the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea (and to the Atlantic Ocean,) Panamá was a strategic gateway for world commerce long before the great canal was built.

Panamá Under Foreign Control
When Spanish Explorer Vasco Núñez de Balboa managed to cross from the northern Caribbean/Atlantic coast to the southern Pacific coast in 1513, the fate of Panamá was sealed. The Spanish instantly knew that this was the access to the Pacific side of the Americas and Panamá was the link that would make conquest possible.

Ruins of the Spanish fortifications in Portobelo, Panama

Ruins of the Spanish fortifications in Portobelo, Panamá

Spain’s official rule of the Americas began in 1538, and lasted almost 300 years, but Spain’s hold on Panamá would not go uncontested. Pirates and English backed privateers attempted to raid Spanish held ports in Panamá in hopes of stealing the wealth of cargo passing across the land. Eventually it would be the Spanish-American wars and rebellions across Latin America that would force Spain to retreat back to Europe.

When Panamá gained independence from Spain in 1821, it became a department of Columbia, but the citizens almost immediately sought to be free of all foreign control. Columbia refused to give Panamá independence, and its strategic value to world trade was probably one of the most significant reasons.

A Spanish Import:  The Catholic Church

A Spanish Import: The Catholic Church

New Outsiders
In the late 19th century a new European power was implanting itself on Panamanian soil. France had decided to take action on the Holy Grail of world trade, an ocean channel through Panamá that would end the need for unloading cargo from a ship, transporting goods across a tropical jungle, and reloading the cargo onto another ship. The French effort eventually killed over 20,000 people before the effort was finally abandon.

Soon after the French failed, the United States decided to insert itself into the effort of building a canal system in Panamá. It initially negotiated a deal with Columbia, but the Colombian Senate rejected the treaty/contract. As the citizens of Panamá had recently attempted to gain independence from Columbia in a 1,000 day war, the United States decided to bypass Columbia’s rejection and assist Panamá’s rebellion effort. The understanding was that the United States would be allowed to build, operate, and control the canal if Panamá was successful in gaining independence.

_DSC1079 (2)

The Panamá Canal has guided Panamá’s fate for over 100 years

A day after U.S. warships created a blockade to stop Columbia from sending troops into Panamá, it declared independence from Columbia on November 3, 1903. Three days later the treaty to give the United States the right-of-way for the canal and a zone extending five miles to each side of the canal.

Though there was no bloodshed in 1903, between Panamá, the United States, and Columbia, the actions taken by the United States, and its motives for assisting Panamá created diplomatic issues with Columbia. Many citizens of Panamá were also unhappy with the cost of independence. Almost two decades later the United States reached an agreement and monetary settlement with Columbia over the events of 1903, but many Panamanians still felt that the United States occupation was only a slight revision of past foreign domination.

20th Century Political Oddity
Under the terms of the treaty of 1903, Panamá was placed in an odd position. The government of Panamá finally governed over the people of Panamá, but not the Panamá Canal. It received annual royalties from the United States, but in return Panamá could not do anything that might threaten use of the canal. The best jobs in Panamá were related to operation and maintenance of the canal, but the United States instituted a system of institutionalized racism in Panamá by selective employment and a preferential pay structure. United States citizens were offered administrative positions and were paid in gold currency (gold roll.) The Hispanic and African-American Panamanians were hired for worker positions and were paid in silver currency (silver roll.)

Housing for U.S. personnel assigned to the canal is now owned and maintained by Panamá

The Panamá government found itself as the liaison between the United States and the Panamanian people. That role led to cycles of odd leadership styles and often corrupt and/or dictator-like political control of the country. The United States military was an oppressive reminder to all Panamanians of who held the power in their country, and yet. the citizens of Panamá found that the presence of the United States military did not keep their leadership from being corrupt or cruel, and attempts by the U.S. to address the corruption and criminality of the government of Panamá failed to resolve the problems.

By the early 1970’s it was apparent that the United States was exacerbating the internal issues in Panamá and negotiations for transferring the ownership and operation of the Panamá Canal to Panamá began. That resulted in a new treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter. Based on the treaty signed in 1977, the control of the Panamá Canal was to be turned over to the Panamanian government on December 31, 1999. 

_DSC1074 (2)Panamá:  Required to Run Before It Walks
In 500 years of world attention, Panamá never had the opportunity to develop its internal government without interference or influence of a foreign power. During the last fifteen years Panamá has faced the task of trying to restructure and address its internal issues in order to map out a sustainable future for its diverse population.

The occupational governments of the Spanish, French, Columbia, and the United States, rarely offered a positive model of good government for Panamá as each foreign power had an agenda for the country that had little, if anything, to do with improving the standard of living for the citizens.

Panamá’s future rests largely on the ability of government to create an ethical environment that protects citizens and limits the potential for corruption. A significant aspect of that environment will be infrastructure that provides access to all people to opportunities currently reserved for the wealthy and powerful.

A Panamanian girl in traditional dress

A Panamanian girl in traditional dress

Education:  The Foundation of Panamá’s Future
Education will play an important role for the future of Panamanian citizens. Basic skills, (mathematics, reading, science, history, etc.,) and more advanced subjects, (multiple languages, music, art, speech, etc.) will create citizens who are better prepared for job opportunities of the 21st century. In addition, education provides a path to overcome corruption. Ethical behavior is a learned function that requires the ability to see a bigger picture of society. Uneducated people tend to gravitate to a, “what’s-in-it-for-me,” mindset that sacrifices the future for a short-term gain.

Simon Bolivar, a key figure in forcing Spain to give up the Americas

Simón Bolivar, a key figure in forcing Spain to give up the Americas

Epilogue For A Country Reborn
Panamá has never been given a chance to develop its own identity. It has three dates that could be called “Independence Days.” Independence from Spain on November 28, 1821; independence from Columbia on November 3, 1903, and independence from United States control of the canal on December 31, 1999. The irony is that while Panamá celebrates the two former days of ‘independence,” it is really the latter date that gave the country true independence of foreign meddling.

For the first time in 500 years Panamá has the opportunity to make choices about its destiny. This freedom comes with a bigger challenge. The leadership of Panamá must establish a new long-term vision for the country that will involve significant projects and programs to develop the infrastructure that the country must have to succeed. Yet, the people of Panamá will justifiably be suspicious their government based upon a long history of great plans and promises that were lies of corrupt officials who pocketed money and didn’t deliver. Winning back the trust of the citizens will be the first task of an independent Panamá.

The Panamá Canal will play a significant role in an independent Panamá. World economics affect world trade, and world trade affects the Panamá canal; however, the country has the opportunity to re-position itself as more than just a conduit of trade. If Panamá can minimize corruption, improve transportation infrastructure, and increase the education level of its citizens, it will have an environment that will continue to grow Panamá’s role as a center of commerce and industry as well as a ocean-to-ocean conduit for cargo passing through the country.

Panamá no longer is a victim of foreign interference. Panamá now has the opportunity, and the burden, of determining its own future.

Bashing “Respect For Others” By Calling It “Politically Correctness”

01 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Communication, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Religion, Respect, US History

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

African American, America, American, Confederate Flag, Donald Trump, Facebook, GOP, Hispanic, Mexican, political correct, respect for others, Twitter

2014 May (17)I grew up in a small town. Mrs. Wick was the cranky old lady that lived next door. Mr. Valdez lived down the street and was a law enforcement officer.

It would have been easy to make fun of Mrs. Wick, but my mother would not allow us to do that, and in fact, we were taught to offer to help her whenever she needed it.

It would have been easy to disrespect Mr. Valdez in our small, almost-all-white town because he was Hispanic, but I would have never thought to do that, and his son was one of my best friends in elementary school.

Basic respect for the people in our town was how I was raised. It wasn’t being ‘politically correct,’ because it was part of being a decent person. Sure there were times when people failed to be decent, but the rodeo was only in town once a year and city people who pretend to be cowboys are idiots.

Today, our neighborhood is much larger. A Facebook post reaches around the world. Our community is no longer bound by city limits, county or state lines, nor national boundaries. What we say and do is part of a recorded history that will exist for hundreds, or possibly thousands of years.

It is not easy to be respectful of other people, but it is required. There should never be a question of whether or not to fly a confederate flag. It is always wrong to wave a symbol of traitors and racists in the face of our brothers and sisters around the world.

It is never appropriate to malign a group of honorable people who often risk their lives to have a better life in the United States by characterizing them as drug dealers and rapists. We have a responsibility to speak and act with respect to others. It is not a matter of being ‘political correct,’ it is a matter of personal honor and decency. That value has been the foundation of the strength of our country. It is why, when America faces a real threat, we drop everything and respond as one.

It is why Hitler failed, and Putin hates us. The test of a true American is the ability to respect others who are different in race, gender, religion, who they love, and where they are from.

Gay Marriage Legitimizes Marriage

26 Friday Jun 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, History, Honor, Politics, Pride, Relationships, Religion, Respect, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

gay marriage, homosexual, human rights, law, LBGT, Supreme Court

gay_marriage_81102178Today’s Supreme Court ruling acknowledges that the United States of America is legitimizing marriage, and it is about time.

Historically, marriage was created to establish a legal bond or contract of property ownership. Sometimes the property was just the woman, but typically marriage included the transfer of land, animals, money, or other material items. A woman was not a party in the contract, but the subject of the contract, meaning she was irrelevant in taking part of the terms of the contract.  The woman’s opinion or love was not needed, nor wanted in most marriages.

As a society we have moved away from the marriage-as-a-contract concept; however, even today we still have men and women in the United States who cling to the misogynistic idea that a woman is property to serve and bear a man children. These men and their Stepford spouses cite the historical aspect of marriage as the justification for demeaning a human being (or allowing themselves to be demeaned.) 

Gay marriage has only one purpose, the expression of love between two people. There is no property exchange and no issue of who is the master and who is subservient, (unless both parties agree to a 50 Shades of Gay-type relationship.) You can’t attach outdated expectations of a gender-based owner/property understanding to a marriage between two people who are of the same gender.

Perhaps now heterosexuals shed the mantle of the woman as property and confirm marriage a legitimate expression of love.

Science Versus Stupidity

31 Sunday May 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Green, Health, Honor, Internet, Politics, Religion, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), solar, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

belief, Bible, church, Conservatives, evolution, fact, Global warming, GOP, logic, Mythology, Republican, Republicans, scientific process, stupid, Stupidity, Tea Party

climatecartoon2

Earth: Victim of Stupidity

“Science doesn’t have all the answers.”

It’s hard to know where to start when someone makes a statement like the one above. ‘Science’ isn’t an entity, so it can’t possess anything, but beyond the poor grammar is the issue of motivation and failed logic.

When a person makes this statement their motivation is often in defense of religion. The idea seems to be that if science doesn’t have all the answers, then religious and mythological beliefs are valid. Using this logic one could say that because nitrogen doesn’t make up all of the Earth’s atmosphere, (air is 78% nitrogen,) then the air we breathe is all fairy dust.

No intelligent person would say that science has all the answers. We are just scratching the surface of understanding the mechanisms by which our universe operates. Even after science has shown us how one system works, scientists may discover that there are other factors that affect that system. We are on a path of discovery and we have a long way to travel.

However, there are no shortcuts. Just because science hasn’t fully explained everything doesn’t give anyone license to invent an explanation that is based on opinion or agenda. This includes explanations that were created over a thousand years ago by people who didn’t even understand that urination and defecation are the end process of digestion.

All science begins with asking a question. Why? How? What? In the process of answering those questions, the scientific process rules some things out. By narrowing down what isn’t a cause or a factor the scientist begins to clarify the important causes or factors. Religion ignores this process and immediately jumps to an answer that lacks any support other than, “Because I say so!”

I have no problem with anyone’s mythological beliefs…until the believer wants the rest of society to abide by those beliefs. Public policies, laws, education and regulations that exist or are governed by someone’s mythological beliefs is pure stupidity, even if a majority believe in the mythology.

Those that don’t ‘believe’ in evolution, global warming, vaccinations, or any other scientifically based fact are stupid. I’m not calling anyone names, I’m saying they lack intelligence and logical thinking. They are incapable of making good decisions. They are, by definition, stupid.

Believe in God? Fine. But, giving credibility to religious beliefs over scientific fact defines one as being stupid. Making religious beliefs part of societal laws is mass stupidity.

Death By Incentive Program

04 Monday May 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Honor, Human Resources, Management Practices, parenting, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Respect

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

evaluation, incentive programs, office, Pay for Performance, reward, school

_DSC0363 (2)Incentive programs are the tip of the sword in organizational suicide. They are often designed by people who believe that there is a single cause leading to a positive effect in achievement. The reality is that life isn’t that simple. Here are three examples of incentive program fails:

EXAMPLE 1 – Retaining Major Customers
ISSUE:  A business owner loses a major customer and believes that it was because his employees weren’t responsive enough to the major customer’s needs.

INCENTIVE:  The owner creates and incentive program that rewards employees for being more attentive to major customers. (Potential measures:  Major customer satisfaction surveys, increase in revenue from major customers, response time data.)

EFFECT: Some employees learn how to gain the favor of the major customer through unethical tactics:  i.e. kickbacks, access to inside information about the major customer’s competition, sacrificing minor customers in order to be more attentive to major customers, giving more product or service to the major customers and charging it to minor customers, etc.

RESULT:  The owner finds out that some unethical employees look like superstars to the major customers, while ethical employees seem to be failures. Minor customers, a primary source of new revenue, leave for competitors leaving the company with a few major customers that demand special treatment.

EXAMPLE 2 – Improving Student Performance
ISSUE:  Recognizing and reinforcing good student behavior and educational achievement.

INCENTIVE:  Teachers are given special reward tokens to give to students who display good behavior, or who perform exceptionally on class or homework assignments. Students with the most tokens are given a special reward at the end of the school year.

EFFECT:  Some teachers give out tokens liberally and gain favor with the students. Some teachers attempt to ethically administer the program, but find that they are not consistent in giving out tokens to the students for similar positive events. Some teachers do not buy into the incentive program and rarely give out tokens.

RESULT:  High performing students discover that their behavior and achievements is subject to different evaluators who create an reward system that is not objective. Students who are recognized feel superior to other students, and other high performing students become angry, frustrated, and discouraged.

EXAMPLE 3 – Improving Productivity
ISSUE:  Motivate management to improve to eliminate wasted time and resources.

INCENTIVE:  Financial bonuses for top managers who have higher output per employee and/or expenses, OR have lower cost per dollar of revenue.

EFFECT:  Managers discover that by making salaried employees work longer hours and not replacing old equipment as needed, they can look more productive. Employees may not like working with broken or outdated equipment, or be required to work longer hours, but that is not what is measured, so it is irrelevant to the manager.

RESULT:  Other indicators (high turnover, loss of customers, etc.) might indicate a failure of the manager in performing his or her duty; however, because the incentive is to improve productivity, those factors are ignored. The manager looks like a superstar and yet the division or department has severe morale issues and is a business failure._DSC0361 (2)

Why Incentive Programs Fail
Despite the popular idea that incentive programs are a good motivational tool, there are four reasons why they are not.

Organizational success is not a science, but an art

Incentive plans are based on the old idea that the ends justify the means. True organizational success is all about the ‘means’ and the success comes only after multiple factors combine. Organizational success often can’t be repeated because it was contingent on the talents of key team members who brought key talents or skills into the formula of success.

Cause and effect are rarely in a one-to-one relationship

Whatever is defined as the positive outcome, people will find multiple ways to achieve the desired goal, regardless of ethics.

People are not ethical by nature

Incentive programs encourage unethical behavior. The goal is assumed to be the highest priority and that is tacit approval to some that anything goes as long as the goal is met or exceeded.

Some organizations intend the incentive program to encourage unethical behavior

Executives cannot tell their employees to be unethical, but they can create the environment that fosters unethical behavior in pursuit of the indicators of success. This protects the company and puts all the risk on the employees.

Incentive = Manipulation

People who design incentive programs explain that the intent is to reward good behavior, and they fail to complete the sentence, “through manipulation.” Manipulation requires a lack of respect. Most people want to do the right thing and don’t need to be tricked into doing it. It is possible that unethical behavior is stimulated by incentive programs because the person feels disrespected by the use of manipulation and responds by obtaining the reward while sabotaging the program.

The Need For An Incentive Program?
Organizations that need an incentive program indicate a failure in leadership. Any business or school should know who its best performers without an artificial measurement program in place to identify them. In addition, any organization should have an ongoing effort to recognize and reward the best performers. Leadership that is effective in celebrating success will be setting the example for others without manipulation through an artificial program that disrespects people and will likely be vulnerable to unfair evaluation and unethical behavior.

Free Range Parenting: How to Say I Don’t Love You

03 Sunday May 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Communication, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Lessons of Life, parenting, Politics, Relationships

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alexander, Child Development, Danielle, Dvora, free range parents, free-range parenting, Maryland, Meitiv, Rafi

Abandoning a child does teach a lesson: Parent's don't care

Abandoning a child does teach a lesson: Parent’s don’t care

The parent always correct. That is the basis of free-range parenting. The idea that a parent should be allowed to do whatever they want, including nothing, with their children.

I grew up in rural northwestern Colorado. The idea of ‘free-range’ is common in farming communities where it refers to animals. It means the rancher allows his animals to roam on open land, usually federal land and expends minimal personal resources on the care and maintenance of his or her livestock until it’s time to round them up for sale. The expectation is that some of the animals will be lost to predators, but the money saved by not feeding and watering them is worth the risk.

In parenting, ‘free-range’ is applied to the children of the mother and father. The concept is that children of almost any age will mature faster as unsupervised survivalists than under the care and monitoring of an adult. It is as stupid as it sounds.

Rafi and Dvora Meitiv: Children with a lack of parenting

This idea gained national awareness when Rafi, a ten-year-old boy, and Dvora his six-year-old sister were picked up by law enforcement when they were reported to be unsupervised about a mile from home. They are children of Danielle and Alexander Meitiv who believe that their children should be allowed to roam free on streets and in parks in order to learn the lessons that life offers. The parents have been charged with child neglect.

The real issue with free-range parenting is not one of parenting style. Parenting style requires that you actually take the responsibility to be a parent, which free-range parents don’t. Free-range parenting can be compared to having something of infinite value entrusted to someone, for which they go to the back door and throw it as far away has possible.

The critical issue with free-range parenting is assuming that children are born with an automatic sense of right and wrong. They are not. Children learn good behavior and they learn it from the human examples around them. Left on their own, many children experiment with cruelty and seek to satisfy baser desires, especially when one child is older and/or stronger than another child.

Parents have to constantly guide children to understand the concepts of boundaries, respect, kindness, responsibility, and humility. Often children battle against parents when told that certain behaviors and/or actions are not acceptable, but as a child matures they begin to understand that parents are acting out of love in teaching proper social behavior. They understand this, often because they see other people around them who lacked proper parental supervision and who are social failures as an adult.

A free-range parent is also setting themselves up for failure. The child will soon discover that the more they stay away from the parents, the less hassle they will experience, so the detach themselves emotionally from the parent. Once a child has found the parent to be irrelevant the opportunity for the parent to offer advice and guidance is lost forever.

J. K. Rowling: The Unexpected Author

13 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Book Review, College, Communication, Education, Ethics, Fiction, Generational, Higher Education, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, Opinion, parenting, Passionate People, Public Relations, Science Fiction, Traditional Media, Universities, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

books, Harry Potter, J. K. Rowling, Jo Rowling, Joanne Rowling, library, Literaray, readership, reading

jkr-photo_new_debra-hurford-brown-j.k.-rowling

Jo Rowling A.K.A: J. K. Rowling

This week my son’s Elementary school is engaged in a venture into the world of Harry Potter. The teachers of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades have divided the students into the four Houses of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. This is an opportunity to look back on the single person who created a series of fictional children’s books that revitalized reading for millions of people of all ages.

Any story of great personal success is characterized by being the correct person, in the correct place, at the correct time. That is a requirement. The story of J. K. Rowling is more compelling for why she was the correct person.

Her birth name is Joanne Rowling and she uses “Jo” in casual environments. She has no given middle name but was asked by her publisher to disguise her name so that young boys would not know that Harry Potter was written by a woman. Since she had no middle name she used her grandmother’s name, ‘Kathleen,’ and thus became, “J. K. Rowling (her last name is pronounced, ‘rolling.’) 

Rowling accomplished the unthinkable. At a time when reading books was declining and the Internet was blossoming, the idea that one person could ignite a renaissance of book reading was considered absurd. Rowling’s first publisher told her to get a day job because writing children’s books would never provide enough income.

Like William Shakespeare, there is no significant indicator in Rowling’s pre-Potter life of her eventual rise to the top of the literary world. Still, there are earlier experiences that probably contributed to her success. Among them are the following:

  • Her parents met at King’s Cross Station in London, which became the fictional departure point for the fictional train station departure point to Hogwarts. [Potter influences]
  • As a child she was known to write out a story and read it to her sister, Dianne. [Early fiction writing]
  • Her mother, Anne, was a science technician and also taught science at the Secondary school that Rowling attended. [Priority of education]
  • She speaks English, French and studied German in Secondary school. [Broad-based education]
  • She read and is an admirer of Jessica Mitford, a British-turned-American journalist, author, and political activist. [Ethics, writing, and honor]
  • She has a Bachelor’s of Arts degree in French and the Classics from the University of Exeter. [Writing and knowledge]
  • She studied a year in Paris. [Broad-based education]
  • She taught English in Portugal [Life experience]
  • Her mother had multiple sclerosis (MS) and died while she was writing her first Harry Potter book. [Life experience]
  • Rowling suffered from depression triggered by several life events (Unemployed, her mother’s death, her divorce, etc.) [Life experience]Harry Potter Covers

The idea for Harry Potter apparently came in 1990, during a four-hour train delay to London. She began writing as soon as she reached home and among the first chapters written was the final chapter of the last book. The first book was not finished until 1995. It was submitted and rejected by twelve publishers before it was finally accepted by Bloomsbury Publishing in England the follow year. 

She went from living off of State benefits to a millionaire in five years. Since then, she has devoted a large portion of her fortune to philanthropic causes. 

Though remarkable, Rowling’s financial success is not as significant as what she did for slowing the decline of children reading for fun during the period her books were published (1996-2007.) According to a study by Common Sense Media, 9-year-olds reading for fun at least one to two per week dropped only one percent from 1984 to 2004; however, by 2012 that dropped by another four percent (76% in 2012.) For 13-year-olds the decline in reading for fun from 1984 to 2004, was six percent, but that decline nearly doubled five years after the last Harry Potter book was published (down an additional eleven percent in 2012 to 53%.) 

No one, including possibly Rowling, herself, could have expected anyone to capture a worldwide audience, as did the Harry Potter series. She brought new readers into the literary market that had no interest in reading. Her unexpected achievement is a reminder that what is possible extends beyond the impossible.  

Religious Liberty Laws Violate The Bible

03 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Religion, Respect

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arkansas, Bible, Do Not Judge, Indiana, New Testament, Paul, Religious Liberty laws, Romans 14

Dave Granlund cartoon

Dave Granlund Cartoon: Liberty for who?

The irony of conservatives effort to allegedly ‘preserve’ religious liberty is that they are actually inflicting one person’s religion on others through their business activities. The concept that other people should be forced to accept one person’s bias is discussed in the Bible, and conservatives are taking a position opposite of what is taught in the New Testament.

Romans 14 nails Christians to the cross of behavior. Nowhere in the New Testament is the definition of what it means to be a Christian better explained than in this single chapter. Paul, in his letter to the Romans explains to Christians:

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’ ” So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

Romans 14: 10-13
New International Version¹

2015 APR_DSC0001 (182)Both before and after this passage Paul offers examples of what he means by ‘passing judgement.’ The examples make it clear that the issue is not about what issues a Christian can condemn or protest regarding someone else’s choices, but that no Christian has the authority to judge another person.

The Religious Liberty laws passed in Indiana and other states emphasize the ‘right’ of a person to impose his or her religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. The assumption is that a person can judge someone else’s personal choices, judge them as sinners, then refuse that person access to their products or services. This is in violation of the teachings of how a Christian is obligated to behave.

Applying the full meaning of Romans 14 to the situation, a Christian business person should not only accept another person’s lifestyle choices, and not judge them, but they should do everything possible to accommodate that person and their choices. Paul emphasizes to the Romans that a Christians obligation is to make peace, not conflict:

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

Romans 14: 19
New International Version

The Religious Liberty laws are actually anti-Christian laws.

¹(KING JAMES VERSION – Romans 14:10-13)
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

Common Core: Are You A Good Switch Or A Bad Switch? Part III

25 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, College, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, Internet, parenting, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Taxes, Technology, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Core, Conservatives, conspiracy, funding, math, parent protests, reading, Republicans, school districts, school funding, teachers, Teaching, writing

PART III:  An Answer to the Question:  Good? or Bad?

Implementation of Common Core/US News and World Report

Implementation of Common Core

THE VERDICT
In the past year significant political forces have targeted Common Core. The protests have been at near hysterical levels in many communities around the country. The complaints about Common Core are as follows:

  • Standards create a factory-like environment that attempt to put all students in one ‘box.’
  • Teachers focusing on test scores, not educational achievement
  • Parents don’t understand math methods
  • United States history under Common Core is un-American because it includes both positive and negative aspects of the history of our country
  • A belief that parents should define school curriculum, not the school, district, state, or federal government
  • A belief that President Obama is behind the implementation of Common Core and other conservative conspiracy theories

Many of the issues have been generated by conservative voices after a push by Republicans during the past election cycle to ignite anger and votes against public education. Almost all of the complaints would have occurred from any attempt to improve and refine American educational techniques, especially when those improvements involve standardization for all American schools.

If you believe that setting minimum standards in reading, writing, and math is bad, then Common Core is bad. If you believe that children in your community should graduate with similar skills to other students around the country, then Common Core is good. If you believe that a high school degree should be the end of a person’s education, then Common Core is bad. If you believe that every student should receive an education that would prepare them for college, then Common Core is good.

THE REAL PROBLEM
Despite the politicizing of Common Core, there is a real issue in implementing any change in education. Funding.

Any business that seeks to upgrade or improve their methods knows that there is a real cost to any change. Yet, even smart business people seem to forget that to improve our educational system requires a major funding commitment. It takes money to research and establish new programs. It takes money to train school districts, principals, and teachers. It takes money to create new teaching materials, and it takes money to educate parents.

What Common Core is missing is the funding needed to make it a success. Until we can accept the fact that a commitment to education requires a commitment to funding, then we will continue using 20th educational techniques in a 21st century world. America’s efforts to update our educational system will cost money and Common Core is a victim of a society that has abandon quality education because it costs too much.

THE HYSTERIA OF THE LOUDEST VOICES
Unfortunately, Common Core lost a lot of support in the past twelve months. Much of that was due to the political rhetoric during last year’s campaigns, but some teachers are also pulling back support. This is not surprising. As parents become more vocal in opposition, few teachers are willing to oppose parent sentiment even if they are wrong.

Common Core is not a perfect educational system, but it does attempt to better prepare America’s children for a higher level of achievement. Most of the real issues can be resolved with better funding. Just as a school built in the 1950’s is no longer relevant for 2015, education methods of the pre-information era are not relevant today. Our population is continuing to increase and the skills our children must have to thrive as adults are going to advance. Education is going to be expensive, but if we don’t pay now, we will pay more later.

PREVIOUSLY:  Part I:  A Primer in American Education 
                            Part II:  What is Common Core?

Common Core: Are You A Good Switch Or A Bad Switch? Part II

25 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, parenting, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Taxes, Technology, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Asian learning methods, Common Core, K-12, learning, math, mathematics, New Math, No Child Left Behind, parent involvement in school, parent reactions, students

PART TWO: What is Common Core?

Cartoon in Chicago Tribune about parent reaction to Common Core

Cartoon in Chicago Tribune about parent reaction to Common Core

The Third Generation of Standardized Education
The basic premise of the George W. Bush (43rd President) administration’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate was that reading, writing, and math are fundamental to all learning. This is a sound concept; however, these basic skills cannot supplant other subjects traditionally taught in K-12 schools, nor can they be isolated from those subjects. Our society, both business and personal interactions, require an adequate understanding of a wide variety skills and knowledge that exceed the basic skills of reading, writing, and math.

Common Core is an attempt to refine the concept of NCLB by creating standards for all schools that focus on reading, writing, and math, but it also folds these skills into other subjects that impact personal success in the 21st century. Common Core emphasizes teaching methods and outcomes, but leaves it to the State, school district, and school on how to incorporate the program into the curriculum.

Why Some Parents Dislike Common Core Math
Some of the methods adopted by Common Core have angered parents and politicians. In particular, the approach to teaching math. The math issue centers on bewildered parents who don’t understand the revised math teaching methods and why equations seem to be more complicated than when they attended school. The assumption by parents is that whatever they were taught is good enough for their children; however, that is not necessarily true.

Almost every adult in this country was taught that the symbol for a number (e.g.; ‘7’) was everything we needed to know about the number that it represents. We were taught to memorize how the symbol ‘7’ multiplied by the symbol ‘9’ equals the symbol ’63.’ That teaching method does not mean that the student understands that ‘7,’ ‘9,’ and ’63’ are symbols representing a group of objects. 

This is a subtle, but important understanding in math functions. The equation ‘7 x 9 = 63,’ means that we are taking a group of seven objects, adding eight more groups of seven, and determining the total of objects. That is much more complicated than just memorizing that 7 x 9 = 63, but it helps us realize that multiplication is a shortcut to manually counting out 63 objects individual, rather than grouping them.

The weakness of memorization of relationships between symbols also creates confusion as a student moves into higher mathematical equations. In algebra, geometry, and calculus the numeral symbols become less relevant. For example, X = (X+1) and Y = (X-3) can be confusing because ‘X’ stands for EVERY number.

The Credit Card Example
A man is given ten credit cards, but he is NOT told that each credit card represents an amount of money in the bank and, that if used, the money is replenished the next day. He is told how to use each credit card. One card is to buy gas, one to use at the grocery store, etc. Today, he’s at the gas station and it so happened that two of his friends are already there. He decides to pay for his friend’s fuel, which they appreciate. They go on their way, but when he tries to pay for his fuel, the credit card is declined. He didn’t understand that the card represented a limited amount of money, he just assumed it could be used for any amount of fuel. That is similar to how math has been taught in the past. We may have known what to do with the numbers (symbols,) but we may not have fully understood that numbers are just symbols.

Good News, Bad News
Parents objections to the new math teaching methods are a good sign that our children are gaining a deeper understanding of mathematics than their parents did in school; however, parents need to be able to assist their children with homework.¹ This means parents need to be taught the new methods, but few if any schools have developed programs to teach parents because there is no funding available to accomplish the task.

Who Came Up With the Common Core Math Techniques?
Despite the belief that Common Core math techniques were invented in the past few years, the techniques were modeled off educational programs in certain Asian countries where they have been more successful at preparing students for college. In 2009, a coalition of State Governors and Educators worked together to build an educational program that would serve as a ‘best practices’ guide for American schools, which was the birth of Common Core.

NEXT:  Part III:  An Answer to the Question – Good? or Bad?
PREVIOUSLY:  Part I:  A Primer in American Education 

¹Most studies indicate that students perform better when parents are involved in their children’s education. At the very least it indicates to the child that their parents place a high value on becoming educated.

Common Core: Are You A Good Switch Or A Bad Switch? Part I

24 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, College, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, Information Technology, Internet, parenting, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Taxes, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

classroom, college graduates, Common Core, Education methods, federal mandates, George W. Bush, graduation rates, high school graduates, job standards, K-12, NCLB, No Child Left Behind, President Barack Obama, Race to the Top, school districts, school vouchers, students, teachers, Teaching, Teaching methods, Teaching standards

School's should welcome diversity of ideas but shouldn't tolerate political agendas

School’s should welcome diversity of ideas but shouldn’t tolerate political agendas

PART I: A Primer in American Education

Who’s Afraid of Common Core?
Education in America is often the centerpiece of someone’s agenda, and the newest chapter of the how-to-fix-our-schools controversy is called Common Core. Conservatives have apparently decided that Common Core is the path to Satan. Liberals have reservations about Common Core because it smacks of a factory-like environment that assumes every student and school is the same.

The problem is that the most vocal critics of Common Core have no authority to speak on effective educational methods. Common Core is a significant paradigm shift in education, and opinions of untrained, uneducated, unhelpful ‘experts’  do nothing to move forward the debate on how best to prepare our children for Life 3.0.

The Cost of Achievement
In 1950, only one-third of the population in the United States had a high school degree or better, and only six percent had a college degree or better. In 2010, almost ninety percent of Americans had at least a high school degree, and thirty percent had at least a college degree. That increase is impressive, but what is astounding is that in the same sixty year time frame, America’s population doubled. 

To accomplish that feat cost money. A lot of money. As the bandwagon to attack government spending gained steam, education loomed large in the sights of conservatives. The real cost of the success of American educational achievement has been to become a target of the post-Reagan  agenda.  

Public school in Panama: Seeking to achieve the American dream

Public school in Panama: Seeking to achieve the American dream

A Historical Perspective
In the pre-Information age, schools were isolated in their own districts. How well the students of any given school performed was a local issue, not a state or national issue. In addition, a relatively small percentage of students sought out a college degree, and there were few school districts keeping track of college bound students.

The goal for most school districts in the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s was graduate as many students as possible, which sometimes opened the door to unethical practices, such as giving diplomas to students who clearly did not meet reasonable expectations (ability to read, write, etc.) to graduate.

However, by the 1990’s, the idea that all schools in the United States should be able to measure academic success through a unified set of academic standards began to take hold. As the Internet became the backbone of our society, the resulting information explosion forced us to accept that adequate math and reading skills were vital for success as an adult in a technologically advanced society. 

First Generation of Educational Standards
By the beginning of this century, plans had been put into motion to establish a set of educational standards for all schools and testing of all students to determine a school’s success or failure. Under President George W. Bush, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB,) was mandated and it required States to establish standardized testing, teacher qualifications, and annual academic progress reporting. This was one of the most sweeping federal intrusions into public education. The primary focus of NCLB was to improve reading, writing, and mathematics in schools nationwide, while allowing States to establish the educational standards that would have to be met.

The catch was that rather than investing in those schools that needed help, No Child Left Behind focused on punishing schools that didn’t meet the artificial standards. Almost ever reputable educational review of NCLB  has given it a failing grade. Some of the reasons are as follows:

  • The emphasis on reading, writing, and math during a time when States were cutting funds for kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) created a shearing effect on other programs (language, history, music, arts, etc.) as money had to be reallocated to the studies under the NCLB Act.
  • Politicians had little understanding of education and the variables in a classroom environment and they attempted to apply factory-like operations to school systems that failed to address the real issues that impact the ability to learn.
  • NCLB assumed that teachers were mostly at fault for poor educational performance and politicians sought to intervene by imposing punishments for schools rather than actually acting in the best interest of the students.
  • The education of higher performing students was sacrificed in order to devote more resources for the poorer performing students.
  • Students with special needs were not excluded from the testing standards creating a population of students that automatically counted as failing against the school.

Educational Standards – Second Generation
Soon after taking office, the Obama administration began to move away from NCLB by introducing “Race to the Top.” This program flipped NCLB by seeking to reward States for adopting standardized programs rather than punishing them for not meeting federal standards. States competed for additional federal education funding; however, not every State rushed to play the game that offered no guarantee of financial carrot at the finish line.

The most searing problem with Obama’s Race to the Top program may have been the requirement that a teacher’s performance had to be linked to the student’s test scores. This concept of Pay For Performance suggests that teaching professionals must be threatened with a financial stick, forcing teachers to teach students to be successful on the tests by sacrificing all other educational values. It also discourages teachers from working with groups of challenging students who will not be able to produce the test results of more privileged and economically stable students.

NEXT:  Part II:  What is Common Core?
To be published Wednesday, 25 March, 0700 PDT/1400 UTC

NEXT NEXT:  Part III:  An Answer to the Question – Good? or Bad?
To be published Wednesday, 25 March, 1200 PDT/1900 UTC

Epilogue : The 2010’s

20 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Communication, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Religion, Respect, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Space, Taxes, Technology, Traditional Media, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Caucasian, college graduates, Conservatives, Equality, GDP, high school graduates, poor, racism, racists, Reagan agenda, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, The 1%, un-wealthy, wealthy, White politicians

The 2010’s – End of Civility

Image credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP.

White Conservatives: “Go F**k Yourselves America”

  • Population:  308.7 million
  • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita:  $47,805
  • Median Annual Income:  $47,793 
  • Life Expectancy:  78.7
  • Average Age at Marriage:   Men 28.2, Women 26.1
  • % of pop. w/high school degree or higher:  87.0%
  • % of pop. w/college degree or higher:  30.0% 

REAGAN:  The Killer of America’s Prosperity
From 1950 to 2010 the population of the United States of America doubled (+104.0%.) The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) tripled (+218.1%.) The median annual income is eleven times more than 1950 (+1028%.) Life expectancy has increased by over 15% (15.4%.) Men AND women are marrying an average of over five years older in 2010 than they did in 1950 (men +23.7%, women +28.6%.) The percentage of people with at least a high school degree is now almost 90% versus 34% in 1950 (+153.6%.) Today, 30% of our citizens have at least a college degree versus 6% in 1950 (+383.9%.)

Something went right for America in the last 60 years. But that is changing.

Prior to the Great Depression, Republicans controlled the House and Senate for the majority of the previous 70 years. After the Great Depression both the House and Senate was under Democratic control until 1980. In 1980, America began folowing the conservatives agenda (Reagan 1980-1988, Bush 41 1989-1992, Republican control of Congress 1994-2008) of dismantling the government at all levels, start more wars, give more money to the wealthy, and give less help for the un-wealthy. Since 1979, the wealthiest 1% after-tax income has increased by 200%.

U.S._Income_-_Changes_by_Income_Group_1979-2011

The 1% are 200% wealthier since conservatives took control of the government

Since 1980, annual increases in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has stalled and fallen.

GDP Growth by Year

ANNUAL GDP GROWTH: Post World War II, U.S. annual GDP began a steady growth until shortly after Ronald Reagan became President.

GROWTH SACRIFICED FOR GREED
Post-war prosperity was spurred by significant federal government projects and programs. Conservatives derailed that by blaming government for economic issues that were caused by corporate and business greed.

Despite the obvious failure of the Reagan agenda, conservatives have taken a position of complete denial and fantastical thinking. They no longer believe they have any obligation to acknowledge or respect the rest of America. Conservatives are behaving as a child would behave when they are not getting their way, even though their request is completely inappropriate. Rather than accepting that President Obama was elected twice by a majority of Americans, Republicans have blocked all efforts to move forward on measures proven to generate American prosperity because it would make those that have more, give more.

Reagan conservatives have failed and they are backed in a corner of failure. They will not accept reason, nor facts. Civility would force them to accept their failure, so they must be uncivil. They are willing to destroy America, rather than acknowledge failure.

WHY ARE WE HERE?
America has experience massive change in the past 65 years. Most of that change has been good, but the one aspect of the American concept, the idea that we are all created equal, is the one issue in our country that has cast a shadow over us for centuries. White males believe that they are superior to all others and as our demographics have changed Caucasians have worked to obstruct equality rather than accept it.

Segregation was not considered racist until it became obvious it was motivated by whites who were racist. Dismantling government programs that benefit the poor and those in need may not be considered racist, until we realize that these ideas have been pushed forward almost exclusively by white politicians. Telling America that the rich are too burdened to pay a fair share of their taxes is not considered racist until you examine the loop of rich white people giving money to white politicians to pass laws that will reduce taxes on the wealthiest who are almost all white.

America is a country that has yet to commit to everyone being equal. In the 1950’s, white people took their money and ran away to the suburbs. In the 1960’s, the federal government finally stepped in and paid attention to the unequal treatment of African-Americans. In the 1970’s, we became distracted by unethical leaders, war, oil shortages, and inflation. In the 1980’s, we were conned into the idea that our government was to blame for all our problems in the 1970’s, while the Reagan spent money that America didn’t have to spend. In the 1990’s, the conservatives regained control of Congress and began dismantling the federal government and ending ethical business oversight. In the 2000’s, Republicans led America down a path of war and destruction that almost wiped out our economic system.

Why we are here is because we have become weak. We have listened to fools and we know they are fools. They are willing to tear America apart for greed and their own racist ideals. To a racist, compromise is unthinkable, and that is why conservatives will never work towards a unified nation.

THE SERIES:  The 1950’s    The 1960’s    The 1970’s    The 1980’s    The 1990’s    The 2000’s    

This is Why (2015 vs the 2000’s)

19 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Communication, Crisis Management, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Politics, Pride, Print Media, Privacy, Public Image, Public Relations, Religion, Respect, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Space, Taxes, Technology, Traditional Media, Universities, US History

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2004 Tsunami, 9/11, Afghani, Amazon.com, Anthrax, Assault weapons ban, Conservatives, Election 2000, Facebook, Florida vote counting, George W. Bush, Global Financial Disaster, Global warming, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Mars, NASA, Opportunity, Pope John Paul II, President, President Barack Obama, Republicans, Rovers, Saddam Hussein, Smartphone, Space Shuttle Columbia, Spirit, Supreme Court, Texting, Twenty-ohs, Twitter, Virginia Tech Massacre, Wikipedia, YouTube

The 2000’s – The Defeat of America

Decade of Fear: Y2K, 9/11, WMD's, Katrina, Banking Collapse, Unemployment, Global Warming, Putin, ISIS

Decade of Fear: Y2K, 9/11, WMD’s, Katrina, Banking Collapse, Unemployment, Global Warming

  • Population:  281.4 million
  • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita:  $44,492
  • Median Annual Income:  $40,703
  • Life Expectancy:  76.8
  •  Average Age at Marriage:   Men 26.1, Women 23.9
  • % of pop. w/high school degree or higher:  80.4%
  • % of pop. w/college degree or higher:  24.4% 

TWENTY OH’s
If the 1990’s were a seismic event of technological and social change, the twenty-oh’s is when the tsunami of change hit. Had nothing else happened but the advancement of the Internet, the changes by that alone would have drastically remade the world as we knew it; however, the twenty-oh’s were not content in merely redefining society and the way we communicate, the first decade of the new millennium was going to do an extreme makeover of all our expectations in life. Here are twenty things that made us say Oh!

  1. Y2K, the disaster that never came (Jan. 2000)
  2. Elections of 2000
    1. Florida election fiasco (Nov./Dec. 2000)
    2. Supreme Court appoints George W. Bush as President (Dec. 2000)
  3. Attacks of September 11, 2001
  4. Anthrax letters
  5. Wars of Just Because
    1. Afghanistan (2001-2014)
    2. Iraq (2003-2011)
  6. Rise of Smaller and Smarter Technology (Entire Decade)
    1. Smartphone
    2. Texting
  7. Space Shuttle Columbia destroyed on reentry (Feb. 2003)
  8. Mars Rovers bounce to successful landings and missions
    1. Spirit (June 2003)
    2. Opportunity (July 2003)
  9. Saddam Hussein captured (Dec. 2003)
  10. Assault weapon ban expires (Sept. 2004)
  11. Online Wonders
    1. Amazon.com
    2. Facebook
    3. Twitter
    4. Google
    5. YouTube
    6. Wikipedia
  12. Indian Ocean Earthquake/Tsunami (Dec. 2004)
  13. Pope John Paul dies (Apr. 2005)
  14. Global Warming
  15. Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005)
  16. Virginia Tech Massacre (Apr. 2007)
  17. Global Economic Disaster (2007-08)
    1.  Financial giants collapse
    2.  Housing market collapses
    3. Auto industry collapses
    4. Massive unemployment
  18. Price of gas soars, and falls….as a function of conservative politics
  19. Barack Obama elected as President (Nov. 2008)
  20. Nuclear weapons
    1. Iraq
    2. North Korea

The Twenty-oh’s began with the most bizarre Presidential election in American history, followed by the most shocking attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, followed by two United States initiated wars that would be fought simultaneously, followed by the loss of the Space Shuttle and its crew on reentry to Earth, followed by an earthquake/tsunami that would kill almost a quarter of a million people in 14 countries in one day, followed by a massacre at Virginia Tech, followed by a near meltdown of our global financial system, followed by an African-American being elected as President.

THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE FAILURE
Despite all that happened, it was politics that defined the 2000’s. Keeping with the two-faced Reagan policy of “America Can’t” and money must be taken from the poor and given to the rich, President George Bush took the cost of running two wars off the books so that he could look like he was cutting government spending when he was, in fact, putting the government deeper in debt and running massive deficits.

Behind the scenes, a decade of conservative-driven deregulation in the financial industry created a bad debt bomb that exploded in 2007-08. Almost overnight, America’s economy was devastated by greed and a lack of common sense. People who saw the disaster coming took the attitude that everyone else was unethical, so why should I be the only good person? When the curtain fell on Wall Street, Republicans, who created the environment for the disaster, quietly stepped away and whistling as if they were unaware there was a problem.

Bush 43, was completely out of his league in dealing with the problem. To repair the damage to our economy would require taking actions that was would essentially prove that the Reagan doctrine was the cause of the disaster, and President Bush was not willing to take the necessary actions. Fortunately, Barack Obama had just been elected and, with Bush impotent in action, the 44th President stepped up and began to manage the crisis and establishing a plan of recovery.

The Republican caused disaster did not cause conservatives to humbly acknowledge their failure, but rather pushed them to further deny the facts. As the economy began recovering, conservatives began blaming Democrats for not making the recovery happen faster. As conservative predictions of Democratic policy failure began to be proven wrong, conservatives began raising absurd and meaningless issues to redirect people’s attention (e.g.; Obama was not an American, Obama was a Muslim, Obama had a secret plan to take everyone’s guns away, etc.) 

Because the Reagan doctrine was based on white, 1950’s suburban thinking, the hate for President Obama came naturally to the white, male voter. Instead of a political correction for the failed Reagan agenda, conservatives became even more rabid and illogical. By the end of the decade America was heading for defeat at the hands of conservatives who had taken away American prosperity and were unwilling to accept any idea that didn’t match their failed version of the world.

NEXT:  Epilogue

THE SERIES:  The 1950’s    The 1960’s    The 1970’s    The 1980’s    The 1990’s

This is Why (2015 vs the 1990’s)

18 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, College, Communication, Crisis Management, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Politics, Religion, Respect, Science, Space, Taxes, Traditional Media, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1990's, Americans with disabilities act, Bill Clinton, Congress, Contract With America, George H. W. Bush, healthcare reform, Immigration, immigration laws, Manuel Noriega, NAFTA, World Wide Web

The 1990’s – A World Turned Upside Down

An Explosion of Change

  • Population:  248.7 million
  • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita:  $35,145
  • Median Annual Income:  $28,149
  • Life Expectancy:  75.4
  •  Average Age at Marriage:   Men 26.1, Women 23.9
  • % of pop. w/high school degree or higher:  77.6%
  • % of pop. w/college degree or higher:  21.3% 

POLITICS:  The Clean Up Man
George H. W. Bush was sworn in as President on January 20, 1989, as the 41st President of the United States. Having served as Vice President under Ronald Reagan, he was loyal and didn’t interfere with President Reagan’s destructive agenda. As President he then was left to clean up the messes created by Reagan and deal with new problems. Despite all that he had to deal with, President Bush managed to restore some of what Reagan had destroyed. This angered extreme conservatives who then refused to support him in his second term election.

Bush dealt with 1) an inflated deficit left by Reagan, 2) a revenue shortfall that required higher taxes, 3) restoring democracy in Panama and capturing Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, and, 4) liberated Kuwait and drove Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army back in a humiliating defeat. In addition, President Bush pushed through Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the Immigration Act of 1990, that opened the borders for a 40% increase in legal immigrants. He maintained a conservative stance on most issues; however, President Bush did not hesitate to act against Wacko conservatives. When the National Rifle Association (NRA) sent out material slandering Federal Agents as “Thugs,” he ended his lifetime membership to the organization.

POLITICS:  Clinton’s Capitulation
From a political standpoint, the Presidency of Bill Clinton was a study in contrasts. His election was considered a victory for Democrats and liberals, yet he constantly compromised his positions to pacify aggressive conservatives. Almost all efforts for additional programs to help Americans in need, including healthcare reform, failed to move forward during the Clinton administration. Conservatives, who were disappointed at Bush 41’s rollback of Reagan’s efforts to dismantle the federal government, were determined to win Congress and reignite the agenda that favored white and wealthy Americans.

In 1994, conservative Republican Newt Gingrich was elected on the basis of his Contract With America. This document (co-authored with Republican Representative Dick Armey) outlined several reasonable goals to bring more accountability to Congress and the government, but was laced with several goals that followed Ronald Reagan’s vision to cut funding and eliminate the government’s role of overseeing fairness in business. President Clinton was faced with vetoing all legislation, or caving in to conservatives. In his 1996 State of the Union address Clinton delighted conservatives when he announced that “the era of big government is over.” 

As a result of Clinton’s capitulation, many laws were passed in his second term that continued Reagan’s destruction of good government. The financial disaster in 2007-08 can be directly traced to legislation passed and/or repealed in the 1990’s during the Clinton administration. Congress removed federal government eyes off of key areas of financial interactions. The laws and rules that had set standards on key banking and investor interactions were eviscerated allowing a ‘no questions asked’ environment. The natural evolution of this environment was for greed to take priority over common sense, which is exactly what happened.

THE SEISMIC EVENT IN PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Outside of the political landscape, the rest of America was becoming comfortable with the concept of owning ‘personal’ computers, and the new World Wide Web offered to interconnect computers creating a digital network of communication. It’s hard to overstate the impact of the marriage of computers and the Internet. It turned everything we knew upside down. Consider the following:

  • While personal computers increased the efficiency of certain tasks, it was the computer hooked into the Internet that made world-wide instant communication and sharing of information commonplace.
  • Television, radio, and newspapers shaped the public perception of world events until the Internet gave access to massive numbers of people who often had more timely information than traditional news media sources.
  • Younger generations adapted quickly to the possible uses of the Internet while older generations scoffed at its impact. As young generations rode the tide of the Internet, Older generations were left aground, looking foolish and ignorant.
  • Unethical governments and corporations would discover too late that their version of events would be exposed as lies and distortions by citizens who had access to the truth and shared it through the Internet. It literally brought down some governments.

The tsunami of change caused by the Internet wouldn’t hit the world until the next decade, but the earthquake of the Internet was felt in the 1990’s.

NEXT:  The 2000’s

THE SERIES:  The 1950’s    The 1960’s    The 1970’s    The 1980’s    Epilogue

This is Why (2015 vs the 1980’s)

15 Sunday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Communication, Crisis Management, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Respect, Space, Taxes, Technology, Traditional Media, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1980, 1980's, Afghanistan, American Hostage Crisis, civil war, Cold War, Communism, FBI informant, George Bush, Grenada, Iran, Iran-Contra, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, patriotism, Ronald Reagan, Russia, Soviets, USSR

The 1980’s – Political Con Game

President Ronald Reagan:  Actor, Cowboy, FBI Informant

President Ronald Reagan: Actor, Cowboy, FBI Informant

  • Population:  226.5 million
  • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita:  $28,957
  • Median Annual Income:  $16,354
  • Life Expectancy:  73.7
  •  Average Age at Marriage:   Men 24.7, Women 22.0
  • % of pop. w/high school degree or higher:  66.5%
  • % of pop. w/college degree or higher:  16.2% 

THE COWBOY PRESIDENT
The Republican leadership had been tainted by President Nixon’s Watergate scandal. In order to move back into power they needed a fresh face, and Ronald Reagan, an experienced actor, became that face. Reagan mostly had played nice guys and cowboys in the movies which formed the basis of his political persona. He was twice elected as Governor of California but twice (1968 and 1976) failed to gain the Republican party nomination in his quest to be President.

Ronald Reagan, who, in 1976, had fallen just short of winning the Republican nomination from incumbent President Gerald Ford, had finally won the party’s nomination and found himself as the beneficiary of the perfect storm of political crisis in 1979, that sunk President Jimmy Carter. As if to emphasize his luck, the American hostages in Iran were released on January 20, 1981, the same day that Ronald Reagan was sworn into office as President.

THE ERA OF WE CAN’T
President Reagan believed that government was to blame for America’s woes. Despite the role of the American corporation in damaging the our public image in the Middle East and their greed in price gouging that spurred inflation, Reagan proposed that it was the government that was at issue, not American business. He sold the idea to the public that America Can’t, meaning that government can’t and shouldn’t help its citizens to a better life. Reagan convinced the public that the wealthy are to be worshiped and the poor are guilty of laziness, so the government shouldn’t interfere with the natural order.

In his first year as President he pushed through tax cuts for those in the upper tax brackets (70% down to 50%) and in the lowest tax bracket (14% down to 11%,) buying him goodwill with all citizens; however, in 1986 he pushed through additional tax reform that cut the upper tax bracket down to 28% and increased the lower tax bracket to 15%, making the lowest wage earners pay more in taxes than they did when he took office. The irony of his tax increase on the lowest tax bracket was that his “Supply Side Economics” depended on people having more money to spend, which they didn’t by the end of his second term.

FALSE PATRIOTISM
Like many conservatives, Reagan’s patriotism was limited to only those who were of the same mindset. He was staunchly against communism and during the late 1940’s, he and his wife served as FBI informants, ratting out anyone in Hollywood they thought to be sympathetic to communists. This hate for communism manifested during his presidency in massive funding of weapon systems that forced the Soviet Union into military spending that they could not afford while they were also in an active war in Afghanistan.

Reagan, like most post-Vietnam war conservatives learned that showy patriotism for the American soldier as a warrior was vital in keeping the younger generation at bay when they were sacrificed to protect American business interests around the world. Reagan involved America in the invasion of Grenada (1983,) Lebanon Civil War (1983, ) and the bombing of Libya (1986.)

Reagan’s administration also defied Congress by secretly selling weapons to Iran, the country that held Americans hostage for over a year, and gave the money to an anti-communist group in Nicaragua. Later investigations could not prove Reagan’s direct involvement in the scandal; however, the reasoning behind the incident matched Reagan’s staunch anti-communist sentiments.

REAGAN’S TOPPLING OF THE CARDBOARD SOVIET UNION
President Reagan biggest con with the American people was his two-faced position on spending. He wailed loudly about the government spending too much and took money out of the hands that needed it the most, but in reality he was the Big Spender when it came to the military. He tripled the deficit during his eight years as President leaving his successor, George Bush, to try to find ways to pay for Reagan’s uncontrolled military spending.

Fortunately, for President Reagan, America was able to survive his addiction for spending, which was not true for the Soviet Union’s effort to keep pace with the United States. After spending too much on the Soviet space program, (that failed to advance technology for the common Russian citizen,) Soviet involvement in a 10-year war in Afghanistan, (that sent the mighty Russian army home without any significant achievement,) and building up the military might to match Reagan’s excessive spending, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic went bankrupt.

The internal economic meltdown in Russia had a chain reaction with all of the Soviet aligned countries. Desperate East Germans sought to flee the economic disaster in their country and rejoin their cousins in West Germany. This eventually forced the East German government to either kill millions of their citizens, or open the borders completely. The fall of the Berlin Wall within a year after Reagan left office was quickly credited to him by conservatives who lauded his prowess in defeating a cardboard empire. The fact that it was self-inflicted wounds that caused the collapse of USSR and the other communist countries was ignored by those who wanted to glorify a cardboard President.

A LEGACY OF DEFEAT
As Reagan passed the conservative baton to George Bush at the end of the decade, America was fading as the world’s economic and technological leader. Government had been the catalyst in bringing America out of the Great Depression, beating the odds in World War II, improving our roads, building dams and power lines, and in countless other projects that no private business would dare attempt. The money spent by our government went directly into the hands of the private contractor, who then used it to pay employees and buy services and equipment from other private businesses.

But President Ronald Reagan ended that by using the government as the scapegoat for the misdeeds of the corporation. Without any proof the public accepted his premise that government was the problem and then he began to dismantle government and give the money to the wealthy.  It was a master deception by the actor/cowboy who pulled off one of the greatest political cons since Hitler.

NEXT:  The 1990’s

THE SERIES:  The 1950’s    The 1960’s    The 1970’s     The 2000’s    Epilogue

This is Why (2015 vs the 1970’s)

15 Sunday Mar 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Crisis Management, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Taxes, Traditional Media, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1973 oil embargo, Afghanistan, American Hostage Crisis, Arab, Conservatives, Democrat, Egypt, fuel, GOP, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Munich Massacre, Munich Olympic Games, OAPEC, oil, oil prices, oil shortages, OPEC, petroleum, President Gerald Ford, President Jimmy Carter, President Richard Nixon, Republican, Russia, Soviets, Syria, USSR, Watergate, Yom Kipper War

The 1970’s – American Implosion

The Decade of Oil Domination

  • Population:  203.2 million
  • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita:  $23,381
  • Median Annual Income:  $7,559
  • Life Expectancy:  70.8
  •  Average Age at Marriage:   Men 23.2, Women 20.6
  • % of pop. w/high school degree or higher:  52.3%
  • % of pop. w/college degree or higher:  10.7% 

ENEMIES DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN
America was rocked by the internal conflicts during the 1960’s, and the 1970’s did little to sooth the hearts and minds of the citizens. Inflation slowed slightly in 1970, only to be followed by recession. Then the White House was rocked in 1972, by an ever-growing scandal called ‘Watergate’ after the place where Republican operatives attempted to break into Democratic headquarters. Over the next year it would be revealed that the Republican party, including President Richard Nixon played dirty politics during the President’s re-election campaign and then used power tactics to cover up their misdeeds.

In the Fall of 1972, the world was shaken by a group of Palestinians that took Israeli athletes hostage in Germany’s Summer Olympic Games. The Palestinians were given logistical assistance by German Neo-Nazis which helped them penetrate the athlete’s living area and capture eleven of the Israel delegation (two of the eleven were killed during the invasion of the Israeli rooms.) As the world watched, the Germans eventually attempted a botched night rescue as the hostages were moved to an airport. The German snipers were untrained and had no night vision equipment. Every aspect of the German rescue plan was flawed and the Palestinians eventually made a decision to kill all hostages during a stalemate in the fighting.

In October of 1973, Israel responded to a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria (the Yom Kipper War) with a counter attack. The United States and Russia quickly began resupplying their allies (US/Israel and USSR/Syria-Egypt) with arms and materials. In response the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, later OPEC) began a six month oil embargo that created massive fuel shortages in the United States. This caused the price of oil to rise from $3/barrel to $12/barrel and sparked a new round of inflation.

OUTCOME: American Politics
By the late 1974, the Watergate scandal had ended in resignations by the Vice President and President. Gerald Ford, who had just replaced the Vice President, became the President and limped his administration through the end of Nixon’s term. By the 1976 elections people were done with the Republican party and Jimmy Carter was thrust into the job of restoring faith in government.

OUTCOME:  Oil, Greed, and the Middle East
The OPEC oil embargo and the Munich Massacre sent a message that America should be focusing on the Middle East, but the Watergate scandal had caused an information overload, so many Americans still saw Russia as the main foreign threat. However, because the Middle East had massive oil reserves it became the most strategic region in the world for oil consuming countries. This caused the governments of Russia and the United States to attempt to secure the region for each country’s own self-interest.

The questionable tactics of unscrupulous American oil companies opened new wounds in the Arab world.  Our public image had been defined by U.S. business and political interference in internal matters of many Arab countries. Americans were caught off guard by the festering hate for America in the Middle East.

OUTCOME:  Economic Instability
The roller coaster of inflation, recession, inflation left Americans with a sense of fear about the economy. The typical American was caught by surprise in 1973 when the oil embargo practically put the United States on its knees. The pride America had after beating the odds in World War II and putting a man on the Moon were all erased by one unethical President and our country’s economic vulnerabilities.

THE NEW HOPE EXTINGUISHED
Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976, brought a new hope to America. That produced a new fear for Republicans. Nothing could hurt conservatives more than to have a Democratic President restore America’s self-confidence. President Carter focused on peace and humanitarian initiatives that conservatives said made America look weak. Fortunately for conservatives, the Middle East would be what they needed to derail the Democrats and return to power.

In 1979, Russia invaded Afghanistan and students in Iran overran the American Embassy and took hostages. At the same time a mythical oil crisis (world oil supply dropped by only 4%) drove oil prices up to $39.50 per barrel in one year. The events dominated the news and overshadowed Carter’s re-election campaign. Republicans successfully used political ads to paint Democrats as out of touch during the worst political crisis of Carter’s administration. The events of 1979 could not have been more perfect for the resurgence of the disgraced conservatives.

NEXT:  The 1980’s

THE SERIES:  The 1950’s    The 1960’s    The 1990’s    2000’s    Epilogue

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Other Pages of This Blog

  • About Paul Kiser
  • Common Core: Are You a Good Switch or a Bad Switch?
  • Familius Interruptus: Lessons of a DNA Shocker
  • Moffat County, Colorado: The Story of Two Families
  • Rules on Comments
  • Six Things The United States Must Do
  • Why We Are Here: A 65-Year Historical Perspective of the United States

Paul’s Recent Blogs

  • Divorce Without Mercy Part 9 – Epilogue
  • Divorce Without Mercy Part 8 – June/July 2026
  • Divorce Without Mercy Part 7 – May 2026
  • Divorce Without Mercy Part 6 – April 2026
  • Divorce Without Mercy Part 5 – March 2026
  • Divorce Without Mercy Part 4 – February 2026
  • Divorce Without Mercy Part 3 – January 2026

Paul Kiser’s Tweets

Tweets by PaulKiser

What’s Up

September 2026
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
« Aug    

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 685 other subscribers

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Loading Comments...