It’s Time To Drop the “C” From NCAA

25 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, College, Education, Ethics, Government, Higher Education, Opinion, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Recreation, Sports, Taxes, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

basketball, Football, National Collegiate Athletic Association, NcAA, University of Nevada, UNR

College football uses its stadium about 8 days a year. It stands as a monument to Higher Education’s waste of resources

Athletes making more appearances in court than in class. Millions of dollars spent to recruit athletes, only to have them jump to a professional league before they graduate. Athletes that have paid staff minders to make sure they go to class, do their homework, and study. Money donated by alumni to only benefit major athletic programs. When will universities admit that big sports is not compatible with higher education?

Money for nothing. Donors giving to big sport programs

The excuses are wearing thin. The NCAA tries to sell the idea during every televised college football or basketball game that the athletes on the field or court will become great scientists, doctors, and lawyers. Of course, the success stories are of athletes of every other sport.

Maybe a donor that will only give to athletics is not the person to associate with higher education?

The marriage between sports and colleges is a joke and it’s time for a divorce. The National Athletic Association (NCAA) should become the National Athletic Association (NAA.) We know college basketball and football athlete’s first, second, and third priorities are in pursuit of a big professional contract. To deny this is just an excuse to make us feel better when they sit in the back of the college classroom playing on their phones.

Make the professional leagues pay for bringing along young athletes and let higher education focus on education.

Air Travel Teaches Us Not To Listen

24 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Government, Government Regulation, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Taxes, Technology, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Airlines, airports, audio, FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, gate agents, gate announcements, PA, public address systems, public announcements

Zombies are real people forced to listen to airport/airline announcements

Airports and airlines are dedicated to teaching people how to not listen.

There are multiple studies, solid scientific research, on how humans respond to communication and how we best learn and retain information. Unfortunately, air travel offers the antithesis of everything we know about communication.

Outdated Audio Technology
Consider the airport. We have the technology for crystal clear sound in any announcement system. Visit a Disney property and you will hear clear announcements. Every word will be perfect with little or no distortion or hiss.

“Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls…”
Disneyland announcement

If we can do it in Disneyland, solely for entertainment purposes, shouldn’t airports invest in the same quality of public announcement (PA) system when it involves matters of even greater importance? PA systems designed to go into ceiling tiles suck. Maybe it’s time we considered a system designed for the airport environment of 2014, not the office building of 1960.

Zoned Out
Every gate at an airport is a different audio zone, and yet few airports have designed PA systems for this environment. Because most airports have overlapping seating at every gate, passengers for one flight could be sitting in any of three gate areas or standing out in the concourse area just outside of the gate. Few airports seem to understand this geographic distribution. Some airports limit gate announcements to one gate area, resulting in flight announcements to be missed by those passengers not in that gate’s audio zone. Other airports group multiple gates into one zone, so that passengers four of five gates away are hearing boarding announcements for every flight in the area.

Over Communication
The greatest sin of airports is over communication. It seems that airports have a perverse need to create ongoing, excessive, annoying noise. Do these sound familiar?

Please keep your bags with you at all times. Unattended baggage may be confiscated and destroyed.

The Federal Aviation Administration allows you to carry up to three containers of liquids, aerosols, and gels. They must be in a clear plastic bag and removed from your luggage for inspection. Please check with your airline for more information.

Do not carry anything in for anyone else….

I have heard these announcements and many more like them while waiting in the gate area. The gate area within TSA’s secure zone. Anyone in this area has been through the security check point and they and their luggage has been searched and cleared. None of these announcements make sense in an area where everyone has been declared safe to board a plane. They are just noise.

At the gate you will also hear multiple announcements by the gate agent. If there is any training involved of gate agents on how to make PA announcements it would not be apparent from my experience in air travel. Recently, I was waiting for a flight in the Newark, New Jersey airport. The longest period I counted without an announcement was nine seconds. Between the meaningless airport general announcements and the multiple gate agent announcements the passengers were bombarded with endless noise.

The Solution
There is important information that passengers need before they board their flight; however, it is impossible for passengers to determine important announcements for the noise generated in an airport. The remedy involves the FAA, Airport Authorities, and the airlines to reevaluate the purpose of airline announcements…actually they need to assign a purpose to their communications.

Better equipment is a must, and better training on how to effectively communicate information over a PA system. Another possibility is to run all announcements through a centralized public address system where boarding announcements would be made by one trained person who filtered information and determined what audio zones would hear it.

There is another approach but it would involve a complete redesign of the concept of an airport. That’s not likely in an industry that took decades to determine that an iPod isn’t a threat to a plane’s avionics.

Management Study for God

19 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Consulting, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Fiction, Generational, Government, History, Human Resources, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Religion, Sports, Tom Peters, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

analysis, females, Gender, God, humans, implementation, males, management study, men, recommendations, review, Women

WORLD MANAGEMENT STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 1, 2014, Kiser and Co. was retained by God to perform a study of the world management. After a thorough review of the processes and effectiveness of the current management practices on Earth we submit the following analysis and make the following recommendations.

ANALYSIS

FINDING ONE: Ineffective World Leadership
Our researchers found the world leadership to be largely ineffective, self-promoting, and in some cases cruel and corrupt. In most advanced civilizations we would expect to see leadership to evolve into higher quality leaders as lessons learned from poor leadership would be applied to avoid repeating past failures. In fact, we have seen the reverse is true in many situations.

Key examples are Russia and North Korea. In both cases, the eventual failures of past leaders who used military force, prisons, politically controlled media, covert police enforcement, and corrupt practices have not deterred the current leadership of these countries to return to, or continue those practices. In addition, religious-based organizations seem to be among the worst offenders in promoting policies and practices that marginalize people and encourage hate and violence.

Immediate changes in world leadership will be required if management of the planet is to move forward.

FINDING TWO: Lack of Vision
There seems to be a lack of concern for the future of the world. Consistently we saw an attitude that can best be described as “What’s in it for me?” Companies focus on next quarter’s profit, not long-term viability. Governments tend to lack any sensitivity toward the underprivileged, tending to blame them for their problems while passing laws that benefit the privileged at the expense of those who cannot afford the basic necessities to survive and prosper.

Again, immediate changes in world leadership will be required if management of the planet is to move forward.

FINDING THREE: Obstruction of Progress
Many in leadership positions use propaganda and destructive techniques to prevent effective management. By focusing on meaningless, but highly controversial issues, some leaders have been able to keep discussions away from relevant issues and waste time through generating anger on topics among key population groups. The result is wild, pointless discussions on issues that cannot be resolved unless everyone works together. The key element in the obstructive leadership’s tactics is to announce that any compromise is a failure. In this way they create an “all or nothing” situation that effectively stops progress.

Again, immediate changes in world leadership will be required if management of the planet is to move forward.

FINDING FOUR: Inequality
We were shocked to discover the issues of inequality. The gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” is vast and continues to grow. People are grouped and identified with certain expectations that determine their treatment by the world’s leadership. Slavery has become replaced with subtle tactics of discrimination that tend to become more bold over time. In many cases, the discriminatory practices have become accepted as normal.

Again, immediate changes in world leadership will be required if management of the planet is to move forward.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite the scope of the problem, the solution is surprisingly simple.

PROPOSAL 1: Downsize the Male Gender
Among the four major findings, men were found to be the principal source of the problem. The current ineffective leadership group (Finding One) is overwhelmingly male dominated and they tend to be the people who demonstrate a lack of vision (Finding Two,) an inability to compromise (Finding Three,) and promote inequality (Finding Four.) Without men almost every current issue disappears without any further action.

Eliminating all males will also result in many benefits. The world population will be dramatically reduced, sexual harassment will virtually end, most, if not all, wars will end, and most pay equality issues will cease. Issue after issue becomes smaller, or disappears completely without men on the planet.

COUNTER FINDINGS
It is difficult to find negatives to this solution; however, here are some of the areas that may feel the impact of downsizing the male gender:

Reproduction — A lack of males would seem to create an issue in the propagation of the human species; however, there is believed to be enough frozen sperm available to continue reproduction on a smaller scale and the new males will be raised in a female-dominated environment, which may weed out the personality and behavior issues of the current male gender.

Male-dominated jobs — There are few jobs that truly require a male worker. Just because females have been excluded from many jobs doesn’t mean they can’t be trained to perform the work effectively.

Sports — Without males, most competitive sports will end. We cannot find a downside to this issue.

IMPLEMENTATION

It is believed that a 100% downsizing of the male gender may not be necessary for an effective change in world management. It might be more advisable to put all males on a 30-day Improvement Required Action. At the end of the 30-days those who have not demonstrated a clear reversal of the findings of this study should be downsized. The remaining males could then be re-evaluated at 60 and 90 days to determine if the initial downsize resolved the problem or not. It is suggested that the changes required should be permanent as a condition of continued existence.

We do have recommendations about downsizing certain females; however, those may be handled on a case by case basis in a closed meeting with Human Resources.

Reno, Nevada: Dead City Walking

04 Tuesday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Business, Crime, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Government, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, The Tipping Point, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Atlantis, casinos, Circus Circus, Eldorado, gambling, gaming, Grand Sierra Resort, hotels, Nevada, Peppermill, properties, Reno, RSCVA, Silver Legacy, The Nugget

The centerpiece of Reno’s future

What makes Reno, Nevada unique? Here are some of the wrong answers:

Mountains – Plenty of cities the size of Reno are next to, or in mountains.
Outdoor Recreation — Again, there are no shortages of cities near outdoor recreation.
Arts — Many cities have art festivals, and most art festivals have more professional (paid) artists, but Reno relies mostly on artists working for free.
Gaming — Absolutely the most non-unique thing about Reno

Reno is Dying
The question about Reno’s uniqueness is critical to the survival of Reno. Over fifty years ago Reno discovered tourism and that vaulted a small desert town into easy money and big growth. The city learned that when people make their money elsewhere and spend it in Reno, the economy of Reno booms.

But for the last decade Reno has lost its uniqueness. Gaming is something you can do at the nearest Indian Casino. If you want to party and see gaudy construction lit up like game show on LSD, then go to Las Vegas. Reno is nothing when it comes to gaming.

Reno’s is Unique
The one thing that Reno has that no other city has is hotel room per capita. Nevada has one hotel room for every 14 residents, and Reno’s ratio equals or exceeds that average. Reno is a city designed for conventions. The problem is how to get convention organizers to consider Reno as a great convention town.

What won’t work is to keep gaming as the attraction. That industry is poison. It demands that the convention goer stay on the property and gamble, which defeats all the other great attractions that might attract repeat business, and American business people do not want to pay for their employees to go and party. The best thing that could happen in Reno is for gaming to be made illegal.

The other challenge is to get all the properties to work as one. That doesn’t happen that often. One property can shoot the city’s bid for a convention down by not cooperating.

However, if Reno can let go of gaming and focus on the big picture, it could be made into the premier convention town.

That’s a big ‘If.’

The Seduction of Anger

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Generational, Health, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Opinion, parenting, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Anger, anger addict, anger management, angry, rage, Violence

Anger sucks you in, then eats you up

I have noticed something about people (including myself) and anger. For most of us, anger is seductive. Despite popular belief, it feels really good to get angry. There is pleasure in it. Yelling and screaming, ranting, and losing control is self-satisfying. We let go of the constraints of good behavior as we explore the limits of bad behavior.

Often, our anger follows a logical thread, but anger doesn’t need logic to fan the flames. When we’re angry we choose facts based on how well they support the reasoning we want, not what is reasonable. We also look to find old issues that our compromising or humiliating to the person we are arguing with, in order to verbally attack their vulnerabilities.

In the heat of our anger we feel powerful because we see ourselves as righteous and pure in our cause for perceived injustices. Anger gives us license to ignore anyone else’s viewpoint because they don’t agree with you, therefore, they must be wrong.

How To Respond To Anger
Ignoring someone’s anger is not a solution. Ignoring an angry person enables him or her through a belief that the behavior is appropriate. Direct confrontation with the person is also inappropriate as it is likely he or she is not rationale, nor are they interested in a logical discussion.

If it is appropriate, a person expressing overt anger can be removed from the situation providing they can be paired with a calm, non-threatening person while they de-escalate. If that is not appropriate and the person seems capable of harming themselves or others, another tactic is to become their ally. Agreeing with them and helping them to make a plan of addressing the issues causing the anger may defuse them long enough to disengage from the anger.

This tactic cannot be sarcastic, nor condescending in any way. It may also require lying to the person; however, if physical harm is a possibility, lying is a small price to pay to avoid someone becoming hurt. Once you have lied to a person who is angry, you may have damaged the relationship beyond recovery, so it should not be done unless all other options have been exhausted.

Once out of the situation, the person should be directed to counseling. It may be helpful to see an angry person as an addict who turns to rage for their high, and just like an addict, the person needs expert help to disconnect from the need for a fix.

Exposing a Bully is Not Bullying

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Honor, Human Resources, Internet, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Opinion, parenting, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Women

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

bully, bullying, Dr. Peggy Drexler, Kelly Blazek

During this past week much has been written (including myself) about the case of a person in a position of power, Kelly Blazek, the gatekeeper of a Cleveland, Ohio jobs listing for marketing positions, writing a nasty email to a job seeker. Blazek’s language in the email was unyielding in her attempt to embarrass and humiliate the job seeker. Blazek was using her power to bully someone who was in an inferior position.

Therefore, I was shocked when I read an ‘Opinion‘ on CNN.com by Dr. Peggy Drexler, who wrote that by publicizing the email and seeking attention to the bullying, the job seeker:

“….acted with malice, and caused the older woman significant damage…”

The specific language suggests that Dr. Drexler is encouraging Blazek, the person who was the bully, to sue the victim on the grounds of malice, libel, and/or age discrimination. One might question as to whether Dr. Drexler’s motives were that of an ambulance chaser, seeking to be employed by Blazek as an ‘expert’ witness in a civil suit.

Dr. Drexler’s opinion piece did describe the nature of Blazek’s email; however, she softened Blazek’s misdeeds by saying:

“Blazek’s words were, of course, undeniably, and likely unnecessarily, harsh”

In her opinion piece, Dr. Drexler masterfully works around the most blatant language in Blazek’s email and, in at least one place, segmented the quoted language so that the most vicious remark doesn’t look like it was the climax of the rest of the paragraph. She also uses Blazek’s “Communicator of the Year” recognition as a reference of her skills, rather than the irony that is obvious after reading a complete version of Blazek’s blistering email. The most damning paragraph from Blazek’s email is missing from Dr. Drexler’s opinion:

“I suggest you join the other Job Bank in town. Oh wait — there isn’t one.”

Dr. Drexler admits that Blazek’s behavior was wrong:

“No question, Blazek lashed out first, with unprofessional behavior that can only be described as bullying.”

However, Dr. Drexler seems to enable Blazek’s behavior by accusing the job seeker:

“But Mekota responding in kind makes her no less a bully.”

In Dr. Drexler’s world, when bullied, sit back and take. Don’t fight back and don’t call out the bully. Other professionals have a different take on how to respond to a bully. In responding to adult bullying, Mental Health Support (from the United Kingdom) suggests the following :

“…if you find yourself the victim of bullying, a bully’s bad behaviour is entirely his or her responsibility, not yours,…”

The website goes on to say:

“Once you have identified a bully and know what to expect from him or her, you must choose not to be a victim, if you want the bullying to stop. Expose the bullying for what it is. Take a stand, and don’t back down…”

“…The important point here is to expose the bully and call him or her to account. Confrontation and exposure, with evidence to support a victim’s accusations, are what the bully tries hardest to avoid. Once exposure happens, the bullying is likely to stop.”

There was an injustice done to Ms. Blazek, but that was from Dr. Drexler in attempting to sanctify Blazek’s behavior by accusing the job seeker of an equal act. Dr. Drexler’s portrait of Blazek as the older woman, victimized by the young, evil job seeker, causing her to lose her career and disappear from social media is absurd. The job seeker did not write the email, nor did she make the decision to shut down Blazek’s websites and social media accounts. Blazek was in the wrong and the damage to her career rests solely in her hands.

The Blazek Syndrome

01 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Ethics, Generational, Honor, Human Resources, Internet, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Opinion, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Social Media Relations, Women

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Blazek Syndrome, Cleveland, head hunter, humility, job search, Kelly Blazek, LinkedIn, Marketing, Ohio, Twitter, Wordpress

Kelly Blazek – Armed with a keyboard and dangerous

You may not recognize the name Kelly Blazek, but she is the poster child for public image disaster. When people wonder how bad personal embarrassment can be, we now have Blazek as our code word for really, really bad.

Kelly Blazek is probably a decent human being, but what she will be remembered for is her moments of ‘Ms. Hyde’ behavior. She founded a job bank listing for marketing and public relations positions in the Cleveland, Ohio area. She had a WordPress blog and Twitter, LinkedIn accounts. Head hunter Blazek was also recognized as “Communicator of the Year.” by a local business group.

Within a matter of days she went from a leader in her field to a ghost. There is no blog site, no Twitter account, nor any trace of her other than a growing number of postmortems in blogs and news articles of her epic nasty responses to people who reached out to her.

The Blazek Syndrome
Her story is a step-by-step, what-not-to-do in business.

STEP ONE: Don’t let frustrations with the job spill over into your communications and interactions.

Among the most notorious of her responses, Blazek reacted to a college graduate seeking to connect with her as part of her job search. Her manner that can best be described as vile. Among the barrage of hateful statements were the following:

“I love the sense of entitlement in your generation. And therefore I enjoy Denying (sic) your invite…. (to connect on LinkedIn.)”

“I suggest you join the other Job Bank in town. Oh wait — there isn’t one.”

“You’re welcome for your humility lesson for the year.”

Everyone has a bad day, but any business person should know that what you write is what will save you or hang you. There is no excuse Blazek could offer for her verbal abuse of this job seeker.

STEP TWO: Making a mistake, even as massive as this one, does not mean it’s the final chapter. Life is not over and running and hiding will not help.

Blazek has compounded the crisis by trying to disappear. When sharks smell blood of a wounded fish they go into a frenzy. By disengaging from social media, people may lose interest, but what will remain is the public shame. The best time to do damage repair is while people are still paying attention

STEP THREE: Apologize over and over.

Instead of deleting social media accounts, use them. In a public image crisis people need to hear every possible sincere apology, but do NOT attempt to offer excuses.

STEP FOUR: Listen to what is being said and respond with humility.

Remember BP’s Tony Hayward remark, “I want my life back.” The public image crisis is over when people say its over, not when the disgraced person wants it to be over. Read what other people are saying and respond in a kind and humble way to as many people as you can. Make the story about the lesson learned.

Arizona ‘Religious Freedom’ Law Not About Religion

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Ethics, Generational, Government, Honor, Opinion, Politics, Religion

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arizona, Caucasian, gay, Governor Jan Brewer, House of Representatives, lesbian, LGBT, racism, racist, religion, religious freedom, SB 1062, Senate, Senators, white

Discussion about Arizona’s “Religious Freedom” law that passed the Senate and the House last week continues as speculation grows on whether or not Governor Jan Brewer will veto it, sign it, or fall asleep. Apparently Governor Brewer seems to be having difficulty understanding the two-page document and isn’t capable of reading it on the Internet.

The law (Arizona Senate Bill 1062) encourages businesses to discriminate against anyone who doesn’t meet their personal definition of ‘moral.’ The bill allows businesses to target at people who are in a single-sex relationship and refuse them service; however, the law is so badly written that a business could discriminate against anyone who doesn’t sign a petition against abortion.

Still, Senate Bill 1062 is not about religion. It is about race, namely white people.

Arizona is 57% Caucasian, 30% Hispanic, and 13% other races (2012 data.) Senate Bill 1062 was passed by a 57% margin (17-13) in the Senate and a 55% margin (33-27) in the House. In the Senate the vote was strictly on party lines. In the House, three Republicans voted against the bill.

What is interesting are the faces of those who voted for the legislation that encourages businesses to discriminate:

SENATE

Arizona Senators voting for SB 1062

HOUSE

Arizona House members voting for SB 1062

If there seems to be a lack of color in those who voted for Senate Bill 1062, there is, and there is also a lack of Spanish surnames voting for the law. This pageant is almost exclusively brought to you by white conservatives who are screaming, “ATTENTION MUST BE PAID!”

Most people agree that Arizona doesn’t need this law. Business can already discriminate against single-sex couples and lesbians and gays have no legal recourse. This law is a childish gesture by white conservatives as a show of power. Governor Brewer ridiculous excuses of why she hasn’t made a decision on whether to sign the bill or not is her bottomless desire to take the spotlight. When she vetoes the bill, the old, white woman wants to wag her bony finger at everyone and proclaim, “You just watch out or we’ll do something even more stupid than this!”

And they probably will.

(UPDATE: Approximately three hours after this article was published and publicized on Twitter under the hashtag #JanBrewer, Governor Brewer held a press conference and vetoed SB 1062.)

Armed Teacher Games

13 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crime, Crisis Management, Education, Ethics, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, Lessons of Life, Opinion, parenting, Politics, Universities, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

2nd Amendment, active shooter, Active shooter scenarios, Arming Teachers, elementary school, gun laws, gun rights, K-12, law enforcement, National Rifle Association, NRA, school, school violence, War Games

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?

ARMED TEACHER SCENARIOS

STUDENT DISCOVERY
First grader finds hiding place of gun when teacher isn’t looking and pretends to shoot friend not realizing he’s released the safety. Kills the student. WINNER: NONE

STUDENT WITH INTENT
Student learns where teacher keeps gun. One day student is despondent and decides to commit suicide and take others with him. Kills teacher, kills two students, kills self. WINNER: NONE

DESPONDENT TEACHER
Teacher despondent after a series of life-changing events. Takes out gun and shoots self in front of classroom. Teacher dead. WINNER: NONE

LOUD NOISE
Teacher responds to loud noise in hallway. See a person with a gun and shoots them. Other person is another teacher with a gun also investigating the loud noise. Teacher dead. WINNER: NONE

STUDENT WITH GUN
Teacher sees a student with a gun. Accesses gun and yells at student to drop weapon, student turns, teacher shoots the student. Student was taking prop fake gun for school play back to office to be secured. Student dead. WINNER: NONE

ACTIVE SHOOTER CONFRONTATION
Teacher hears popping in hallway. Accesses gun and opens door. Active shooter with assault weapon shoots teacher, enters open classroom door, shoots students who have no time to hide or escape. Teacher dead, 25 students dead. WINNER: NONE.

OK CORRAL SHOOTOUT
Teacher hears popping noise in hallway. Accesses gun as shooter enters classroom. Gun battle ensues resulting in Teacher, shooter, and several students killed. WINNER: NONE.

ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE
Teacher hears popping noise in hallway. Accesses gun. Begins to quietly evacuate students to safety, but accidentally discharges gun and shoots one of the students. WINNER: NONE

ACCIDENTAL POLICE SHOOTING
Teacher hears popping noise in hallway. Evacuates students to safe area and returns classroom. Accesses gun. Identifies shooter. Kills shooter. Police enter, see a person with gun and orders the person to drop their gun. Person turns, police shoot and kill teacher. WINNER: NONE.

STRANGE GAME. IT SEEMS THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY.

Romney Adds Insult to Stupidity

02 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Communication, Crisis Management, Opinion, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Great Britain, London, Mitt Romney, Olympics, Russia, safety, security, Sochi, terrorism, Willard Mitt Romney, Winter Olympics

It’s Romney’s nature to be insulting, but couldn’t he just get a radio talk show so we wouldn’t notice him?

In 2012, Mitt Romney embarrassed himself and our country when he was asked about Security at the 2012 London Summer Olympic games. He could have said:

I’m not part of the security planning for the games this year, so I can’t answer that, but I those people involved in planning security for the games know what is at stake and I’m sure they will do everything possible to anticipate and address any security threats to the safety of the London Olympic games.

Or he could have just said:

I’m not part of the organizational committee this year, so I can’t answer that question.

Instead he said that he saw:

...a few things that were disconcerting……The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.

He insulted Great Britain, the International Olympic Committee, the London Summer Olympic games, and cast doubt on the safety for everyone attending the London games. In the end, the London Summer Olympic games went without any security issues and Mitt Romney lost the election.

Fast forward to 2014. The Sochi Winter Olympic games have been overshadowed by fears of terrorist attacks as the games are being held near areas of recent bombings. In addition, the Sochi games have been notable in making Russian President Vladimir Putin’s friends rich and the games have been labeled as the most corrupt in history.

So what is business-oriented Mitt Romney’s response when he is asked about security at the Winter games. He could have said any number of things that would have made up for his past insult and avoided placing him in a position of judgement on Russia or Great Britain, but this is Mitt Romney, so he said:

I believe the Games will be safe…

SLAP! Without mentioning that he was wrong in 2012, he implies that the Russians know what they are doing and the British didn’t. Romney insults Great Britain again and suggests that he knows something he really doesn’t. He then says that he would be comfortable sending his family to the Sochi games. London was risky, but Sochi could be a family vacation? Ouch.

Great Britain, I sincerely apologize for Mitt Romney. But to be fair, you’ve had your share of badly behaved Royals. We are trying to make up for it with stupid rich people. I think we’re winning.

Nevada Middle School Shooting Made Worse By Absent and Inept Public Relations Management

04 Wednesday Dec 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Opinion, Print Media, Public Relations, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Traditional Media, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

crisis, Crisis Management, guns, Nevada, Reno, School shooting, Sparks, Sparks Middle School, Washoe County School District, WCSD

On October 21st a 12 year-old Nevada boy brought a gun to his school, killed a teacher, shot two other students, then killed himself. The shooting left families devastated in a continuing saga of gun-related school incidents. Sadly, the crisis was intensified and prolonged by the failure of the local authorities to use standard and best practices in managing public relations. At times it seemed that there was a vacuum in media management. At other times it seemed that government officials from China had been employed to handle community relations.

Sparks Middle School – A tragedy made worse

In any crisis situation there is panic followed by confusion, rumors, and fear. The first goal is to resolve the immediate crisis. In most situations this will involve turning over control of the facilities and situation to law enforcement and other first responders.

However, the second goal of an organization in a crisis is to reduce the confusion, rumors, and fears. This process must start as quickly as possible, and sometimes it must be done before the crisis is under control by first responders.

In the Nevada incident, parents throughout the Reno community¹ were aware of an active shooter on a local school campus within minutes of the 7:15 AM shooting incident. There were 20 to 30 eyewitnesses when the teenager shot a teacher, who then reportedly went into the school and killed himself . It was all over within a few minutes.

(¹The shooting occurred in Sparks, Nevada, a suburb of Reno.)

In the first hours following the shooting some rumors persisted that police were looking for the suspect; however, it is likely that law enforcement on the scene knew within ten to fifteen minutes that shooter was dead. With the suspect dead, the priorities of the first responders were to render assistance to the wounded, secure the students and school, secure the crime scene, and gather information.

Children became the official source of the shooting

Children became the official information source of the shooting

At least eight different sources were quoted in the first few hours after the shooting. This would indicate that the Washoe County School District and the various law enforcement agencies responding did not select a skilled spokesperson to manage the post-shooting situation. At 7:42 AM, less than 30 minutes after the shooting, the Reno Gazette Journal reported the following:

A shooting had occurred at Sparks Middle School
A police spokesperson had confirmed that the shooter was ‘neutralized’
Police were looking for the suspect
The school was on lockdown
The students had been evacuated

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the information coming from the crime scene in the first hour of the incident will be in conflict; however, the role of the primary spokesperson is to rapidly identify rumors and incorrect facts and address them. Two hours after the shooting a press conference was held. This was the opportunity for local authorities to reduce anxiety, confusion, and fear by detailing critical information. By answering as many of the basic questions (who, what, where, when, why, how) as possible the public could be reassured that despite the tragedy, authorities knew what happened and had the situation under control. After the press conference the Reno Gazette Journal reported:

“Authorities released few details about a shooting at about 7:15 a.m. at Sparks Middle School during a 9:15 a.m. press conference.”

If the families of the dead and wounded had not been notified then it would not have been appropriate to release the names; however, authorities wouldn’t even confirm whether teachers or students had been shot. Students began reporting what happened to the media and with no cooperation from local authorities, the families were contacted. That is the symptom of absent or inept media management.

Forcing Children To Be Spokespeople
Within minutes after the shooting word spread, not just within the local community, but around the world. Instantly parents, grandparents, relatives, and friends of school-age children began asking questions. What school? Was anyone killed? How many were shot? Who was killed or injured? Was it over? Why did it happen? Is my child/grandchild safe?

By withholding the details the local authorities did not withhold the story they just lost management of it. Without an official source for information the witnesses, in this case, mostly children, became the official spokesperson. To make the blunders of the first day worse, suburban police and city officials refused to release the name of the shooter for three days, citing that his name did not appear on any ‘report.’

The Public’s Right To Know Not the Correct Issue
Local media was incensed by the stonewalling of the authorities to release the name; however, this was more than an issue of the public’s Right to Know. The stated reason by authorities to withhold the shooter’s name was to protect the family, the failure to release this information put more focus on the shooter’s family to confirm or deny the rumors that were rampant within the community.

A skilled spokesperson would have understood this and worked to ensure that the information was appropriately released while also urging the media to respect the family’s need to grieve.

Who Owns Information?
In the 20th century mass communication came with a catch. Access to information could be controlled. The public knew what the government, public relations staff, editors, and news directors wanted us to know. That changed with the Internet and Social Media. Information is fluid and it will flow through any conduit it can find. Information desired by the public will find the quickest path and anyone who believes they can stop the flow of it is only diverting it through another source. A spokesperson can and should be the quickest path for facts and information because it will reduce the fear, confusion and rumors.

The mishandling of the crisis in Nevada should serve as a lesson as to why a skilled, experienced crisis manager and spokesperson should be a part of every organization. No tragedy should be made worse by inept local authorities.

Five Rules For Taking Images of Your Children

01 Monday Jul 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Lessons of Life, Opinion, parenting, Photography, Random, Recreation, Technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

camera, children, D60, digital, Family, how to, Image, Nikon, photo, pictures, portrait

I’m an image horse. From my first film-hungry Nikon FM in the 1970’s to the inexpensive, but utilitarian digital Nikon D60, I’ve recorded life through my camera lens. I’m not a professional, but I’ve logged years with landscape, micro, macro, stellar, animal, model, and most other forms of photography.

The one type of photography I dislike most is the type that parents love to do, take semi-posed pictures of people. Every time I hear a parent say, “Smile! Smile! Come on, SMILE!,” I cringe. I don’t know who started the “Smile” prompting, but it is the worst thing anyone can ask of the subject of an image to do. It is saying to the child (or adult), “We want you to fake an emotion so we can show you faking an emotion to other people.”

Humans don’t fake emotions well. In fact, we are horrible at faking emotions. Children are the worst. A fake smile is marked by a tight facial expression around the mouth, bared teeth, and cringed eyes. Unfortunately, the people who take these horrible images are often rewarded by comments like, “Oh, he looks so handsome,” or “They look like they’re having such a great time!” Of course people are going to compliment your picture-taking ability, they want it to end!

This doesn’t mean people need to take sad or “how-long-do-I-have-to-stand-here?” pictures. There are a few simple rules that will avoid taking fake pictures of people you love.

Image Composition is YOUR Job, Not Their’s
Instead of going for the posed shot, which everyone hates to be involved in, position yourself so that you can take a REAL image of what is happening. From talking to playing children (and adults) in action are much more interesting than a posed shot. You want a recorded image of people engaged in life, not the camera, so you must do the work required of any good photographer, not them.

Does Fake Happy Really Tell The Story?
Sometimes children can be intensely focused on a task, or interacting with others. WHY would you want to stop this intensity and fake a smile for the image? Take the picture that tells the story instead of the fake happy picture that makes them look stupid.

If You Demand Happy, Make It Real
Okay, happy children can be a great image, but if you must have that type of image, make them laugh naturally. Ask questions like, “who’s the stupidest person with a camera?” When they laugh and point at you, take the picture. I guarantee that image will be better than the one where you said, “Smile!”

Be Unseen and Patient
It’s almost always better to hang around for a while before you take the picture. Look for the best composition, the best angle, and become part of the background. They may notice you, but children attention spans are marvelously short and they have a Jedi-like power to ignore a parent, so use that to your advantage.

It’s Digital, Take Lots of Images, Select Few
People sometimes think that every image should be perfect. I’ll admit, in the days of film cameras, when I got my photos back from the developer I used to feel guilty about all the failed images; however, today they are just digital bytes and bad pictures can be deleted. Take ten images and consider yourself a great photographer if there is one good one in the bunch.

Here’s one thing to consider the next time you see someone point a camera at another human: if they say ‘Smile!’ it’s going to be a bad image.

Nugent Attempts to Assassinate Obama, Gets Wrong City, Shoots Self

01 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in April Fools Day, Crime, Fiction, Government Regulation, Opinion, Politics, Universities

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

guns, National Rifle Association, NRA, President Obama, Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent: America’s Epic Failure

Miami, Florida – April 1, 2013

Last April the 64 year-old rock musician Ted Nugent said that if President Barack Obama was re-elected:

“…I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” Ted Nugent

It was the latter and he still had two weeks to spare. On April 15, 2012, Nugent made the comment at the National Rifle Association (NRA) convention in St. Louis, Missouri. He was there to support Mitt Romney for President.

Nugent was arrested in Miami, Florida for attempting to assassinate the President; however, it may be hard for the prosecution to make a case against him since he was almost a 1000 miles away from the Commander-in-Chief. The President was scheduled to speak on the campus of the Miami University in Oxford, Ohio; however, Nugent went to the University of Miami in Miami, Florida.

Nugent apparently became enraged when he could not find President Obama and began waving a gun over his head yelling:

“WHERE IS HE! WHERE IS HE! I’LL KILL HIM! I’ll KILL HIM!”

Within minutes several campus police officers arrived and ordered Nugent to drop his weapon. Nugent apparently calmed down and began to tuck the gun under his belt at which point it discharged, wounding himself in the leg. He then yelled:

“You SHOT Me! You SHOT Me!”

The campus police then moved in, took Nugent’s gun and arrested him. It was several hours later that Nugent learned the police had not fired and that he shot himself. He is expected to make a full recovery, but doctors say that he may walk with a limp. When asked if the wound would affect his ability to play and sing, the hospital representative said:

“They’re doctors, not miracle workers.”

A spokesperson for the Secret Service was asked if they would be involved with the case and she said:

“The Secret Service focuses on credible threats, but somebody will probably have to go down to Miami anyway.”

Nugent will be arraigned in Miami on Monday.

Boehner, GOP Pass Funding Scheme For Privatized Death Star

01 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in April Fools Day, Fiction, Government, Opinion, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

budget, Congress, Death Star, Dick Cheney, Earth's Second Moon, GOP, John Boehner, John McCain, Paul Ryan, President Barack Obama, Republicans, Space

Washington, D.C. – April 1, 2013

Republicans in Congress managed to slip a little noticed addendum to the budget bill that provides a funding scheme for a Star Wars-like Death Star to be operated and run by private interests. The language of the addendum would void the entire budget bill if removed and authorizes the funding plan if Congress fails to pass or kill the budget bill on it by April 4, 2013. The authors of the measure have created legislation where no action is required to fund the Death Star. House Speaker Boehner (Ohio-R) said:

“We are very comfortable with legislation that requires no action. It’s what we’ve been doing for years and we’re getting very good at it.” (Rep. Boehner)

Under the GOP plan, the project will use a large asteroid pushed into Earth orbit and mine out the luxury condos and living envioronment

Under the GOP plan, the project will use a large asteroid pushed into Earth orbit and mine the luxury condos and living environment out of existing rock

Boehner added that this a budget neutral bill as the initial government funding for the project is a loan that will be repaid by a private consortium over the term of the loan. Unnamed sources have confirmed the term of the loan to be 10,000 years. Representative and former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) said,

“This is a win-win-win project. It provides hundreds of thousands of new jobs over the next 100 years, it will put America’s back in space again, and it is the mother of all defense programs.” (Rep. Ryan)

When asked about a rumored plan to use prisoners from thousands of American jails as cheap and expendable labor, Ryan replied, “Another win-win! We’ll decrease the prison population and lower construction expenses.”

President Obama was asked about the Death Star project at his press conference today to encourage consideration of discussion regarding of forming a committee to address global warming. The President said:

“You know, back in December we killed this idea and gave good reasons why it should be killed, which is probably why the Republicans ran with it.” (President Obama)

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) chided the press for overstating the military function of the massive artificial satellite. McConnell said:

“Once again the liberal press has labeled this great project to re…re…uhm…what’s the word…reflect, that’s it! Uhm…what was I saying?” (Senator McConnell)

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) then added:

“I believe that what Senator McConnell is trying to saying is that by referring to it as the ‘Death Star’ the liberal press has given a sinister impression of the purpose of this project. Most of this project will be dedicated to luxury condos for those who wish to use Earth’s Second Moon as their primary or secondary residence.” (Senator McCain)

It was reported by some unnamed sources, one of which was former Vice President Dick Cheney, that former Vice President Dick Cheney will be the President and CEO for the consortium building the artificial satellite. When questions were raised about someone of such advanced age running a 100-year project, Rep. Boehner said:

“We have that covered. We have identified five donors with the correct blood type and tissue match to keep the former Vice President healthy and active for at least the next twenty-five years. After that, we will have five more ready to go.” (Rep. Boehner)

When asked if the media would be allowed to interview the donors Boehner said:

“Oh they don’t know they are donors yet. This is a Homeland Security issue and they’ll know when they need to know.” (Rep. Boehner)

The six organizations will take the lead in the design, construction, operation, ownership of the project were identified are: Exxon, Koch Industries, KBR (the former subsidiary of Halliburton,) The Las Vegas Sands Corporation, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and Papa Johns Pizza.

Cheney said:

“These organizations are a perfect fit to carry out the construction and operation of this project. We have all our bases covered.” (Former VP Cheney)

When asked if the project will have a science component like the International Space Station, Paul Ryan answered:

“It will have a science component, but the science will be limited to the confirmation of the existence of God and how He create our universe. We’re not going to waste millions of dollars chasing after scientific hokum.” (Rep. Ryan)

Representative Steven King (R-Iowa) clarified:

“I think it’s important to understand the primary purpose of the Second Moon project. This is a place for certain people to escape Earth’s bounds and celebrate their success. It’s not the type of place that President Obama’s daughters will go for spring break.”

The project is tentatively scheduled for completion by the 2nd Quarter of 2110.

Is It Time For A Two-Tiered School System?

12 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Education, Ethics, Government, Management Practices, Opinion, parenting, Politics, Relationships, Respect, Taxes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

elementary education, Parent Development, parent involvement in school, parents, Pay for Performance, schools, secondary education, teachers

There is a major problem in America’s educational system and that problem is obvious to anyone who spends time in the classroom. Consider this scenario:

Student X is one of the youngest in the class and started the year slightly behind (academically) her older classmates. Student X lives in a moderate, stable family environment with a modest income. The parents of Student X volunteer at the school and her Mom helps in the classroom once a week. Student X is expected to do her homework soon after coming home from school. One of the parents of Student X is available while she does her homework to answer her questions and assist her as needed, but the parent does not give her the answers. Her parents are in regular contact with her teachers and stay aware of her strengths and weakness. Student X receives constant encouragement to focus on learning.

Student Y lives in a two parent environment; however, one of the parents works 60 to 80 hours a week. Student Y is involved in a variety of non-school activities that take up several hours of after school time. One parent tends to be the mode of transportation from activity to activity, but doesn’t always wait for Student Y. Homework for Student Y is a ‘if we have time” priority, and Student Y’s parents have little contact with the school. Student Y’s parents are never sure what to expect on his report card and are often caught be surprise when there is an issue with a grade.

The absent parent in a child’s education cannot be replaced by all the computers in the world.

Which student do you think will do well on a Standardized Test? Which will student has a better chance to succeed?

The fact that is often overlooked when discussing America’s public schools is the role that parents play, or fail to play in their child’s education. This is not a ‘blame’ issue, but it is a reality that must be included when politicians discuss how they want to ‘fix’ our schools. Parent investment in their child’s education is vital for her or his success in learning. Parents who, for whatever reason, fail to be committed to support and promote learning at home risk destroying the commitment their child will have in the classroom.

So the question is whether or not we need a two-tiered school system based on the parent’s commitment(†) to their child’s education. I believe that most good teachers can tell which students have committed parents, and which do not, so dividing students into two groups should be easy to accomplish.

Several studies have identified the advantages a student with involved parents has over a student who does not.(¹)(²)(³) In addition, a lack of parent involvement may require additional resources from the school to take up the slack of the parent who is not invested. If a teacher has to spend extra time to help that student who didn’t do their homework and master the needed skill, then the rest of the students pay the price because they can’t move forward until Student Y catches up. Even a child who is academically behind is less of a burden on the school when their parent is actively invested in the school.

Dividing our schools based on parental involvement makes sense…on paper, but like all quick fixes there are problems created by the fix that negate it. Identifying students with absent parents avoids the real problem, which is making parents aware that their investment in education is vital for their child’s success.

A Parent’s Place in Education
Despite the need for parental involvement, there is a limit to a parent’s engagement in their child’s education. Unless a parent also has a degree in education, the teacher is the most qualified to take the lead in the classroom. Parents should see themselves as interns in the school.

Even in fundraising, the parent’s role should be subservient to the school and its staff. Parents who decide for the school what projects and programs should be funded risk interfering with the objectives established by those who have an understanding of the larger view.

This should not cause a parent to wait to be asked to become involved. School administrators and teachers focus should be on the students, not on directing parents. This requires that parents and the school create an environment of trust and respect that is facilitated by timely and effective communication.

Professional Development for Parents?
One problem that faces parents is that most of us are not trained in the skills of helping a person learn. In addition, parents may not understand the objectives of the teacher; therefore, they may not know how they can support the in-class work when the student is working at home.

Schools are financially strapped for resources, but if politicians really want to help our educational system, maybe they should consider how schools can pay for parent development seminars (and/or webinars) that will support the objectives of the teachers and the school. By improving the at-home learning environment politicians might actually take a big step in ‘fixing’ our public schools.

We may not need a two-tiered school system, but we certainly need to accept that the failure of a student in school may indicate the failure of a parent, not the teacher or the school.

†(I was reminded this week about the difference between someone who is involved and someone who is committed. If you’re eating a bacon and egg breakfast, the chicken was involved, but the pig was committed.)

Standardized Testing is Not the Solution in American Education

09 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in College, Education, Ethics, Government, Higher Education, Opinion, parenting, Politics, Universities

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Nevada, Nevada Schools, No Child Left Behind, NSHE, Pay for Performance, Reno, schools, standardized tests, student performance, teachers, Washoe County School District, WCSD

Most of the political discussions about America’s failing education system do two things. First, they blame someone, usually the teachers, and second, they seek simple-minded solutions that assume all children are developmentally equal and live in the same socioeconomic environment.

If education were only about what can be scored on a test, then we don’t need teachers, we need mind programmers

No Child Left Behind was based on the belief that a standard test would be the ultimate measure of a student’s success or failure. The assumption was that if student’s scores on a standardized test failed to achieve established goals then we could all blame the teachers and administrative staff, then punish them. The concept assumed that a student’s base level abilities, and parental support was irrelevant. No Child Left Behind was an idea that applied a corporate-like measurement system, which often fails in a business environment, and forced public schools to leave education behind in pursuit of goals that reduced students to do or die numbers.

The failure of No Child Left Behind is so spectacular that after a decade the program began, over two-thirds of the States are ranked at a “D” or “F” in the quality of education by StudentsFirst.org Report Card.

Standardized tests assume that every child is an X, but in reality they are A to Z

Standardized tests assume that every child is an X, but in reality they can be A to Z

One of the major failures of the program was the institutionalizing of testing standards that encouraged teachers to focus on teaching their students how to successfully take the tests, but not to understand the material. The program ultimately forced out many excellent teachers that rejected the absurdity of No Child Left Behind, which is ironic because the goal was to force out less effective teachers. The result has been that school after school has failed to produce the results desired leaving America with a generation of students who are even less prepared for adult life.

Nevada’s Washoe County School District (WCSD) is typical of many school districts across the United States. For the 2010-11 school year the standardized tests indicated that an average of 85% of the high school students (9th-12th grades) met or exceeded the established standards for reading, writing, and math. Those scores would indicate that 85% of the students are prepared to move on from high school.

However, of the 1,600 Washoe County School District graduates that attended Nevada state-run universities, almost half (48%) of them required remedial classes to bring them up to college entrance-level work. The standardized tests are designed to measure competency; however, even though the scores indicate the students are prepared, almost 1 out of 2 need to take classes to address educational deficiencies.

Some might say this just confirms the inadequacy of public schools; however, if that were true the standardized tests should reflect those failures and they do not. It is the inadequacy of the standardized test to measure educational performance or lack of performance.

Standardized tests can be an effective tool in education, but they are just one tool. If we truly want to improve the educational performance of America’s students we must stop holding a knife to the throat of teachers and schools and stop using simple-minded measurements of academic performance to determine whether they live or die. A teacher can’t be held accountable for a parent that doesn’t believe in homework, therefore causing the student to be behind the rest of her/his class. It’s time we began supporting the teachers who have years of training and experience in education, rather than applying failed business models that destroy public education.

Raging Employee: A Case Study For Today’s Business

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

denver post, Frank Sain, Franklin Sain, gun, gun magazine, gun violence, NRA, Public Image, rifles, Softec Solutions

Frank Sain’s Mug Shot

Last Tuesday (February 19,) police detectives visited Frank Sain at his office at SofTec Solutions in Englewood, Colorado. Sain was hired as the Chief Operating Officer for the technology company in the Fall of 2011.

As reported by the Denver Post, they questioned him about six emails he sent between February 13 and 15, in addition to voicemails left to Colorado State Representative Rhonda Fields. Representative Fields has proposed legislation to limit gun magazine capacities in Colorado. The emails and voicemails were said to be sexually and racially offensive and indicated he was enraged by the proposed legislation.

“Hopefully somebody Gifords both of your asses with a gun….”

per The Denver Post – In an email from Frank Sain to Representative Rhonda Fields

Two days after the police interviewed him (February 21) an unsigned letter was received by Representative Fields that threatened harm to both her and her daughter.

The next day Frank Sain was arrested and this past Monday the arrest was reported in the Denver Post. According to the Denver Post, Sain admits to the emails.

The situation is an important case study for business because it is the type of crisis that every business must be prepared for in today’s social media, politically charged world.

Company Public Image Issues

Frank Sain’s headshot before he was erased from the company’s website

The obvious issue is public relations. A rank-and-file employee who acts out in a public forum out can damage a company’s reputation, but to have a manager, and in this case, a company executive, who acts out creates an impression that the organization might have been involved, or at least, enabled the behavior of the person.

In addition, an organization’s website typically boasts about its executives and when one of them misbehaves it makes the company look incompetent. It is important for a company to not prejudge an accused employee; however, when the basic allegations are admitted to by the employee the organization must take quick action to divorce itself from the actions of the employee. In this situation, with the allegations reportedly admitted to by the employee, SofTec Solutions quickly responded by removing Frank Sain from their website within 24 hours of the Denver Post story.

One issue is whether or not the organization should speak out publicly regarding the employee. Many companies might choose to not create any more public exposure regarding the situation, but I feel that would be the wrong choice. Both the public and customers/clients of the company will have a negative impression of the company that will be left in everyone’s mind if not addressed. It is important that the company make it clear that the acts and opinions of their executive were not enabled, endorsed, nor condoned by the organization and some type of heartfelt statement should be made with apologies to the appropriate people.¹

SofTec Management Team webpages – Monday versus Tuesday

Human Resources Issues
Separating an employee is never easy. Separating an employee who has demonstrated rage and flaunts his gun ownership is even harder.

An organization cannot have an executive who makes derogatory sexual and racial statements and threatens to do violent harm to others. Of special concern is that in this situation the person seemed to escalate in his bad behavior after being questioned by law enforcement, signaling the potential of underlying, uncontrolled rage.

If the person can be reasoned with, it would be best to sit down with the employee and discuss the situation. Allowing the person to resign might be appropriate; however, in some cases an organization may have a duty to inform other potential employers of the circumstances of the separation. Making the employee someone else’s problem is not a smart move, especially if the company failed to warn the new employer of potential violent behavior.

The best practice in this situation might be to put the employee on paid leave for a period of time and require he seek counseling to address his behavior issues. There should be an understanding that separation with some type of severance package would occur upon compliance with the counseling requirement.

The organization should discuss the situation with legal counsel that is experienced in employee law as local, state and/or federal laws may dictate what an organization can, must, and can’t do in these types of circumstances. Engaging an expert in crisis management and/or violent employee situations should be part of separation planning.

In House Investigation
Under these types of circumstances an organization should conduct a thorough investigation of the employee’s co-workers, clients, etc. The purpose is to identify the scope of the issue. Did he confide in people who should have informed the company? Are there others who are sympathetic to him and might have behavior issues of their own? Does the company foster extreme political anger and if so, how should it be addressed? Did he act out among customers/clients and, if so, what is the impression they have of the company? Did he have an abusive email style with employees and/or customers.

There are many questions that must be answered if an organization hopes to move out of the crisis. Burying the incident may make everyone feel better, but it may turn out that the problem was just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Training, counseling and other remedial efforts for all employees may be required to heal the damage caused by the executive who put the company into the crisis.

¹(UPDATE: Just before publishing this article, the Denver Post announced that SofTec Solutions had suspended Frank Sain and issued a strongly worded statement condemning his behavior.)

Pope Paul VII?

15 Friday Feb 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Generational, Lessons of Life, Opinion, Pride, Relationships, Religion, Respect, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Catholic, Christian, Church Christianity, Pope, Roman Church

A Pope without white hair? Why not?

As I understand it there is a vacancy coming up in the papacy and I think I might be just the person they need right now. I realize I may not meet all (or any) of the applicant requirements, but you don’t win the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket, right?

Some may feel that I’m not qualified because I don’t believe in God; however, I could make an argument that based upon their actions, it would seem that some Popes didn’t believe in a God either. I’m not an atheist¹ nor do I have a problem with anyone who chooses to believe in a God. I just think that the accountability for good and evil should reside in the acts of a person, not attributed, nor blamed on a God or devil.

I used to be a Catholic and that should qualify me for the position. If not, perhaps the fact that I’ve also been a Protestant and a Seventh Day Adventist should show that I have a wide variety of experience as a Christian. As an Adventist I even studied the entire Bible, so I know what it actually says about Christianity.

But enough about my qualifications, let’s talk about what I can do for the Catholic Church.

Some might think that as Pope I would stray from the teachings of the Bible, but, in fact, I would place more emphasis on the Bible, especially the New Testament, since that is the part that is written by Christians, for Christians. Under my service as Pope, Catholics would be expected to abide by Romans 14: 10-13:

But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written:

“As I live, says the Lord,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.

Bible, New King James Version

That passage defines how a Christian is to behave and it needs no interpretation of a holy man. Bottom line, mind your own business. That God you allegedly believe in will decide what is a sin or not.

Another passage, Matthew 22: 21, further defines the limitations of a Christian:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s

Bible, King James Version

Both passages tell Christians that engaging in politics to declare the sins of another person is forbidden, and so shall it will be if I’m made Pope. Further, any Catholic who promotes the use civil laws and government policy to restrict, prohibit, restrict, or regulate the alleged ‘sin’ of another shall be excommunicated. If you believe in a God, then don’t try to be the God.

Another change will be to abolish marriage restrictions on priests. Not only will they be allowed to marry, it will be encouraged, and they will be encouraged to have families. There is no better way to understand the meaning of life than to be a parent of a child and a priest with a family can relate to his or her flock better than a priest without one.

If you caught that last reference to priests as “his or her” then you know I will allow women to be priests. Not only will women be allowed to be priests, but gay and lesbians will be allowed. Anyone who has the capacity to love another person is too valuable to not consider for Church leadership. Also, it’s time Catholics put some distance between us and the Baptists.

Finally, one of the other major changes I will make if selected as Pope will be to eliminate some of the rituals of the Church. If there is a God, why should we try to bore Him or Her with the same old, tired policies and procedures week after week?

I know these changes will cause many current Catholics to denounce their faith, but I’m confident we’ll be fine without them. The new Catholics we gain will be true Christians, and that seems more important to me.

So, who will be contacting me and what’s the next step in the application process?

NOTE: This article was originally titled “Pope Paul I.” After I published it I researched the names of the Popes and discovered there have been six Popes using the Pope Paul name, thus the change to Pope Paul VII.

¹Regarding the term ‘atheist,’ we don’t attach a name to everyone who doesn’t believe in something mythological. If you don’t believe in invisible gorillas does that mean I can call you an aprimatist?

The Dark Side of PR: Distraction and Deception or ‘Armstronging’ the Public

11 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Public Relations, Religion, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM)

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Armstronging, BP, deception, distraction, Lance Armstrong, National Rifle Association, NRA, PR, Public Image, Social Media, Tony Hayward

In this series regarding public relations (PR) tactics of ‘Managing the Message’ I’ve talked about how some organizations focus is centered on Reaction Avoidance (SEE: Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t) rather than public interaction. In a Social Media dominated world, this results in the organization always looking manipulative and weak.

In Part II (SEE: Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations) I discussed the use of Anti-listening techniques to avoid and limit public discussion of issues that an organization may not want to address. In this article we will discuss more sinister techniques used to by organizations to ‘manage the message.’

Managing the Message is the alpha and omega of the NRA

Managing the message inherently requires the belief that PR people have God-like powers over the public. Add an organizational executive team that already believes they are Gods and we have the perfect storm of ego and a lack of ethics that lead to the worst PR tactics in business. Under these circumstances we move from passive techniques to manage the message into an aggressive intent to distract and deceive.

There are many examples of aggressive attempts to manage the message and in almost every case there are people in key positions who see themselves as the maker of information and disinformation. These people believed that they have justification to take any step necessary to protect the public image of the organization and/or promote organizational goals, ethical or not. Distraction, withholding information, and deception are the rungs of the ladder that sink an organization into deeper and deeper into the dark side of PR.

Withholding Information
Withholding Information and/or blocking information is a tactic of an organization using aggressive and unethical PR tactics. One of the best examples of this is the National Rifle Association (NRA.) The NRA seems to only care about public opinion when the polls tend to support its position, but that doesn’t stop them from trying to manipulating public opinion.

In 1996, the NRA worked with Arkansas Representative Jay Dickey (R) to cut $2.6 million from the budget of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and added the wording the appropriations bill that restricted the CDC from any research that would “advocate or promote gun control.” $2.6 million is what the CDC had spent in the prior year on gun-related research. The 104th Republican-controlled Congress passed it into law and it has restricted the CDC from gun-related research since 1996. (¹)

The NRA worked with Kansas Representative Todd Tiahrt (R) in 2003, to forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) from collecting statistics on gun injuries and deaths. In 2011, the NRA worked with Representative Denny Rehberg (R) of Montana to prevent the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from funding any research that contradicted or challenged pro-NRA positions. (²)(³)

BP: What Leak?
Another example of withholding information occurred in the summer of 2010 when the BP leased oil rig, Deepwater Horizon caught fire and exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP public image destroyed once video revealed the PR deception

In the days after the complete loss of the rig, BP PR tactics included denial of an oil leak at the wellhead, acknowledging a small amount of oil leakage, and finally admitting larger and larger amounts of leaking oil that still underestimated the amount of actual oil spilled. At one point BP withhold live video of the oil spill at the wellhead.

BP’s public position was that until anyone could prove otherwise, they could deny any significant oil spill. BP’s ‘prove it’ stance forced public media to accept BP’s estimates until overwhelming evidence piled up against the company. Once it did, BP’s public image was in tatters. No one believed anything CEO Tony Hayward or BP said.

‘Armstronging’ the Public
Technically the act of withholding information falls into the category of deception and distraction, although an organization that is consciously attempting to deceive or distract the public is flirting with possible criminal and/or civil charges. While some organizations (or even some people) might be under the belief that their unethical acts will never be discovered, some organizations may simply be trying to delay or soften a negative issue by forcing the public to learn the details over a period of days, weeks, months, or years. Yet, many times the PR tactics used by an organization is simply a lack of executive ethics rather than a conscious choice.

I cannot tell a lie…well, yes I can,…piece-o-cake actually

The most recent high-profile example this is the Lance Armstrong fiasco. The world now knows that Lance Armstrong used illegal performance enhancing drugs and techniques during his reign as Bicycling King, but through denial and aggressive legal means he managed to make most people believe he was innocent. Now he admits he lied, but it is far enough past his glory days that it may not have the impact it would have at the time he was active in the sport. Still, who wants to be Lance Armstrong now? No one.

The problem with managing the message is that Social Media has stolen power away from the PR people. An organization’s public image consists of the support and enthusiasm of an elusive mass of connected people, who can smell manipulation and love to expose unethical acts of people with more money than sense. On the other hand, Social Media readily responds to respect and honesty, which is not familiar territory to some older business men. As we move deeper into the Social Media Age, the business world will see a new PR model that listens more, talks less, is more humble and less arrogant, loves interaction and rejects domination.

Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t

05 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Opinion, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

BP, Cool Hand Luke, Managing the message, Mitt Romney, PR, Public Image, Race for the Cure, Susan G. Komen, Tony Hayward

“What we got here….is a failure…..to communicate” Captain, the Prison Warden in Cool Hand Luke

Captain (Strother Martin) in 1967 film, Cool Hand Luke knew how to manage the message

If you are a business professor teaching students the importance of ‘managing the message,’ or a Public Relations (PR) firm telling your client how to ‘manage the message,’ would you please stop. No, I mean stop right now. In fact, contact everyone you have taught or advised and tell them you were wrong then refund their money.

CEO Tony Hayward got his ‘life back,’ but BP is still in PR clean up mode in the United States

‘Managing the message’ cost Mitt Romney the Presidential election. It severely damaged Netflix in 2011. It cost a BP CEO his job. It took the Susan G. Komen Foundation from being a major player in non-profit foundations to one that has to hide its name in shame.

Why?

First, ‘managing the message’ doesn’t work. Second, it’s a cowardly way to approach public relations. Third, it’s stupid advice. Fourth, it will end up causing major problems up to and including the end of an organization.

‘Managing the message’ assumes a person has control over the message. That would be a stupid assumption in a world driven by Social Media. John F. Kennedy’s words should be amended:

You can fool all of the people some of the time….until Social Media picks it up and then you’re screwed.

PR is no longer about creating an image. That was true back in the day individuals had no voice and people were subjected to mass advertising in every thing they watched, heard, and read. That was yesterday. Today an organization’s image is created by everyone who comes into contact with the organization. Customers, especially angry ones have as much of a voice in an organization’s public image as the Vice President of Marketing. Today PR is about listening and being honest and real in everything you say and do. That is something that can’t be faked or managed.

Reaction Avoidance
Managing the message is mostly about reaction avoidance. The idea is that if an organization handles it correctly, any negative situation will be minimized. The technique acts like a dam that has a short-term benefit, but a long-term disaster. When a PR crisis occurs the first instinct is to pretend there is no major problem. That is the start of a PR death spiral that only leads to bigger and bigger denials until the organization appears to be run by fools. By then executives turn and blame the PR staff for not ‘managing the message’ better.

TOMORROW: Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations. The two common techniques that characterize an organization who is trying to manage the message and why they fail.

MONDAY: The Dark Side of PR: Distraction and Deception Or ‘Armstronging’ the Public. When ethics are not a consideration, an organization is headed into a downward spiral that will almost always end with a public image that can be fatal.

6 Actions Needed To Protect America From Bad Gun Owners

14 Monday Jan 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crime, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Opinion, Politics

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

501(c)3, assault rifles, assault weapons, background checks, conceal and carry permits, CT, guns, high capacity magazines, liability, National Rifle Association, Newton, NRA, rifles, school safety, school violence, Secret Service, tax exempt, Vice President Joe Biden

12 of 26 faces lost on December 14, 2012

One month ago 26 people, of which 20 were children, were taken from us by a man with an assault rifle. The man was given the opportunity to access weapons by a gun owner who failed to understand the potential threat of keeping guns in the home, even though she was so concerned about her son that she was allegedly attempting to have him committed.

Asking for common sense in the ownership, availability and use of a gun is NOT a political agenda. Our pledge is “and liberty for ALL.” Not “liberty for me because I own a gun.” Liberty requires a citizen to act responsibly and most importantly respect all the other citizens of this country. Somehow many gun owners seem to have forgotten that part of being an American.

Fifty years ago I saw a bumper sticker that said, “When guns are outlawed, only OUTLAWS will have guns.” The National Rifle Association (NRA) and some wacko gun owners keep shoving this in the face of America. The problem is that it is not the ‘outlaws’ who are threatening our lives, but irresponsible gun owners. Easy access to guns, especially in urban environments, coupled with weapons that are dangerous for citizens to own is not protecting our liberty, but rather is increasing the likelihood of death and serious injury for all Americans.

In addition, the strong-arm tactics of the NRA is crippling our government from taking common sense actions that are desperately needed.

There are six steps that are necessary to keep Americans safe:

Ban on ownership of assault-type weapons and high-capacity magazines

Assault weapons are effective when used by a trained professional, not by citizens fantasizing glory

The need for renewing the ban of assault-type weapons and high-capacity magazines has been demonstrated over and over, with each violent event costing innocent lives.

Assault-type (automatic and semi-automatic) weapons give the shooter the ability to spray multiple bullets on a target in seconds. A person must train extensively with an assault-type weapon in order to know when and when not to shoot. Citizens do not have the expertise to use such weapons without endangering innocent people.

In addition, these weapons are often used on law enforcement personnel which means we are encouraging ‘outlaws,’ (aka; our neighbor with a gun and a grudge) by giving them the means to attack the very people who are actually supposed to protect the rest of us.

Strict limitations on conceal and carry permits

Conceal and Carry: a self-inflicted wound to America

Carrying a gun in public is extremely dangerous and most training is inadequate. Gun training organizations acknowledge this:

…”because concealed carry courses required for issue of a CC permit fail to give students the proper skills to safely carry a concealed weapon…”

ALASTAR TDS-C, NC Gun Training Website

Conceal and Carry means that a gun is easily accessible which means that a person might be tempted to use it before understanding the situation. Even under the best circumstances, firing a gun with other people in the area is risking the safety of innocent people.

In 2012, police in New York wounded nine innocent people when confronted by another man with a gun. Certainly a citizen carrying a gun with little or training is not a solution to street crime and in most situations would add to the confusion of crime by pulling out a gun even if it were only in self-defense.

In addition, gun training should be standardized and only licensed trainers should be allowed to teach gun safety. In at least one all day gun training program in Reno, Nevada, one of the instructors spent much of his time ranting about his dislike for President Obama and shared his conspiracy theories about what the current administration was planning to do to gun ownership. The only people making gun ownership a political agenda are gun owners.

Conceal and carry permits should all expire by June 30, 2013, and renewed only if extraordinary circumstances indicated that the citizen needed, and was qualified to use a gun in a public place. In those circumstances the person should be required to be recertified every six month with at least four hours of training in the use of firearms in public situations.

Secret Service Consulting and Training for Schools

Secret Service agents are experts in identifying threats

We do not need another TSA-like division of the federal government; however, the federal government does have unique qualifications in the area of observing situations for possible threats. Secret Service agents are experts in assessing and taking action to neutralize violent threats.

Acting as consultants and trainers, the Secret Service could create a division with a five to ten-year mandate to work with school district and school staff across the United States in assessing and identifying potential threats. They also could offer classes similar to train law enforcement and school security threat assessment techniques, similar to what the FBI offers to private business leaders and security personnel at Quantico, VA.

Background checks on 100% of gun sales/exchanges

This is a no-brainer. The problem is that a background check doesn’t address future mental breaks, or temporary emotional triggers that could lead to violence.

Financial liability to gun owner and gun sellers for guns used in criminal acts.

Most gun owners are responsible. Most. The threat is not from ‘outlaw’ as the NRA suggests, but from the irresponsible gun owner. We can take steps to attempt to prevent an innocent citizen from being harmed by the direct or indirect act of an irresponsible gun owner, but their must be a consequence in order to discourage the idea that a gun owner can wash his or her hands of a situation that they could have prevented. To do this we need to link the gun owner to the crime committed by the use of his or her gun.

A person should be responsible for any crime committed with their gun both during their ownership, and within 18 months after they sell, trade, give, or lose their gun. The exceptions would be as follows:

The gun is stolen even though the owner took due diligence in securing their gun.
The gun is donated to a recognized government law enforcement agency.

Financial liability should be no less that $100,000 per incident and have criminal penalties for repeat offenders.

NRA Tax Exempt Status

The NRA has held America hostage for decades and has been able to harass our elected officials into complacency, while at the same time being exempt from paying taxes. They have enjoyed preventing government action to protect our citizens as they steal from the citizens by not paying their fair share to support our citizen-run government. This is unacceptable.

As of December 14, 2012, the NRA should be declared by the IRS to by a for profit organization and all contributions be declared as taxable. In addition, all organizations involved in lobbying and/or contributing to politicians, or politically associated organizations on behalf of gun manufacturers, owners, enthusiasts, or gun-related activities should not be considered for 501(c)3 status, or any other tax exempt status.

This should only apply to gun oriented organizations attempting to influence politicians and/or legislation.

These six actions would address the key issues that threaten American citizens, while still allowing for responsible citizens to maintain their rights to own guns. It’s time common sense returned and trumped blind stupidity.

3 Reasons Why Boehner Shouldn’t Be Speaker

31 Monday Dec 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crisis Management, Government, Opinion, Pride, Public Relations

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

112th Congress, 113th Congress, Congress, Election, GOP, House of Representatives, John Boehner, Republicans, Speaker of the House

Speaker John Boehner, The Symbol of Failure

On January 3, 2013, the United States House of Representatives will re-elect Representative John Boehner as the Speaker of the House. Whether or not he merits the Speakership is debatable; however, he has been a good servant to his financial backers and those financial backers also financed the campaigns of the same group of Republicans who will decide Boehner’s fate. They cannot vote for someone else for Speaker without biting the hand of the people who gave them money.

That said, there are good reasons for Republicans to not re-elect John Boehner as Speaker of the House. Three top reasons are as follows:

Reason 1: An Icon of Failure

Gallup Poll – Approval Rating for Congress

In August of this year the approval rating for Congress dropped to 10 percent for the only the second time. The first time was in February of this year. Recently named the ‘Do Nothing Congress,’ they have been the most non-productive Congress in seventy years. Some might blame both political parties; however, two years ago Republicans announced that their strategy would be to block President Obama from passing any significant legislation. Their success at this has resulted in the failure of Congress to do the job for which they were elected.

As Speaker of the House and the leader of the Republicans in Congress, Boehner is the symbol of all that has failed in Washington. November’s election demonstrated the public’s dislike for the tactics used by Republicans to obstruct progress when President Obama won every battleground State except North Carolina, and swept 332 electoral votes when only 270 were necessary. Republicans were also turned out of the Senate and House as Democrats gained significant ground in Congress.

Despite this stinging defeat, Boehner continued to use the same tactics of obstruction by spending this month leading America to the Fiscal Cliff. The irony is that Boehner has not only lost the confidence of the American people, he has lost the confidence of his own party.

In late December he attempted to move Republicans out of the hot seat by proposing a ‘Plan B’ that would have not passed the Senate, but would have given him the opportunity blame Democrats in the Senate for sending America over the Fiscal Cliff. It was a tactic that might have succeeded except for the betrayal of Boehner by his own party when he had to withdraw the legislation because it was not going to pass for lack of Republican support.

Boehner is a symbol of failure and he will carry the stamp of disgrace on his sleeve into the next two years. That means the Republicans will have to overcome Boehner’s public image in 2014 if they re-elect him as Speaker now.

Reason 2: Opportunity of New Blood
If someone else were to be elected as Speaker they would start fresh without all the political baggage Boehner brings with him. Boehner is the uncle no one wants at their family event. The right-wing extremists think he’s too liberal and the rest of the Republicans in the House are just glad they aren’t Boehner. He is seen as deceptive, condescending, and the pawn of the filthy rich. Almost anyone other than Representative Eric Cantor or Representative Paul Ryan would have a better public image to start with than Boehner.

Republicans are facing multiple legislative losses in the next session. The best hope is to drop Boehner’s obstructionist style and begin rebuilding the respect that Republicans have lost in the last two years. By working with the Democrats in early 2013, a new Republican Speaker could regain negotiation strength during the remainder of the 113th Congress. That will increase Republican’s chances in 2014 and put conservatives back on more equal footing. With Boehner as Speaker, Republicans may face humiliation after humiliation as the right wing extremist wag Boehner’s tail during the next session.

Reason 3: Shock Value
Boehner’s re-election will be seen as a business-as-usual when no one wants a repeat of the 112th Congress. A new Speaker will have a shock value that might give hope to Americans. While a majority of Americans do not support the right-wing extremist political agenda, Boehner has continued to pander to them in order to keep a majority. That majority is based on offending most of the other Representatives and a majority of American on a regular basis. A new Speaker might decide to turn the tables on the right-wing extremist by adopting a more moderate view. That would leave the extremists to either fall in line with the Republican mainstream or accept that America will be under rule by the Liberals for the near future.

Few Options Leave A Bleak Future
Sadly, Republicans are bound by fate and money to re-elect John Boehner as Speaker of the House of Representatives. This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion with the forces in play too strong to stop, but the results of disaster obvious to all who witness it. The outcome will be a deepening dislike for Republicans and their tactics and that will result in the 2014 elections continuing the down slide of conservative participation in American politics.

Why David Brooks Isn’t Qualified to Decide Who Can Be A Gun-Control Spokesperson

30 Sunday Dec 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crime, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Opinion, Politics, Recreation, Respect, Traditional Media, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

CT, David Brooks, gun laws, guns, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Meet the Press, New York City, Newtown, NRA, rural, urban

David Brook, New York Times columnist

New York Times columnist, political analyst, and all-around smart guy David Brooks rarely says anything that lacks intelligent thought, so when he makes a verbal blunder, as he did on December 16th on NBC’s Meet The Press group think session, it should be considered a national holiday for backwater bloggers like myself who make verbal blunders on a daily basis.

Two days after the murder of 26 people in Newtown, CT, David Brooks was making a point about the need for rural people to be included on the debate regarding the use of guns in our society. He said:

Brooks, defender of the innocent rural gun owner

“…it’s perceived as an attack on the lifestyle of rural people by urban people…”

Mr. Brooks then suggested that it was inappropriate for the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, to be leading the debate. Brooks stated:

“…it’s counterproductive to have him as the spokesperson for the gun law movement.”

As someone who was raised in northwestern Colorado, where blaze orange is always the Fall color, and a gun is put in your hand before a driver’s license, I would strongly disagree with Mr. Brooks and I would dispute that he is the person to choose who can be the spokesperson for laws to restrict gun ownership.

While guns are nearly idols to be worshiped in rural communities, this is not a debate about freedom of religion. Guns tend to have life ending consequences and that consequence is often borne by the person who doesn’t own the gun. Rural people don’t understand the pressures and conflicts (e.g.; road rage, etc.) that occur in more urban environments and therefore they don’t have a place in the debate of an issue that crosses the rural/urban boundaries.

Rural people usually can’t understand why anyone would live in a city and often have built their perception of city living based on news stories of mass killings, drive-by shooting, and murder-suicides. Many rural people see city life as a daily battle ground where the unarmed are targets for the armed bands of criminals who roam the city streets. The fact that millions of people live untouched by violent crime in cities everyday is beyond the belief of people who think Fox News is ‘Fair and Balanced.’

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is exactly the right person to be the spokesperson for the appropriate use and limitations of gun ownership in America. As Mayor of one of the U.S.’s biggest urban areas, Bloomberg’s view of the dynamics of cities and those who live in them is unmatched by few in America.

Brooks remark is akin to saying that only cigarette smokers should have a voice in the control and use of cigarettes, even though they can kill non-smokers. We don’t need to prove guns kill non-gun owners. Guns kill everyone, regardless of his or her gun-ownership status.

Brooks might be correct that this is a rural versus urban issue, but it is the rural citizen that already has the gun in hand and that is the wrong solution in an urban environment. It’s time urban communities were allowed to address the threat that rural values have on our cities.

Who can or cannot be part of this debate should be decided by those who face the threat, not by those who have the gun and David Brooks is not the person to make that decision for us…

….even if he is the smartest person in the room.

2012: The Year That Didn’t

29 Saturday Dec 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crisis Management, Government, History, Opinion, Politics, Pride, Space

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2012, Affordable Care Act, Apocalypse, Climate change, Curiosity, December 21, Doomsday, Facebook, gay marriage, Global warming, Greece, London, Mars, Mars Rover, Mars Science Lab, Mitt Romney, Recession, Summer Olympic Games

Game over, man, game over...oh, wait, uhm, false alarm.

Game over, man, game over…oh, wait, false alarm.

A lot of things were supposed to happen in 2012, but they didn’t. Here are a selected few of the ‘didn’ts from this past year:

The Apocalypse didn’t happen on December 21, or any other day this year, nor the cataclysmic asteroid, the massive solar flares from the Sun, nor the shift of the magnetic poles. All part of the end of the world scenarios planned for this year that didn’t materialize.
2012 will also be known for what Congress didn’t accomplish. It was labeled the ‘Do Nothing’ Congress for the obstructionist attitude of conservatives who sought to keep President Obama and Democrats from governing the country.
Facebook was going to be the stock to own and once on the market the sky would be the limit on its per share price. Somebody forgot to tell the grumpy old white investors that the thing they love to hate was supposed to go big.
The face that didn’t.
President Barack Obama was supposed to be humiliated in a landslide loss to Mitt Romney. He wasn’t humiliated and he didn’t lose.
Romney also predicted that London’s security wasn’t ready for the Summer Olympic Games. They were and Romney publicly embarrassed himself and the United States.
Greece was supposed to have a major economic disaster and bring down the rest of Europe. It didn’t, but many still have high hopes it will collapse in 2013.
The Arab Spring of 2011 was supposed to lead to more democratic countries without dictators. Somebody forgot to tell Egypt.
Outlawing gay marriage was supposed to be part of many States final solution in destroying gays and lesbians. It turns out America isn’t that hateful, nor that stupid.
The Supreme Court was going to rule the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. They didn’t.
Climate change skeptics were financing studies to prove that Global Warming is a hoax. They didn’t and it isn’t.
The landing of the NASA/JPL’s mission to Mars was going to be too complex to succeed and result in a spectacular U.S. failure. The MSL (Mars Science Lab) rover team delivered on all their promises and Curiosity is going places no other country can hope to match for years.
Massive protests by the Occupy movement were going to lead to riots and a general societal breakdown. It didn’t happen, but the Occupy movement was heard at the ballot box in November.
America’s economy and unemployment were going to reverse and fall back into a recession in 2012. Our economy and unemployment continue to defy the skeptics.

Gloom and doom was the expectation by many during this past year. As bad as 2012 was supposed to be, let’s hope that 2013 will restore a more positive attitude in our nation….right after we fall off the fiscal cliff.

Conservative Credibility Account is Bankrupt

05 Wednesday Dec 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Ethics, Government, Honor, Internet, Opinion, Politics, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

fiscal cliff, John Boehner, President George W. Bush, tax hike, wealthy

To be relevant you have to be credible and conservatives have spent all their credibility:

Bush Logic: Trust me. I know what I’m doing

George W. Bush was going to force government to be smaller by taking revenue away via massive tax cuts. Then he made government even bigger and spent our country into debt.
Mitt Romney changed his position on issues on a weekly basis resulting in a trust deficit that he couldn’t overcome.
Oil companies and wealthy business men paid millions of dollars to finance conservative candidate’s political campaigns filled with deception and lies that were exposed within hours through Social Media.
Republicans vowed to obstruct President Obama efforts at all costs and blocked any legislation or appointments for two years, then tried to blame Democrats for not being able to ‘reach across the aisle.’
Republicans concept of smaller government and less regulation resulted in higher unemployment and unethical business practices that destroyed our economy.
Conservative Investigation: Celibate males testify about women’s contraception
Elected conservatives males demonstrate the absurdity of their positions on abortion and contraceptives exposing an underlying misogynistic attitude.
Conservative white state legislators in the South pass laws targeted at Latinos and minorities to discourage them from voting revealing a racist attitude.
Conservatives ironically insult minorities and Liberals as lazy, ‘takers’ who only seek handouts from the federal government while they seek to live in the United States of America without paying taxes for the privilege of living and working in this country.
Boehner Math: 7.5% = 50%

Now conservative House Representative John Boehner is pushing the deception that a tax hike on the wealthiest 2% will impact fifty percent of small businesses. The fact is that a tax hike on those who have over $200,000 of personal income ($250,000 for married filing jointly) will affect only 7.5% of small business owners.

What is shocking is that the small percentage of wealthy small business owners pay themselves $200,000 or more out of their business account for fifty percent of all small business revenue. Note that the money is going into their pocket, not reinvested into the business, nor used for hiring more people, but into their personal account. Boehner is trying to protect the interests of the greediest of small business people.

92.5 percent of small business owners will not be impacted by this tax hike, but Boehner continues to try to deceive America into the belief that he is protecting small business owners.

The Republicans have exhausted their credibility and still they continue to try to deceive rather than serve America. It’s hard to understand conservatives pursuit of deception as a political tool. If the last election demonstrated anything it was that the majority of America could not be bought or deceived. Social media quickly exposes lies and deceptions and yet Republicans continue to behave as if they live in an Orwellian 1984, and people will believe whatever they want them to believe.

3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

Category Archives: Opinion

It’s Time To Drop the “C” From NCAA

Air Travel Teaches Us Not To Listen

Management Study for God

WORLD MANAGEMENT STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Reno, Nevada: Dead City Walking

The Seduction of Anger

Arizona ‘Religious Freedom’ Law Not About Religion

Armed Teacher Games

Romney Adds Insult to Stupidity

Five Rules For Taking Images of Your Children

Nugent Attempts to Assassinate Obama, Gets Wrong City, Shoots Self

Boehner, GOP Pass Funding Scheme For Privatized Death Star

Is It Time For A Two-Tiered School System?

Standardized Testing is Not the Solution in American Education

Pope Paul VII?

6 Actions Needed To Protect America From Bad Gun Owners

3 Reasons Why Boehner Shouldn’t Be Speaker

Why David Brooks Isn’t Qualified to Decide Who Can Be A Gun-Control Spokesperson

2012: The Year That Didn’t

WORLD MANAGEMENT STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WORLD MANAGEMENT STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY