3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

3rd From Sol

Category Archives: Public Image

What Sanders Didn’t Do Yesterday

18 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crime, Generational, Government, History, Honor, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Respect, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bernie Sanders, Democrats, Election 2016, Nevada State Convention, supporters, Violence

bernie_sanders_jef_AP

Bernie Sanders: Encourages violence and disruption if it will help him lose by a smaller margin.

Bernie Sanders failed yesterday.

Yesterday, Sanders didn’t win Kentucky. Yesterday, Sanders didn’t have a commanding win in Oregon. Yesterday, Sanders barely moved the needle in pledged delegates.

But what Sanders didn’t do yesterday was show leadership. His supporters have become thugs at public events and when Sanders should have apologized and told his supporters that intimidation and bullying are not how he wants to win elections, he didn’t.

He actually denied that his supporters violently protested and disrupted the Nevada State convention, and then he added,

…when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked. 

Like a child who won’t admit he was wrong, Sanders starts blaming everyone else and implies his supporters were justified in their behavior.

Bernie Sanders wants to be President. He wants our country to believe that he can solve problems. He wants us to believe he is honorable and we can trust him.

We don’t need a President who encourages violent and disruptive protests, as Bernie Sanders does with his supporters. We don’t need an alleged ‘problem solver’ that creates problems, then pretends he didn’t, like Bernie Sanders. 

Bernie Sanders didn’t do the right thing yesterday, but that is why he is a failure as a leader.

Pledge of Loyalty to the United States of America

11 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Education, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Health, History, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Religion, Respect, Taxes, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Loyalty, Paul Kiser, Pledge, United States, United States of America

US flagI, Paul Kiser, declare my loyalty to the United States of America.

I shall support my country and my government against enemies domestic and foreign.

I shall accept and defend the concept that all people are created equal, and no one has a right to limit or infringe on a citizen’s rights, so long as they do not endanger others, nor limit or infringe on the rights of others.

I shall not attempt to inflict my personal moral or religious beliefs on others, nor shall I support laws that do.

I have an obligation to financially support our government and I shall NOT support any effort destabilize, diminish, nor destroy public programs and projects by withholding public funds or other means, unless it is determined that those programs and projects are not in the best interest of our country.

I shall support a tax structure that places an increased tax burden on those best able to pay taxes, and minimizes taxes on those who are not.

I know that business is inherently unethical and must have oversight to create a level field for all competitors. I shall support government regulation and reject any rule or law that attempts to give a business entity equal or greater rights than given a citizen.

I support the concept that NO organization that is, in part, or whole, to provide service or benefit (education, healthcare, government contractors, law enforcement, etc.) to the citizens of this country should be investor owned, nor should it provide excess profit for the owners, executives, or managers of the organization regardless of whether the organization qualifies for not-for-profit status.

I recognize that visitors to our country shall be honored and given respect and aid.

I know that helping the less fortunate improve their living conditions, improves the living conditions for all citizens, and I shall support those efforts.

I shall refer to our country as the United States, or the United States of America, and avoid using the single term ‘America’ or ‘American,’ as those terms apply to all of North, Central, or South America.

I shall vote for the most intelligent, open-minded candidates for public office, as it is their responsibility to research and understand all issues and opportunities of our government, and then make the best choice for all people.

I shall support all efforts to assess, anticipate, and prepare for the needs and issues of our country’s future, and not dwell on past issues, except to avoid them in the future.

I shall honor my citizenship and my fellow citizens by making this pledge and seeking to serve our country to the best of my abilities.

5 Reasons I No Longer Feel The Bern

04 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Communication, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Taxes, US History, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2016, Bernie Sanders, Conservatives, Democrats, Donald, GOP, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, liberals, Politics, President, Republicans

Nevada was an early caucus state. Caucus is Latin for a divisive meeting of unified people and, from the word, ‘caca,’ meaning excrement.

Hillary Clinton: In her 3rd decade of fighting for a government by the people

Hillary Clinton: In her 3rd decade of fighting for a government by the people

Prior to the Nevada caucus I was unsure who I was supporting. I always have liked Hillary Clinton, but I have been a little frustrated with the moderate viewpoint that we can all work together, when extremist conservatives have proven that we really can’t. I considered myself leaning towards Bernie Sanders until the February 11th Democratic debate, and then I began to realize that Bernie is not the man to lead this country.

1. Bernie: The One-Song Musical
In the February 11th Democratic debate I realized that Bernie Sanders has latched on to a handful of speaking points and beats them to death at every rally. I don’t really care what Hillary Clinton said in her speeches to any big bank, but I do appreciate she has their attention. Bernie’s harping on a few minor meaningless issues is exactly what conservatives have been doing for decades and I’m sick of it. We don’t need a leader to spend four years of blaming other people for small faults when we have the rise of a second Confederacy in our country that seeks to destroy everything we stand for in the United States.

2. Bernie Supporters:  All Flash, No Dignity, No Honor, No Substance
I live next to the University of Nevada, so we have a lot of college students in our precinct. Needless to say our precinct went almost entirely for Bernie Sanders. They were all excited about themselves and how they were the voice of change. They were also rude and undignified in their manner of supporting their candidate. Both the elected President and Secretary of the caucus were Bernie supporters and wearing Bernie tee shirts and buttons. At one point, the Secretary, who did nothing during the meeting, walked in front of the fifteen Clinton supporters and announced to the room, “I’m not voting for Hillary. I’d never do that.”

But the real issue for me was when an envelope was passed around to help the Democratic Party. I went to at least thirty people before me, and none of them put any money in it. Not even a quarter. I put twenty dollars in it, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it came back with only that amount. None of the Sanders supporters were committed to helping the Democratic party. They were just there to pleasure themselves.

We don't need screamers for leaders
We don’t need screamers for leaders
Bernie Sanders is passionate, if he is anything
donald-trump-funny-face

3.  Bernie:  Howard Dean’s Scream Over and Over Again
Every time I see Bernie Sanders speak, I see Howard Dean. Sanders is not passionate, he’s irrational. After he loses an election or caucus, he starts talking about momentum, as if losing is a good thing because the campaign is about momentum, not issues.

“What this entire campaign has been about is the issue of momentum….”

                       Bernie Sanders, after losing Nevada

It’s the ‘say nothing’ approach to communication that has no meaning, just key words strung together to incite applause. It’s not leadership, it’s Trumpmanship.

4.  Bernie:  Leadership Via Destruction
Much of Sanders campaign has devolved into leadership via destruction. I agree with him on most of the issues, but in his speeches he tends to present himself as a dragon slayer and yet, he comes off more like Don Quixote. I supported him when he stayed on topic, but now he seems stuck on a message of attack rather than building. That’s not the route I support for someone to become President.

5.  Bernie:  Bottomless Pit of Promises
It the past seven years have proven anything, it has proven that the President can do very little if he or she has a Congress that is not on the same page. Promises by a presidential candidate are the fairy dust of politics. What we need to hear from a Democratic Presidential candidate is:

…elect me, AND elect these Democrats for Congress, and we will get Citizens United overturned, a ban on assault weapons restored, improve the healthcare system, ….

Speeches are the leverage of action. If a candidate for President of the United States of America is truly seeking action, he or she needs to accept that their speech should acknowledge the path to action requires the citizen to do more than just elect her or him.

TRUMP: Product of 35 Years of Conservatism

29 Monday Feb 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Religion, Taxes, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cliven Bundy, Conservatives, Donald Trump, George W. Bush, GOP, John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Republican, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Tea Party

President Ronald Reagan: Actor, Cowboy, FBI Informant

President Ronald Reagan:  Actor, Cowboy, FBI Informant, Destroyer of Good Government

On January 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan became President. Before he was elected this actor, FBI-informant, dictator-like Governor was a minor figure in national politics. His rise to power came after the collapse of the Republican party in the post-Watergate era. Reagan became the new face for disgraced conservatives. He rose to power by becoming the Great White demigod for Caucasian males.

After Nixon proved the lack of morals of the Republican party, there were two choices. The first choice to would be to humbly accept the failure of ethics within the party and commit to an honest approach to serving our government. The second choice would be to double down and make the party even less ethical than it was before Nixon’s gang of Dirty Tricksters.

The party chose to double down and go for the gullible voter. Conservatives became two-faced. The outward face was a facade of saying anything to suck in the weak and the stupid, and the other face was the hidden face of power and corruption that steered the true agenda of the party.

Conservatives Made Government Corrupt
Federal, State, and local government had brought us out of the depression, created the interstate highway system, and put us in space. Those achievements set the stage for a prosperous country that had a new power infrastructure, 20th century transportation system, and was on the leading edge of technology. In addition, cities and towns had new water and sewer systems, and new schools to elevate the level of education for everyone in the United States.

President John F. Kennedy: Making Big Government Do Great Things

President John F. Kennedy: Making Big Government Do Great Things

Our country was great, because our government was great.

However, our government also maintained the balance of fairness for all citizens. Our government held corporations to higher standards. If an airline wanted to have a route that was a financial goldmine, they also have to serve a smaller community that wouldn’t have air service under the typical business greed motivation. Conservatives had to make government evil in order to gain public support to destroy it.

Undercutting Government
The first step was to bankrupt the government. That was a job for the Reagan administration. To the public he railed against the size of government and proclaimed that taxes were too high. In 1981, he cut taxes for the lowest wage earners by 3%, (from 14% down to 11%,) but slashed taxes on the super rich by 20%, (from 70% to 50%.) along with slashing estate taxes and corporate taxes for the rich and powerful.

Then in 1986, he slashed taxes again for the super wealthy from 50% to 28%, but INCREASED the taxes on those least able to pay from 11% to 15%. In the end he had increased taxes on the lowest wage earner by 2% and decreased taxes on the super wealthy by 42%.

At the same time, Reagan increased federal spending through massive and wasteful military spending that put the country’s economy on the brink of disaster. This would all be sold to the public as the failure of our government, not the insane policies of a conservative economic madman.

Radicalized Right

Cliven Bundy - Created in Ronald Reagan's Image (photo credit cnn.com)

Cliven Bundy – Created in Ronald Reagan’s Image (photo credit cnn.com)

With the humiliation of the Nixon presidency, conservatives had to find support in citizens who were susceptible to manipulation, as they had lost the trust of most of the intelligent citizens of our country. They began seeking out false problems that would win favor with the lesser intelligent white person.

Issues like gun ownership, Christian extremism, racism targeting Hispanics, demonizing public education, and laws targeting women, minority voters, and gays became the banner of the conservatives. All of these issues appealed to the least intelligent white male who sought to blame others for their failures.

By raising these false issues, the people who were gullible felt empowered and believed that conservatives had become their voice for issues that existed only in the minds of weak, insecure, racists. The white male and his spouse saw conservatives as angels of a mythical God of white people who would bring back the United States to be something it never was before.

Obstruct, Obstruct, Obstruct:  Do Nothing Conservatives
George W. Bush became the final straw in our country to expose the failure of conservatives. He followed the conservative ideology to the letter and when it all failed, conservatives distanced themselves as quickly as possible. By 2008, every idea of conservatives was proven to be a failure and had destroyed our government and our economy.

The GOP's Biggest Loser, To Become Their Last Hope?
The GOP’s Biggest Loser, To Become Their Last Hope?
Kim Davis cartoon
Trump's Chump?
Trump’s Chump?
Speaker John Boehner's Puppet Master
Speaker John Boehner’s Puppet Master
Image credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP.
Conservatives: Go F**k Yourselves America
Ted Nugent: America's Epic Fail
Ted Nugent: America’s Epic Fail
Image thanks to brotherpeacemaker.com
Mitt Romney
John McCain still bitter about 2008?
John McCain still bitter about 2008?
Senator Mitch McConnell: "Election, what election?"
Senator Mitch McConnell: “Election, what election?”
Rove's laughing now.
Rove’s laughing now.
Bush Logic: Trust me. I know what I'm doing
Bush Logic: Trust me. I know what I’m doing
Rick Santorum - Extremist's Lap Dog...but he'll support Romney...didn't you get his eamil?
Rick Santorum – Extremist’s Lap Dog…but he’ll support Romney…didn’t you get his eamil?
Conservative Investigation: Celebrate males testify about women's contraception
Conservative Investigation: Celebrate males testify about women’s contraception
Rush Limbaugh Wants Sex Videos
Rush Limbaugh Wants Sex Videos
Bachmann, Perry, Cain all served up what Evangelicals wanted
Bachmann, Perry, Cain all served up what Evangelicals wanted
Alabama Governor Robert Bentley
Alabama Governor Robert Bentley
Angle: Manning up in stupid
Angle: Manning up in stupid
gibbons_karrasch1
3rd Place in Miss Alaska, attended five different colleges in four years (one of them twice,) and 1/2 term Governor of Alaska (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
3rd Place in Miss Alaska, attended five different colleges in four years (one of them twice,) and 1/2 term Governor of Alaska (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Donald Trump: The anti-American candidate
Donald Trump: The anti-American candidate

Still, conservatives refused to accept reality and took the one action left for them. Try to sabotage any program or law that would repair our country. During their reign of terror on the United States they had managed to gerrymander districts across the country to keep a conservative majority in the House of Representatives. That was enough to give conservatives the ability to prevent any effective action to fix our government, which allowed them to promote the myth that our government was broken, even though it was conservatives who were breaking it. Any attempt to circumvent this tactic was declared to be an affront to the Constitution and the separation of powers.

The Product of Conservative's Lunacy

The Product of Conservative’s Lunacy

Trump:  The Political Whore of Stupid, White People
Thirty-five years of conservative politics and distilled out all rationality in the Republican party. The party has degenerated to the point that the most successful candidate to win the Republican presidential nomination has to incite the worst elements of our country into believing that we are doomed and that the best course of action is to elect the people who have consistently failed.

Trump is the bastard child of Reagan’s legacy. He is the champion of the citizen with the mentality of a eight-year old boy. He enables stupidity as a way to govern our country. He will give his supporters whatever excites them as long as he doesn’t have to be around them too much. Trump is what happens when an ideology refuses to accept its own failure.

Why Trump is Really Missing the Debate

27 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in Politics, Public Image

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2016, Debate, Donald Trump, Fox News, GOP, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Presidential candidates, Republican, Republicans, Tea Party, Ted Cruz, Wackos

Trump Sad

The Debate Strategy: Trump has the idiots right where he wants them. Now he needs to step out of the light and let Bush shine a little. (Image credit: TheBusinessPundit.com)

Donald Trump is playing the “poor little o’ me” card in his justification for missing the next debate, but there is likely another reason for Trump to not take the Fox News stage on Thursday.

He’s doing his job to well.

Five months ago I suggested that Donald Trump was not running for President (SEE: The Trump Card,) and that he was likely trying to corral the less intelligent Americans into one group so he could deliver them to the Republican Presidential nominee this summer.

Last month I predicted the approximate date that he would drop out and tell his drooling, weak-minded supporters that they have to vote for Jeb Bush or else Hillary Clinton will win (SEE: Trump Dropout Countdown.) 

But why isn’t he going to the debate on Thursday?

The problem is that Jeb Bush is having a hard time looking like a leader when the Republican class clown steals the stage. Bush needs to move up in the polls and this debate is a perfect format for him to do that….if Trump is not there.

 

GOP polling 27 JAN

Bush needs to leap over Ben Carson and Marco Rubio after this next debate (Poll analysis credit:  Huffington Post)

Bush can probably hold his own against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Cruz and Rubio are usually victims of their own stupidity and at this debate Bush has the opportunity to make himself look like the kinder, gentler, more sane candidate than the rest of the pack.

A Bush win would likely put him in third place which lands him within striking distance of a diminishing Ted Cruz. Cruz can’t out Trump, Trump, and Bush looks more presidential, so Cruz will find himself bleeding support to both ends of the GOP spectrum. That will eventually put Bush in second which is where he wants/needs to be until next May when Trump will drop out.

Time to Repeal Republicans

07 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Health, History, Opinion, Politics, Public Image, Religion, Respect, Taxes, US History, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2016, Congress, conservative, Conservatives, Election, GOP, Healthcare, Obamacare, Paul Ryan, Republican, Republicans, Speaker of the House, Tea Party

The Republican party can’t help themselves. They are born to do the wrong thing.

Paul Ryan - Leader of the Stupid (Image credit: Wall Street Journal
Paul Ryan – Leader of the Stupid (Image credit: Wall Street Journal
Cliven Bundy - Created in Ronald Reagan's Image (photo credit cnn.com)
Cliven Bundy – Created in Ronald Reagan’s Image (photo credit cnn.com)
Edgar Votes GOP (Image credit: Columbia Pictures
Edgar Votes GOP (Image credit: Columbia Pictures

The United States of America was established on the principle that everyone is equal. Yes, there were some many of our founders who didn’t see African Americans as equals, nor were women seen as equals, but they probably also didn’t believe that the Earth orbited the Sun.

Over time we learned that all humans are truly equal. Over time we adopted a system of government that was committed to protecting the rights of ALL people. Over time we became the greatest country in the history of the world not only because of the principles that were the framework of our country, but because we took that framework and made it greater than the people who wrote it.

But there are always those who want to tear it all down under the belief that it is not ‘our’ country, but ‘my’ country. Those people who are too stupid to be let out in public, but want a gun in their purse when they our out among our citizens just in case they see someone they want to kill.

Conservatives have a history of tearing down great things. Guided by the concept that “we can’t,” conservatives have constantly battled for less for everyone else and more for them.

After fifty attempts the Cliven Bundy’s of Congress have finally passed a repeal of Obamacare. Nope, they don’t have a plan ‘B’, except they want American healthcare run by the greedy, not by compassionate. Republicans have proven again why they are the party of anti-Americans. They hate equality. They hate being told to be ethical. They hate paying for the privilege of being citizen of the United States of America.

It’s time we repeal Republicans and put our country back into the hands of the intelligent, the compassionate, and the true patriots.

Trump Dropout Countdown

21 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Government, Politics, Public Image

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

2016, anti-American, anti-USA government, Ben Carson, Carly Fionia, Donald Trump, Election, GOP, HuffPost, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, polls, President, racists, Republican, Republicans, Tea Party, Ted Cruz, Wacko, Wacko vote, Wackoism, Wackos

Trump Out of the Race on or about May 17, 2016

Trump Out of the Race on or about May 17, 2016

Four months ago I said that Donald Trump was probably not running for President (SEE: The Trump Card.) Not only am I prepared to say that Donald Trump is not running for President, I predict he will dropout of his ‘pretend’ campaign for President on or about 9:00 am EDT, May 17, 2016.

I know he’s not running for President because:

  1. Any reasonable person would know that his outrageous statements are targeted to a small, unintelligent, USA-government hating, racist group of people who do not have the ability to elect a President.
  2. His statements have alienated the intelligent conservatives to the point that even they would rather not vote than to elect him.
  3. If he were the Republican nominee he would solidify the liberals and moderates leading to the biggest Republican loss in recent history.
  4. With Trump at the top of the ticket, the House and the Senate might both go to the Democrats.
  5. His over-the-top, implausible character is typical of an inexperienced actor who goes for fake drama rather than real emotion.

Trump has been on a mission since June 2015, and that mission has not changed. The field of Republican wackos for President that popped up in the Spring of 2015, was splintering the party to the point that no one candidate would be able to reunite the conservative voters in 2016.

Enter Donald Trump. His mission was to gather up all the wacko voters and get them in one basket. To do this he had to become one of them, and he has excelled in his effort.

One by one Trump has sucked the life out of other GOP wacko Presidential candidates by being the biggest, loudest wacko of them all. His tactics are simple. As one wacko rises in the polls, Trump steps up his antics. Ben Carson starts rising, Trump drops wacko bombs in the media, and Carson numbers start falling. His mission is not complete, but by the Spring of 2016, it will be Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and possibly two minor also-rans. 

With the exception of Trump, the candidates who went after the wacko vote have been unwilling to commit to the image that appeals to the least intelligent, most racist, most anti USA-government group of voters. Why? Because they actually had hopes of becoming President and they knew that the wacko vote may get them up in the polls, but the wacko image would be suicide in the general election. Trump doesn’t care about the general election because he’s not running for President.

Look who’s floating along. Jeb Bush. He was at around 13% last summer and he’s now down around 6%, but he’s still there. He’s not the target of anyone. He’s not on the public radar. He’s just there. He has no real fear of losing wacko support because he’s not interested in appealing to them. He’s waiting until they appeal to him.

HuffPost GOP President Blend of Polls - DEC 2015

HuffPost GOP President Blend of Polls – DEC 2015 (Go to website)

So what’s next?

Trump will continue to be the Wacko Pied Piper. He will continue to suck the wacko voters out of those candidates who built their campaigns on wackoism. On or about May 1, 2015, Trump will start making statements about his concerns that he may not be electable in the general election. He will then work to scare the wackos into submission. He will tell them that the first priority to the country is to make sure Hillary is NOT elected as President.

On or about May 15, 2015, the media will receive a leaked story regarding Trump having a “secret” meeting with the Bush campaign. Soon after that Donald Trump will fall on his rubber sword and instruct his wacko supporters that it is their duty to the country to support Jeb Bush. Jeb, having already secured the established conservatives, will then suddenly become the ‘conservative cause’ for the wackos. Two months later he will be the “Miracle Candidate” to be lauded at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in August.

And Donald Trump will get anything he wants from the Republican party for the rest of his life. Donald Trump will drop out of the race on or about May 17, 2016. It’s a done deal.

The Joy of No

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Club Leadership, College, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Higher Education, Honor, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Recruitment, Membership Retention, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point, Tom Peters, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bosses, committees, dictators, Human Interaction, meetings, No, organizations, Social Interaction, workplace

_DSC1990No is a perfectly acceptable answer….providing,

  • The idea or suggestion lacked thought or had no basis in fact. (e.g.; Would Donald Trump be a good President?)
  • The idea or suggestion has obvious flaws. (e.g.; Should we let a gun be in a room with a bunch of 2nd grade children?)
  • Is a matter of personal opinion or seeks personal approval. (e.g.; Would you go out with me?)

But when an idea or suggestion doesn’t fall under any of these categories, the “no” answer becomes a potential weapon of personal destruction for the person saying it, and a beautiful opportunity for the person on the receiving end.

Being the youngest of four boys, my brothers and parents became accustomed to telling me ‘no.’ I was constantly asking questions and making suggestions, and the ‘yes’ answer was likely to encourage me. In those situations where I actually had a good idea, it was enough that as the youngest member of the family, a ‘no’ answer was valid.

As an adult, I never had any expectations that my ideas and suggestions would be better received, so hearing ‘no’ was an irritation, but I accepted it as part of life.

However, I as grew older I noticed that some people seemed to enjoy telling other people ‘no.’ Often these people were in leadership positions and their tactic was to dominate and/or intimidate others. In some cases people would act as a dictator within the organization, silencing the ideas and opinions of others with a type of ‘no’ answer that implied dire consequences if the person didn’t drop the subject, or the idea was treated so lightly as if the person was unintelligent for making the suggestion. For years I thought that part of being a good manager was to have the privilege and responsibility to tell others, “NO!” 

Then several years ago I joined a service club and became very involved in the organization. I served on several Boards and committees. I discovered that I could manipulate some people because I always knew their response to whatever I suggested would be, ‘no.’

It was then I realized that when someone says ‘no,’ it is a gift. The “No-ee” has done all they are required by making the suggestion or asking the question. The “No-er” has put their reputation and respectability on the line. The ‘no’ answer gives them all the responsibility, and, as a situation plays out, their failure to consider someone else’s idea or suggestion may be the fatal decision that brings them down.

I still find enjoyment of sometimes asking a perfectly legitimate question of someone I know will give me a ‘no’ answer. It is even more interesting to do this when I have more information about the issue or situation than they do and they can’t help but give me an answer that will eventually haunt them.

Still, I have learned that organizations and relationships with ‘no’ people are typically doomed. There’s a time to experience the joy of ‘no,’ and then there are times it’s best to walk away and shake the dust off your sandals.

Paul Ryan: A Loser’s Legacy

02 Monday Nov 2015

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

Paul Ryan, helped Mitt Romney lose in 2012

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

Representative Ryan has a history of association with failure:

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

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

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

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

Ayn Rand, 1974

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

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

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

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

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House 2015 to 2016.

Why Blog? Why Not? Six Reasons

07 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Communication, Generational, Health, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, Passionate People, Photography, Public Image, Public Relations, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

art, Blog, Blogging, expression, self awareness, thoughts, writer, writing

Why Blog?

Because it’s there.

Blogging is the sand castle of writing, but waves don't wash it away

Blogging is the sand castle of writing, but waves don’t wash it away

  1. Blogging is not a path to fame or fortune. If you think people are going to hang on your every blog post, you will likely be disappointed. If you think your blog is going to change the world, you will likely be disappointed. If you think people are going to pay you to write, you will likely be disappointed.
  2. Blogging is the opportunity to write. Like dance, or acting, or painting, blogging is a creative art. The more you write, the better your skills. The more skilled, the more satisfying.
  3. Blogging is expression. It is a public diary that exposes who you are and what you think. If you try to be someone you’re not, you likely will be embarrassed.
  4. Blogging is long term. If your measure of success is the number of readers who read yesterday’s blog, you probably shouldn’t blog. The Internet is a library and Google is the librarian. Five years from now someone may search for information and discover your blog is exactly what they needed. That is success. Remember, your blog is one among billions, but time is without measure.
  5. Blogging is about legacy. Your children’s children will have the opportunity to get to know you through your blog. It will expose them to your mind and your passions. Somewhere down the ancestry line will be a grandchild or great-grandchild who thinks exactly like you, and they will treasure the opportunity to get to know themselves through your writing.
  6. Blogging is about finding yourself. Writing down our internal discussions can be revealing. We may not fully understand our values and who we are until it comes back to us in our own words.

Most people cannot fathom why anyone would blog, but if you blog, you are not ‘most people.’ That alone should reassure you of the value of blogging.

A Failure of Communication

06 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Generational, Government, Higher Education, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, parenting, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media, Universities, Website, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CAS, charter schools, Communication, Coral Academy of Science, Education, elementary, emal, Facebook, Gulen movement, Gulen Schools, high school, Iman, Instagram, K-12, middle school, Nevada, Reno, Teaching

“What we got here is a failure to communicate“
Prison Warden in Cool Hand Luke

Organizations should use extreme caution in employing anyone over forty-five for handling public image and public relations. I fall into that bracket and I’ve been studying social media since 2007, but I only know enough to understand that most ‘professionals’ of the traditional media don’t have a clue when it comes to communicating information to people in this century.

Traditional media professionals reminisce about the glory days when the game was to be on good terms with the editor of the local newspapers, have drinks with the news directors of the local television stations, and talk shop with the other local public relations (PR) directors at the bigger companies. Those were the days when a phone call could land a big story for the local news that would launch a new product or service. Top management would pat the PR guy on the back (or on the butt if the person was female) and tell him or her what a great job they did.

Those days are over.

The Internet, Facebook, customer reviews, Twitter, Yelp, and a thousand other media channels severely wounded traditional media and the old ways are never coming back. Yet, talk to an old PR person and say that nothing has really changed. It’s all about who you know. Old PR people don’t have a clue at how silly they sound.

I was at a school board meeting for a public charter school last week where a self-professed ‘expert’ in public relations announced that she was at a conference and learned that people no longer used websites to obtain information. She said that parents of school-age children only paid attention to Facebook and Instagram.

Actual "Principal's message" from current school website....written at least three years ago

Actual “Principal’s message” from current school website….written at least three years ago

It should be noted, and that the school’s website is one of the worst on the Internet, and that the school is known for its severe deficiency in communicating information to parents.

Public Communication 2015
As part of the out-of-touch generation, take my advice with a grain of sodium chloride, or whatever water retaining additive you choose, but here is what I have learned in the past eight years.

It is true that many people from different generations tend to engage in social media at varying levels; however, there is no one single media that can reach everyone regardless of their generation. Education level, social economic status, and language all play a role in where people gather information. To declare that there are one or two media sources that parents of school-age children rely on is arrogant at best, and more likely, ignorant.

Any organization’s strategy has to be to use every possible form of media delivery to reach the stakeholders. In the case of a school, information has to be delivered through student folders, phone call announcements, in-school announcements, school website, parent emails, mail, Public Service Announcements (PSA,) school’s Facebook page, etc. Information must also be repeated in order to reach people when they’re listening. A single Facebook post is like going to a street corner at 6:00 AM and yelling out information and then assuming that everyone who passes by that street corner that day will hear the message.

But just sending out the same message through all the channels is ineffective. Social media channels are best used as a ‘reminder’ or ‘alert’ forum with a link back to one source (e.g.; the school website.) Long posts on Facebook make the information less likely to be read both now and in the future. Short posts with a link to more information for those interested is the most efficient method of delivery.

The website is NOT dead. In fact, it is more vital than ever. A charter school’s website is an information source for those considering enrolling their children, a primary source for parents for detailed information, and it establishes the public image for the school. A Facebook page is vital, and if you have a brilliant administration, Twitter can be the inside source for parents who want to know the inside scoop of what is happening now, but the school website will always be the 24/7/365 place for vital information.

It will take a decade or more to weed out the old PR professionals who live in the past; however, it doesn’t take a sixteen-year-old to know when someone doesn’t understand how to communicate in this century. If the stakeholders say they are not being adequately informed, it’s obvious the organization has a problem.

GOP Presidential Race is Over

27 Sunday Sep 2015

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Marco Rubio basking in the glow of Boehner's resignation

Marco Rubio basking in the glow of Boehner’s resignation

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

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

House Speaker John Boehner takes the high road

House Speaker John Boehner takes the high road

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

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

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

The Trump Card

21 Friday Aug 2015

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

Donald Trump: The anti-American candidate

Donald Trump: The anti-American candidate

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

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

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

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

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

Trump As Vice President?

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

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

Paul Ryan, helped Mitt Romney lose in 2012

Paul Ryan, helped Mitt Romney lose in 2012

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

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

Panama’s Historical Struggle For Self-Determinism

28 Tuesday Jul 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

Ruins of the Spanish fortifications in Portobelo, Panama

Ruins of the Spanish fortifications in Portobelo, Panamá

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

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

A Spanish Import:  The Catholic Church

A Spanish Import: The Catholic Church

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

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

_DSC1079 (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Panamanian girl in traditional dress

A Panamanian girl in traditional dress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

01 Wednesday Jul 2015

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Day the World Will Stop: Changing of the English Throne

09 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Generational, Government, History, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Religion, Respect, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Crown, England, Great Britain, Her Majesty, leadership, Prince Charles, Prince William, Queen Elizabeth II, Royal, Royalty, Succession, The Queen, Throne, UK, United Kingdom

Queen_Elizabeth_II_March_2015

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II

In 114 days (as of May 9, 2015,) Queen Elizabeth II’s legend will take one step further into history. On September 9th of this year she will become the longest-serving royal (63 years, 217 days) to ever grace the English throne. If you are younger than 65 years old you will not have known anyone other than Queen Elizabeth as the leader of England.

It is said she will not abdicate her throne, but will reign until her death. That is the expected choice, but possibly not the wisest.

It is likely her Majesty does not understand the impact her death will have on the world. Humans cling to the idea that some things do not change, and there are few people in the civilized world who don’t have a mental and/or emotional attachment to her and her place in our world. She is the constant that we all rely on to know that some things do not change.

Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg

The Queen’s Royal Coat of Arms (UK)

During her reign as Queen we have had twelve Presidents in the United States (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41,) Clinton, Bush (43,) and Obama.) We have seen movie stars, rock stars, athletes all come and go, but Queen Elizabeth has always been there.

In a world of instant communication, her death will affect more people than anyone in the history of the world. People will remember where they were and what they were doing the moment the news is announced. If her death coincides with a change in royal leadership, it will magnify the impact on the world.

Queen Elizabeth 1953

Queen Elizabeth II in 1953

The event of her death and the passing of the English crown will be seen by some as the perfect opportunity to take advantage of an emotional situation. The majority of the world will pull closer together in grief, but those who seek radical changes in politics, government, the economy, or just seek to hurt the Western world, will use the chaotic feelings of the loss as a way of creating more chaos.

The royal family will be dealing with the loss, and the matters of royal duty at the same time. The coronation of the new King may not happen for a year or more; however, the details of transitioning power from Her Majesty to the His Majesty will involve changes in staff, new protocols, and a thousand other items that have not been done for over six decades. All this will happen at a time when few will be able to focus on anything beyond the loss of woman and icon that has been an unflickering beacon of the Western World.

However, if she reached this milestone in four months and then decided to abdicate sometime in the next year, a calm, undramatic transition would preserve the stability of the royal role the hearts and minds of the world. As the former queen with over sixty years of experience, she would become the most valuable and trusted counsel for the new King.

Her eventual passing will still devastate the emotional state of the world, but with a new King already on the throne, the world will know that England’s royal, non-political leadership will live on.

God Save the Queen.

Death By Incentive Program

04 Monday May 2015

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizational success is not a science, but an art

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

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

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

People are not ethical by nature

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

Some organizations intend the incentive program to encourage unethical behavior

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

Incentive = Manipulation

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

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

Goodbye to HelloFresh

30 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Green, Health, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Recreation, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

cooking, eating, Food, food service, HelloFresh, home meal delivery, internet food, meal, meal choice, meat, vegetarian

Instructions for preparing HelloFresh meals

Instructions for preparing HelloFresh meals

We were not in the market for a home delivery meal service, but when I received a coupon for three meals for less than $30 from HelloFresh we took the plunge. 

HelloFresh is a subscription dinner service. For the normal price of $69/week we could have a UPS truck stop at our house every Tuesday (or any other day) with the ingredients and recipes for three meals. The box had three large ice blocks with the meat under them and the other ingredients on the top. The meals were enclosed in a large plastic bag in case the ice began to melt and leak.  

The meals were for two people, (you can get boxes with meals for four) and the quality of the ingredients were good with one exception, an avocado that was overripe. 

The issues with the service are as follows: 

Extremely limited menu – HelloFresh has two menus to select from, a meat menu and a vegetarian menu. You cannot mix the meals from the two different menus. On the meat menu, they offer three meals of their choosing, or we could have selected from two alternatives; however, we found the alternatives to be less palatable than the three primary choices. 

Odd menu choices – The lack of quality cuts of red meat on their menu is obvious. The red meat offerings during the two weeks were flank steak and a meal with hamburger mixed in with the stuffed pepper meal. The six meals were:

  • Pan-seared chicken & pea pilaf
  • Citrus skillet shrimp
  • Wasabi-glazed (flank) steak 
  • Goat cheese-stuffed chicken roulades
  • Indian stuffed peppers (with hamburger)
  • Oven-roasted salmon

Alternatives for week one were:

  • Fregola Sarda & Sweet Italian Sausage
  • Pea & Asparagus Gnocchi

Alternatives for week two were:

  • Mustard pork chops
  • Burst tomato & squash fusilli

The menu targets the person with eclectic taste and/or someone who loves the challenge of cooking new foods. If you are a person who can only find four or five acceptable choices on a typical 50 item restaurant menu, HelloFresh is not for you.

Heavy on frying – olive oil and the skillet are prominent aspects of preparing a HelloFresh meal.

Increased prep and clean up time – the HelloFresh website proudly states, “Cooking Made Easy.” This was not our experience. If you are an experienced chef you might be able to meet the prep times listed, but we found that it typically took about an hour to prep a HelloFresh meal. Clean up took at least two to three times longer than clean up for our own home cooked meals.

Confusing recipes – HelloFresh breaks down the recipe in steps; however, each step is written in paragraph form with multiple sub-tasks in each paragraph. It requires re-reading the same paragraph multiple times to make sure you don’t miss a step.

Cost – At almost $70 for three meals, HelloFresh is an expensive meal service. I estimate that the ingredients for each meal cost around $10, so we paid about $40 for shipping, meal planning, and ingredient procurement while still being responsible for the cooking and clean up.

Excessive delay between order and delivery – All orders for the next week must be in by Wednesday midnight of the previous week regardless of what day it is delivered. That means the food for the meals is probably ordered/finalized on Thursday. That would make the process for HelloFresh much easier, but it sacrifices convenience for the customer and means the ingredients delivered late in the week are likely as old as the ingredients delivered at the beginning of the week.

Of all the issues I have with HelloFresh, it is the lack of choice. The limitations set by HelloFresh indicate a minimal budget and a lack of commitment to the concept of home delivered meals. That suggests an organization that lacks the financial and human resources to meet the expectations of the customer.

I have tried to understand what market HelloFresh is attempting to capture; however, with the menu limitations, cost, and eccentric meal choices, it is mystifying who would pay for a glorified shopping service that places customer choice and convenience as secondary to their own.

Religious Liberty Laws Violate The Bible

03 Friday Apr 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Dave Granlund cartoon

Dave Granlund Cartoon: Liberty for who?

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

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

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

Romans 14: 10-13
New International Version¹

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

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

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

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

Romans 14: 19
New International Version

The Religious Liberty laws are actually anti-Christian laws.

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

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

25 Wednesday Mar 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

Implementation of Common Core/US News and World Report

Implementation of Common Core

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Wednesday Mar 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

PART TWO: What is Common Core?

Cartoon in Chicago Tribune about parent reaction to Common Core

Cartoon in Chicago Tribune about parent reaction to Common Core

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 Tuesday Mar 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

PART I: A Primer in American Education

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

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

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

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

Public school in Panama: Seeking to achieve the American dream

Public school in Panama: Seeking to achieve the American dream

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epilogue : The 2010’s

20 Friday Mar 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

The 2010’s – End of Civility

Image credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP.

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

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

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

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

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

U.S._Income_-_Changes_by_Income_Group_1979-2011

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

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

GDP Growth by Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is Why (2015 vs the 2000’s)

19 Thursday Mar 2015

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

The 2000’s – The Defeat of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEXT:  Epilogue

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

This is Why (2015 vs the 1980’s)

15 Sunday Mar 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

The 1980’s – Political Con Game

President Ronald Reagan:  Actor, Cowboy, FBI Informant

President Ronald Reagan: Actor, Cowboy, FBI Informant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEXT:  The 1990’s

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

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Other Pages of This Blog

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

Paul’s Recent Blogs

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

Paul Kiser’s Tweets

Tweets by PaulKiser

What’s Up

August 2026
S M T W T F S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
« Jun    

Follow Blog via Email

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

Join 685 other subscribers

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Loading Comments...