Romney Adds Insult to Stupidity

02 Sunday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

Or he could have just said:

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

Instead he said that he saw:

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

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

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

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

I believe the Games will be safe…

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

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

Early 2014 PR Fails: Target and Christie

13 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Government, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Social Media Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bridgegate, George Washington Bridge, Governor Chris Christie, GW bridge scandal, New Jersey, Nixon, retail, store, Target

Self-inflicted Wounds?

Only 13 days in 2014 and Target and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie share the spotlight for worst public image of the new year.

Target credit information theft just keeps getting worse. We learned last week that data was stolen for 70 million Target customers, not 40 million as belatedly reported earlier this month. Target is averaging over one sales-killing announcement a week so far this year and each new announcement makes the crisis worse. There are people who say Target will survive, but if someone were going to attempt to kill a leading corporate retail organization, this would be the way to do it.

It’s not like Target has no competition. Making customers worry of whether their credit data is safe when they shop is not a unique experience desired by any retail store. Add the but-wait-it-gets-worse element and sales are bound to sink.

Target will likely continue to minimize the crisis, which will only increase the distrust of the brand. The PR strategy they are following is going to dig them into a deeper grave.

Not to be outdone, Governor Chris Christie is dropping his own PR boob bombs. After claiming that a traffic tie up at the George Washington Bridge was part of a legitimate traffic study, he then was forced to confront emails that clearly indicated his top aides were involved in Nixon-era tactics aimed at some type of petty revenge act.

Governor Christie’s apology missed the mark

The issue is not whether or not Governor Christie knew that his senior staff were behaving like chimpanzees throwing their poop at people in the zoo, the issue is Christie is either 1) incompetent for surrounding himself with idiots, and/or, 2) incompetent for not knowing what was going on, or, 3) aware of everything and is lying about it.

The big PR factors in both crises are the lack of humility and accepting responsibility. Instead of minimizing the crisis, Target should have been ahead of the crisis. Not only should they be providing the most accurate and honest information, they should have been apologizing to their customers, assisting them, and offering to make things right for any customer who is affected by the loss of their credit data. This is an issue of long-term survivability, not revenue projections for the current quarter.

As for Governor Christie, that ship has sailed. He had a chance to accept responsibility and resign. His, the-buck-stops-here-but-I’m-blaming-everyone-else strategy only proved that he has dignity of Lance Armstrong. He could have admitted his mistakes, stepped back, and then worked to rebuild his reputation, but he instead he revealed how low he can go.

Public image is everything, and it does not suffer fools gladly.

Hey Stupid, Privacy is Dead and Your Face is the Reason

31 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Generational, Government, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, parenting, Photography, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anthony Weiner, Biometrics, face, Facebook, facial recognition software, Facial recognition system, Ohio, on line, Privacy, Twitter

Facial recognition software is the final nail in Internet privacy

Go ahead, just try to protect your privacy. Give up Facebook. Scoff at Twitter. Swear you’re going to never sign on the computer again. It is all useless.

Stick a fork in privacy on the Internet. There no such thing as privacy on the Internet, nor is there privacy off the Internet.

A girl decides to check up on her boyfriend. She happens to be an attorney in Ohio and has access to the State’s facial recognition software. She uses it to snoop on her boyfriend and other people her friends were dating. This was in 2008. Five years ago and she was using (well, misusing) facial recognition software that was meant for finding criminals.

It doesn’t matter whether you take the picture or post it. It doesn’t even matter if you knew you were in the picture. New Years Eve? Good luck in keeping your face out of every picture that people around you take. If your face shows up in a posted picture, it can be found and matched.

Not only law enforcement is using facial recognition software. Casinos are using it. Some suggest that Disney is using it in their parks. Retailers are using it. Your significant other can buy it and download it today. If you want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes, watch this TED Talk on facial recognition software.

Anthony Weiner: Too bad it wasn’t his face that got him in trouble

There is no such thing as privacy. One more time. There is no such thing as privacy.

THE ANSWER
Behave. That’s it. Or at least know that if you don’t behave everyone will find out and it will be at the worst possible moment for you. People learn how to behave when they go out in public. The Internet is public. There is no difference.

10 Things To Decline From An Employer

09 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Health, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Tom Peters

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Affordable Care Act, benefits, company car, company cell phone, company email, Email, employment agreement, employment contract, free speech, Heath Benefits, Intellectual property, NDA, Non-compete, Pay for Performance, retirement benefits

No longer can anyone expect to build a lifelong career with one organization, nor is that considered healthy for the individual or the company. A person is now his or her own commodity. He or she must expect to build their own skills and reputation as an individual on the open market rather than as corporate employee number 8675309.

In this Brave New Working World a person should be prepared to say ‘no’ to antiquated elements of 20th Century employment, not only because they are inappropriate, but because they indicate that employer is unaware of their failure to be competitive in the 21st Century. Benefits and perks that were meant to tie a person to one organization no longer make sense in a world where ‘permanent employee’ has been replaced by ‘contract labor.’

Here are ten employment offers and requests that should be declined from an employer and cause you to re-evaluate your working relationship with a company:

No. 10 – Retirement Benefits
It should be obvious that any company offering retirement benefits either does not understand today’s working world or is trying to offer something that they know you will never receive. Better to have the money now and invest than pretend you’ll still be with the company when you retire.

The Company Email is always the company's to give or take away

The company giveth and taketh away access to your email

No. 9 – The Company Email Account
You many have to use the company email when corresponding with others in the company, but always ask yourself, “If the company decided to lay me off today and they ended my access to my email account, what information would I lose?” What about that email from the senior executive that ordered you to overcharge your customer? Every email sent to your company email account should be forwarded to a private account and blind copy any company emails you send to your private account. This protects you and the company from the unethical corporate manager.

No. 8 – The Company Car
When I was growing up my uncle worked for an oil tool business and he had a company car. I thought that was the coolest perk in the world. While it is a rare perk in today’s world, it should be declined in most situations. The problem with the full-time company car is that it becomes a liability if a better employment opportunity arises. Suddenly you’re faced with buying a new car in order to accept a better job.

The company cell phone comes with chains attached

No. 7 – The Company Cell Phone
Many people fail to realize what a company cell phone represents. It is a chain that ties the employee to the employer 24/7/365. A boss may hesitate to call a private cell phone, but have no problem calling the phone they are paying for at 3 AM. Many jobs require an employee to be accessible, but you are better off with your own phone than be indentured by a company cell phone.

No. 6 – Giving Your Employer Your Social Media Passwords
There are questions as to whether it is legal for an employer to demand an employee’s passwords to his or her Facebook, Twitter, and other Social Media passwords. The bottom line is that you do not want to work for a company that wants this level of control on your life. It will only go downhill from there.

No 5 – Restricting Free Speech (The NDA)
In an exercise with students in a graduate program, I purchased the fictional company they worked for and I was interviewing them to determine who to keep and who to let go. As part of this exercise I gave each of them an outrageous NDA contract (see Kco NDA) to sign. In almost every case, the Master’s program students signed it, most without question.

A company’s has a right to protect its reputation, but employers should be under the burden to gain the loyalty, trust, and respect of their employees so that they would not dream of talking smack about their workplace. If an employee is ready to bad mouth the source of their income then either the employer hired the wrong person, or the employer has failed to treat their employee as an important asset. In either case, it is the employer, not the employee who shoulders the burden of the failure.

No. 4 – Intellectual Property
If you have been consigned to produce something tangible for someone, then you have agreed to surrender it once it has been created and delivered; however, many companies are claiming ownership of any work done by an employee as their own intellectual property. Nothing could be more disrespectful to a human than to treat them as a machine that is only useful as a tree from which they pick and enjoy the fruit. A business that values their team would never have to be concerned about the issue of intellectual property because each team member’s work would be a source of pride and celebration. The important element in any organization is the person who creates the work, not the work itself.

Before you sign away your right to maintain ownership of your work you should ask if you want your give away your legacy of achievement to those who didn’t do the work?

The Affordable Care Act is emancipation for the worker

No. 3 – Health Benefits
America has millions of people who continue to work for an employer primarily because they need or want the health insurance offered by the company. As an employer do you want people to only be working for you because of the health benefit perk?

The biggest impact that the Affordable Care Act will have on America is to free people to work for people they want to work for, not those who have the critical health care benefit he or she needs.

No. 2 – Pay For Performance
When someone attempts to quantify a job or project they sacrifice common sense for greed. The need to meet the measured goals forces an employee to ignore important aspects of work that can’t be measured or quantified. Pay For Performance assumes the Ends always justifies the Means, which is rarely true in the business world, despite what greedy executives and investors think. Almost always customer satisfaction is at risk under Pay For Performance standards because a customers true satisfaction cannot be measured by questionnaires, surveys, nor sales. In every case the wise employee will figure out how to exploit the system and defeat the true purpose of the evaluation tool.

Pay For Performance systems are lose-lose scenarios for everyone and a company that relies on them does not understand how to truly motivate and reward its team; therefore, you should avoid the trap they are setting for you, your customers, and themselves.

No. 1 – The NCA
The non-compete agreement or NCA is the one indicator that proves only fools work for the employer, and there are plenty of fools out there. You shouldn’t be one of them.

An NCA basically eviscerates your career by not allowing you to continue working if you leave the current company. In today’s world that can be a death sentence. Your skills and experience are laid to waste by an NCA and you should never agree to it, nor should you consider working for someone who asks you to sign one.

GPS for the Homeless

01 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in April Fools Day, Fiction, Passionate People, Respect, Technology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Global Positioning System, GPS, homeless, Nancy Brinker, poor, Race for the Cure, Susan G. Komen

Dallas, Texas – April 1, 2013

Nancy Brinker Cure for homelessness: GPS

Nancy Brinker Cure for homelessness: A GPS device

Nancy Brinker, former Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO, has a new cause. She is the driving force behind a new non-profit called, GPS 4 Homeless. The project is collecting old Global Positioning System (GPS) devices and giving them to the homeless.

In a news conference held this morning Brinker explained:

“The homeless are just people who are lost and need direction. That is exactly what a GPS device does and if homeless people could afford a GPS device they would no longer be lost! I don’t know why nobody has thought of this before!”

A spokesperson for GPS 4 Homeless added:

“When one of our people upgrade to a newer model they put the old one in a drawer. Now it can be put to good use for those people.”

When asked what they meant by ‘our people,’ the spokesperson responded, “You know, us.” Asked if they meant wealthy white people, the spokesperson replied, “Who else would I be talking about?”

Brinker added:

“This is one cause that has no political division. Everybody wants to help the homeless and that’s what we’re doing.”

GPS 4 Homeless is currently only in Texas, but their plan is to expand into Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi by 2014.

Is It Time For A Two-Tiered School System?

12 Tuesday Mar 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raging Employee: A Case Study For Today’s Business

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Frank Sain’s Mug Shot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Company Public Image Issues

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

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

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

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

SofTec Management Team webpages – Monday versus Tuesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Paul VII?

15 Friday Feb 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Catholic, Christian, Church Christianity, Pope, Roman Church

A Pope without white hair? Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible, New King James Version

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

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

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

Bible, King James Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Grievance Collector: America’s Next Mass Murderer?

12 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Crime, Crisis Management, Human Resources, Relationships, Respect, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Dr. Larry Barton, Dr. Willard Gaylin, grievance collecting, grievance collector, school violence, Violence, Violence in the Workplace

No one can predict the next mass murderer, but a grievance collector is a loaded gun

The next mass murderer will likely:

be male
be a loner or recently have become more introverted
have a mental health issue
have an interest in violence or violent acts
have easy access to guns and ammunition
experience some kind of trigger incident
be a grievance collector

Despite the ability to identify key traits, no one can reliably predict a mass murderer before they act. The warning signs that predict a violent tendency can be found in millions of people but very few will actually go to the extreme of harming another person.

However, the last trait, “grievance collecting,” is consistent enough among mass murderers that the public should be aware of its significance in predicting violent behavior. In case after case, the person pulling the trigger in a mass public shooting has kept a list of ‘wrongs’ against him and has difficulty in moving past the grievances he has with his employer, his co-workers, his family, his government, his life, and/or his God.

Dr. Willard Gaylin, psychiatrist, author, bioethicist

In his 2004 book, Hatred: The Psychological Descent Into Violence, Psychiatrist and Bioethicist, Dr. Willard Gaylin describes the Grievance Collector:

A grievance collector will move from the passive assumption of deprivation and low expectancy common to most paranoid personalities to a more aggressive mode. He will not endure passively his deprived state; he will occupy himself with accumulating evidence of his misfortunes and locating the sources.

Dr. Gaylin continues:

Grievance collectors are distrustful and provocative, convinced they are always taken advantage of and given less than their fair share.

Dr. Gaylin also points out that a grievance collector may have been truly wronged, which is oddly comforting because it confirms his overwhelming belief that his lot in life is to be the loser. In some cases the grievance collector has followed a process of appeal, which may be less about achieving resolution, but rather is an opportunity to confirm the list of wrongs against him culminating in the loss of the appeal. Workplace and family violence can sometimes occur soon after a legal or appeal process has reached a conclusion.

To prevent a grievance collector from becoming the next mass murderer, people should be sensitive to the friend, co-worker, or acquaintance who seems preoccupied with the unfairness of the world and how he has been made a victim. Critical warning signs could be a heightened interest in guns, and/or discussion of committing a violent act (even if it is delivered as a joke.) In some cases the person might withdraw from friends, co-workers, and family. This could be a sign that the person is contemplating violence and is in a spiral of self-justification that avoids an independent perspective on the situation.

Dr. Gaylin also suggests that the grievance collector often has a history of feeling inadequate that may have originated in family dynamics with a skewed distribution of love and attention to some children, but not others. Because the root of the issue may track back to childhood, the grievance collector may lack a basic ability to recover from a new injustice without extended psychological counselling. Ultimately, treatment may be the only option that avoids a body count.

(A special note of thanks to Dr. Larry Barton, Crisis Management and Violence in the Workplace expert. While not specifically quoted, much of my awareness of violence in the workplace issues has been thanks to countless hours on the road with him and role-playing in his seminars.)

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

11 Monday Feb 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

Managing the Message is the alpha and omega of the NRA

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

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

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

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

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

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

BP public image destroyed once video revealed the PR deception

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations

06 Wednesday Feb 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

anti-listening, Conservatives, Managing the message, Nancy Brinker, Planned Parenthood, PR, Race for the Cure, sim, sm, Susan G. Komen

In Part I, “Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t,” we discussed the dangers of trying to ‘manage the message’ in a Social Media world. Part II looks at the techniques used by organizations to manage the message and why they fail.

Organizations that adopt a manage the message policy for Public Relations (PR) assume that they are the controllers and manipulators of the public image of their organization, which demotes the public to the role of a mindless zombie. If that doesn’t sound stupid enough, let’s look at the methods that organizations use to manage the message.¹

[¹ I realize that I’ve used the words Manage the Message five times in the first two paragraphs; however, “insulting PR techniques” isn’t quite specific enough as there are so many of them. 😉 ]

Corporate PR: We manage the message by not listening

Anti-listening Techniques
The subtle use of anti-listening techniques is one strategy used by organizations who seek to manage the message. The concept is simple: an organization can’t be held accountable for issues that don’t exist. By not listening an organization can effectively deny existence of an issue because they can claim ignorance, therefore can deny accountability.

One example is the use of formalized procedures for communication from the stakeholders, including the public. An organization might ignore or restrict communication on their Facebook page, requiring complaints and comments to be made through a process that is more complex or requires greater risk to complainer.

EXAMPLE: From the Facebook page for a Parent/Teacher group of an Elementary School after parents discussed concerns about major changes in the school calendar:

“Please remember that this page is used for the PTC to share PTC sponsored fundraising events and activities. If anyone has comments/complaints about the school they need to be addressed with the administration.”

(From the School’s Marketing Director)

The strategy of denying open discussion of issues allows an organization to divide and conquer people who may object or have a strong reaction to negative events or significant changes. By restricting public comment on their website or Social Media formats such as Facebook, an organization can prevent all but the most committed people from voicing their opinion or concern. For those that do comment, the organization can hide dissent and concerns behind a veil that only they have access to, so the true scope of the issue is hidden from public.

The problem with this technique is that issues or concerns do not go away by ignoring or hiding them. Whether expressed or not the reaction exists and it impacts the public image of the organization. A divide and conquer strategy increases the reaction once people discover that others share their concerns. In the Social Media world, the truth will eventually come out through a disgruntled customer, employee, or other source. Once the full scope of the deception is exposed the organization will lose all credibility and once the organization loses credibility the public image is also lost.

In January of 2012, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was receiving massive condemnation for a politically charged decision to defund Planned Parenthood. Rather than accepting that the public voice was valid, CEO Nancy Brinker attempted to double down on their position by claiming a bogus conservative-initiated Congressional investigation was reason to deny the grant requests by Planned Parenthood. Her efforts to paint an obvious conservative-motivated action as justified left her and the organization looking like right-wing wackos who had no clue that the organization depended on the perceived goodwill of the public.

By the time they tried to back peddle and fix the problem it was too late. Race For the Cure events in 2012 lost as much as one-third of the participation from the previous year and many donors question the use of their money by the Foundation. The irony is that Nancy Brinker had founded the organization thirty years earlier in her sister’s memory and now the Susan G. Komen name is not so much a symbol of fighting breast cancer as it is a reminder of conservative attempts to use backdoor methods to inflict their religious beliefs on everyone else.

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

Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t

05 Tuesday Feb 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 Sunday Dec 2012

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

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

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

David Brook, New York Times columnist

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

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

Brooks, defender of the innocent rural gun owner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Credibility Account is Bankrupt

05 Wednesday Dec 2012

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Liberal Response to Conservative Secessionists

19 Monday Nov 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Honor, Internet, Opinion, Politics, Respect, Taxes, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Secede, Succession, Sucessionists

Stars and Stripe Temporary? Their new flag all white with a red banner saying, “It’s All About Me”?

I think it is important that Liberals keep an open mind about conservatives that are bitter about the results of this month’s election. There are some conservatives who are so angry that they want to secede from the United States of America and that might upset some Liberals because it’s an affront to the dignity of America. Our country is based on the premise that after we vote we all agree to accept the results of free and unbiased elections and work together under the elected leadership.

It is not a bad thing to allow people to express their disappointment by peacefully creating a petition that is born out of anger. Liberals place the highest regard for the rights of ALL Americans, and even though it is reminiscent of a three-year-old’s temper tantrum, we should not discourage anyone from expressing their opinion, no matter how childish or immature.

I stand by the right of anyone to reject the United States of America, that land the built and maintains the Interstate Highway System, created and maintains our national parks, built hydroelectric dams, educated millions of young Americans, protects our ethical civil and business environments, and created the Internet. It is the right of every citizen to declare that they no longer want to be a citizen.

For those so inclined, the White House has a webpage where anyone can create a petition, like the petition to Nationalize the Twinkie Industry, or add their name, email address and zip code to those who want to express their hate for this country and for what it stands.

I must admit that I do have some concerns about the people who are so angry that they are ready to give up all that the United States of America has to offer in order to ‘go it alone.’ That smacks of a survivalist attitude of it’s-all-about-me by people who are ready with their guns to kill anyone who my be a real or imagined threat. It is from this group of angry people who, with a touch of mental illness, would be most likely to hurt or kill innocent people.

I wish there was a way we could collect their names, email addresses, and zip codes so that law enforcement could keep an eye on them before they express their hate for their fellow citizens through an act of violence. Oh wait, they gave that information when they signed the petition. For a group of people who eat government conspiracy theories for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, they might have thought this one through a little better.

The Petraeus Lesson: Use Your REAL Name

16 Friday Nov 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Communication, Ethics, Generational, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

David Pertraeus, Email, private life, Public Image, public life

David Petraeus knows about public image, but he believed an alias online was not public

Men my age have been taught the we should have two personalities. There is the ‘professional’ persona that we wear in our public/business life, then there’s the ‘real’ personality that we only show when we are off the stage. That worked when there was a clear division between public and private life. For most of my life I knew that the person I knew at work was not the same as the person who was in the backyard with a beer in his hand.

A baseball cap and polo shirt don’t mask the person, why would an email alias?

The Internet changed all that, but somehow older men didn’t get the memo. When we found out we could create an email account like ‘secretagent007’, ‘mysteryman’, ‘mrinvisible’, etc., we really believed we could say anything we want, do anything we wanted without anyone knowing who we really were. I admit, it is a seductive concept that our professional/public persona could remain unknown online, but the fact is that anything we say or do online is recorded in history and will always be attached to us.

The Petraeus Lesson is simply this: USE YOUR REAL NAME EVERY TIME EVERYWHERE. Don’t allow yourself to be sucked in that YOU are smarter than every one of the 7,079,446,910 people on Earth. Never, ever, ever log on, create an email, or register for a social media site using a false name. If you have an email that doesn’t use your real name then get rid of it and get another one. This is 2012, and you need to know that what you say and do online is public. Period.

I know we older, white males were raised to believe in two personas, but it is a myth that we need to get over. It’s not a privacy issue, it’s a ‘am-I-smart-or-am-I-stupid’ issue.

What America Must Do: Step 4 – Balanced Budget By 2015, Debt under 50% of GDP by 2020

03 Saturday Nov 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Ethics, Generational, Government, Health, Honor, Opinion, Politics, Respect, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles, fair taxation, federal budget, federal debt, federal deficit, government revenue, government spending, What America Must Do

The family budget is NOT like the Federal budget

Anyone who compares the federal budget to a family budget simply doesn’t understand economics.

A family budget is ruled by how much revenue the family makes, and/or by credit worthiness of the wage earners. Families operate under a micro economic system that is finite. Still, if a family buys their house they may exceed their annual Gross Family Income (GFI) by over 500% when they sign for a loan that will eventually cost them $300,000 or more.

The federal budget is a dynamic machine that powers not only federal spending, but it also impacts unemployment and the general health of America’s economy. The federal budget usually doesn’t exceed the Gross Domestic Product (GDP;) however, in times of economic crisis the Federal Debt has exceeded GDP (see chart) for short periods.

The US Federal Debt compared to US GDP

The Federal Debt is determined by revenue (federal taxes, fees, and repayments) and by expenses or spending. When more people are employed they pay more taxes on the earned income therefore the federal revenue increases and the Federal Debt falls. When the unemployment increases federal revenue decreases and Federal Debt increases because fewer people are paying taxes on earned income.

George W. Bush cut income taxes and drastically reduced federal revenue. He then increased federal spending and suddenly our Federal Debt began to balloon. In addition, federal entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are approaching a point that we have more people receiving benefits than they are funded.

There are many ways to solve the Federal Debt over a period of time, but increased federal revenue (see: What America Must Do: Step 3) is necessary if we have any hope of maintaining the quality of life that we expect in the United States. Smaller government is not the answer, but will actually deepen our economic problems. A bigger government comes with its own problems.

Smaller government means smaller economy and higher unemployment in both the public and private sectors. Bigger government means a bigger economy and lower unemployment, but it also can drive up inflation. A balance between the two is needed, but for years we have downsized the government and that has killed America’s recovery from the 2007-09 Recession.

Since everyday increases the Federal Debt, conservatives and liberals must come to a solid compromise to balance the federal budget soon. A target date for a balanced budget by 2015, should be possible through bipartisan cooperation; however, conservative extremists have no intention of bipartisanship, which is why they must be removed from the discussion (see: What America Must Do – Step 1.)

The other challenge is to bring the Federal Debt down under 50% of GDP. That can be accomplished by addressing some of the looming problems of the federal entitlement programs; however, a ‘dump and run’ strategy, where the federal government divides the current money up and dumps the programs on the individual states is a stupid solution. Federal government programs tend to be very efficiently administered. Dumping the federal administration of these programs in order to create 50 new State bureaucracies is a sure way to put most Americans in desperate poverty as State programs fail under the weight of the cost or States simply refuse to maintain the programs.

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. Two of the smartest people in the room when it comes to solving the Federal Debt issue

With relative minor adjustments federally managed entitlement programs can be maintained far into the future, and if conservatives and liberals build on work done by the Bowles-Simpson Commission the Federal Debt can be reduced below 50% by 2020.

If there is one issue that will safeguard the future of our children, it is the bipartisan work to resolve the Federal Debt.

Links to:

What America Must Do: Step 1 – Silence the Wackos in Politics
What America Must Do: Step 2 – An Extreme Makeover of Government at All Levels
What America Must Do: Step 3 – Restore Government Revenue and Fair Taxation
What America Must Do: Step 5 – Restart a Federally Run Space Program
What America Must Do: Step 6 – Reinvent Higher Education

What America Must Do: Step 2 – An Extreme Makeover of Government at All Levels

02 Friday Nov 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Customer Service, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, Honor, Human Resources, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Respect, Taxes, Technology, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Extreme government makeover, government workers, job descriptions, Organizational Charts, policies and procedures

Over a period of years any organization tends to end up with outdated job descriptions, ineffective departments, and outmoded missions. Five percent of the people cause 95% of all policies and procedures to be written. As common sense is replaced by policies written to address the five percent, an organization fails to serve the 95%.

Sometimes organizational charts are meant to confuse, but governments should be clear and concise

Administrative assistants in most organizations tend to accumulate more and more power over time as they learn the tricks to cutting through the bureaucracy and working around the budget. Learning how to play the ‘game’ is the first step in becoming a corrupt organization.

Because business is established on a motive of basic greed, most businesses fall victim to corruption within a few decades and then fail. Governments established with the blessing of the citizens and motivated by creating a fair playing field for all tend to avoid massive corruption, but fall victim to small-scale corruption as individuals give in to their base human nature. Unlike business, good governments tend last for centuries; however, that doesn’t mean they don’t need to be restructured.

Government workers are the heart of America’s employment

In the United States, governments (federal, state, and local) have performed honorably, but it is time to do an extreme makeover. This means taking all policies and procedures, organizational charts, and job descriptions to the shredder. New ones will have to be written, but they must not be written just to address the five percent causing problems.

This may require the elimination of Human Resource (HR) departments. HR departments tend to be builders of bureaucratic systems and they are often locked into paradigms which dictate that nothing can exist outside of a written policy or job description.

This Extreme Makeover of government should not be done to ‘reduce’ government. The motive should be to create a government structure that answers the needs of ALL the citizens and maintains a fair and ethical environment for business. The idea that we can eliminate or privatize government is an unrealistic, unethical, and expensive mistake. A federal, state, or local government is absolutely necessary to protect all the rights of its citizens.

Links to:

What America Must Do: Step 1 – Silence the Wackos in Politics
What America Must Do: Step 3 – Restore Government Revenue and Fair Taxation
What America Must Do: Step 4 – Balanced Budget By 2015, Debt under 50% of GDP by 2020
What America Must Do: Step 5 – Restart a Federally Run Space Program
What America Must Do: Step 6 – Reinvent Higher Education

What America Must Do: Step 1 – Silence the Wackos in Politics

02 Friday Nov 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Ethics, Government, Honor, Opinion, Politics, Relationships, Respect

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

America, GOP, Republican, Richard Mourdock, right-wing extremists, United States of America, Willard Mitt Romney

America is no place for rule by stupid people

Conservative ideals are meant to balance liberal ideals. It is the ying for the yang. When conservative and liberal positions are debated the correct course for the country is usually the result. Unfortunately, people like Karl Rove, Sheldon Adelson, Rupert Murdoch, and David Koch want to kill liberal contributions in politics so that only conservatives determine our country’s path. These people have used their massive financial and commercial resources and orchestrated an elaborate slander campaign of liberals by empowering the most extreme and gullible citizens with a lynch mob mentality. The right-wing wacko takeover of the Republican party has destroyed the rational conservatives in politics and crippled our country.

Richard Mourdock and extremist conservatives want 100% of America run by the stupidest 30%

Before Representative Richard Mourdock of Indiana demonstrated his stupidity about God and rape he made it clear that Republicans should rule America without listening to anyone else’s point of view. He said:

“…bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view…”

That is what right-wing extremist call “reaching across the aisle.” Mourdock is representative of the radical conservatives that believe 47% or more of Americans should be silenced and slaves to conservative rule. America cannot move forward with these type of people in political office.

Rational conservatives must reassert themselves and take back the Republican party. As reasonable, thinking people reclaim mainstream conservatism, the wackos will fade back under the rocks where they belong. Already people are distancing themselves from Tea Party affiliation, a trend that will continue if honorable conservatives will step forward and kill off the weeds of extremism that has taken over their garden.

Liberals should also be wary of extremist in their garden. America fails when we allow the stupidest people to speak for us, regardless of ideology.

Links to:

What America Must Do: Step 2 – An Extreme Makeover of Government at All Levels
What America Must Do: Step 3 – Restore Government Revenue and Fair Taxation
What America Must Do: Step 4 – Balanced Budget By 2015, Debt under 50% of GDP by 2020
What America Must Do: Step 5 – Restart a Federally Run Space Program
What America Must Do: Step 6 – Reinvent Higher Education

And This Was the Best Conservatives Could Offer?

31 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Ethics, Government, Opinion, Politics, Public Relations, Religion, Respect, Taxes, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Conservatives, Dean Heller, Election, GOP, Karl Rove, Republicans, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, Willard Mitt Romney

Mr. Insincere

For President – Eddie Haskell?
Willard Mitt Romney is a poor choice for President by any standard. Sure he’s better that Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, or almost any of the other right-wing wackos that ran for President this time, but Romney is an embarrassment to America. He will say anything to get a vote, but we all know that is just a rich man who is trying to fool enough of the people enough of the time to get elected. In a party that has great people like Colin Powell, they serve up a smarmy equivalent of Leave It To Beaver’s Eddie Haskell for President. Epic fail.

Paul Ryan is not an alien from another world…as far as we know.

For Vice President – Paul Ryan?
Really? Ryan is a person who is a deceiver. If Satan had Apostles, Paul Ryan would be his Number 1. He, like so many conservatives, is owned and operated by America’s major corporations and his interest is in exploiting our country, not serving.

Charles P. Pierce wrote and interesting piece on Ryan’s family history on the Esquire Politics Blog. He definitely not worthy of the second highest office in the land…or any other office.

Senator Dean Heller making sure he’s seen at Reno Air Races crash news conference (2011)

For Senate from Nevada – Dean Heller?
When Governor Brian Sandoval appointed Dean Heller to replace the adulterous Senator John Ensign, his seat in the House of Representatives forced the cash-strapped state to hold a special election, which cost over $1 million. Nevada certainly hasn’t got its money’s worth. One of Heller’s first official acts was to propose legislation that would prevent millionaires from receiving food stamps. He must have done it as a joke, but nobody laughed.

Heller is a former Bank of America consultant and stock broker, but now he works for people with even more money. If politicians had to wear suits that identified all their sponsors like race car drivers, then he would have a suit covered in oil, mining, and gaming corporations. He is bought and paid for and the lowly citizens of Nevada are not even on his radar.

Heller is the guy who always shows up at major news events like the Reno Air Races crash last year to stand near the Governor as if to say, “see me, I’m here, aren’t I great!”

Richard Mourdock says the pregnancy from rape is what “…God intended..”

For Senate from Indiana – Richard Mourdock and for the House of Representatives from Missouri – Todd Akin?
Indiana and Missouri have many highly qualified conservatives that could be representing the Republican party as candidates for federal office; however, it would be difficult to find two less deserving to fill the job than Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin. Both seem to be weeds in the flower patch and yet both still may win despite their bumbling, non-factual statements about rape and pregnancy. If either or both win then the stupid people of the world can rejoice that they are well represented in the United States Congress.

2012 Idiots on Parade by Karl Rove
The lack of quality conservative candidates doesn’t stop at federal political office. Many Republican state candidates are embarrassments to the country in their own right, but why is the GOP field so bad? That brings us to one name, Karl Rove.

Rove’s laughing now.

Karl Rove is the God of Conservative Candidates. He decides who will gain millions of dollars in advertising support and who won’t. With that money comes the strings. Independent minded, critical thinking people is not what Karl Rove seeks. If you are going to be supported by the Republican party this year, you have to be Karl Rove’s political Boy Toy. Rove’s money comes from Big Oil and mega corporations and they expect payback.

That has led to a slate of corporate Yes Men who are supposed to stay within a script. Like a gang of henchmen, Rove’s army of zombies march across the nation with a brain eating agenda of kill the government, put women down, and give our money to the rich. Rove arms his candidates with some of the most distasteful tactics in politics today.

One of Rove’s typical tactics of taking the conservative candidate’s weaknesses and then running ads accusing the rival candidate of the conservative candidates weakness. If his candidate is a partisan obstructionist, then Rove’s team creates an ad that the Democratic candidate is partisan and only votes with their party. Blaming the faults of his candidate on the other confuses the issue and makes a response to the accusation almost impossible.

How long can Rove keep this up? It depends on the results of this election. If Rove’s candidates win then America can expect to see the same strategy in future elections. If his candidates lose then perhaps true conservatives can take their party back from Karl Rove and his corporate sponsors and re-build it into something more than a group of Tea Party zombies.

Netanyahu Pushes America To Another War, Romney Eager To Oblige

14 Friday Sep 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Communication, Ethics, Government, History, Internet, Opinion, Politics, Public Relations, Religion, Respect

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Benjamin Netanyahu, Cairo, Conservatives, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Palestinians, President Barack Obama, red line, Violence, War, Willard Mitt Romney

Netanyahu to US: “Isn’t it time for another Middle East war?”

On Tuesday Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu goaded the United States into a war with Iran. Demanding that the United States set conditions for war by establishing a ‘red line’ for which the United States would begin another war in the Middle East if Iran crossed it. Conservative Presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney seems eager to appease Netanyahu by whining about President Obama’s work to end the existing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and assuring voters that if he is elected he will move quickly to send America’s young adults back into war.

Netanyahu used unilateral actions at Jewish/Christian/Muslim holy sites in 1996 and 2010 to insult and spark riots by Muslims

Netanyahu is no stranger to goading people into violence. In 1996, while throwing roadblocks into the peace process with Palestine, he authorized work in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem that was guaranteed to anger the Palestinians. His ‘in-your-face’ act caused three days of riots and took 80 lives. Like the brother who knows how to get his sibling into trouble, Netanyahu modus operandi is to push others into violent acts by doing something that seems innocent, but is actually extremely insulting.

By stimulating violence, Netanyahu was able to justify moving Israeli forces in to Palestinian-occupied Hebron in January of 1997. Eventually he was able to stop the peace process by refusing to compromise on any significant issue. Netanyahu has a consistent history of being the naysayer to any peace effort between Israel and Palestine since 1996. He also has pushed for issues that are designed to irritate Arabs, such as continue settlement of Israelis in Arab-controlled lands. Netanyahu’s provocation of Palestinians and other Arab countries has left the Middle East in turmoil and set the stage for violent groups in the Arab world to fester and grow.

The interesting coincidence is that just as Netanyahu is pushing America to go to war with Iran, Arabs are once again goaded with a mysterious film¹ on YouTube that mocks Mohammad. Riots in Muslim countries have resulted in attacks on American consulates in Libya and Yemen, killing J. Christopher Stevens, America’s Ambassador in Libya, and three other U.S. diplomats. The cast and crew of the film were misled as to the purpose of the film and the producer’s name has turned out to be fictitious. No one seems to be able to determine who actually produced the film, but it is clear it was intended to incite violence.

In addition, Romney’s reaction to the attack on America’s consulate was so rapid that one has to question if Romney’s campaign was anticipating a significant foreign anti-American event and pulled the trigger on condemning President Obama’s even before there was a reaction from the administration. Romney’s campaign misfired by citing a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo from Tuesday morning that condemned to provocation of the mysterious film prior to the attacks on the American consulate in Libya.

Romney’s campaign is citing America’s “freedom of speech” as the excuse for provoking Muslims with this film; however, conservatives are the first to react with rage over burning the American flag or defacing a Bible. American conservative anti-Muslim groups have now been connected to the latest efforts to promote the film on YouTube, and these groups are known to be rabid anti-President Obama groups.

The timing of this film, Netanyahu’s provocation, conservative promotion of the film, and Romney’s quick, albeit inappropriate, response to the violence seem to indicate that a connection is possible as part of an effort to motivate conservatives to support Romney’s sputtering campaign and his inept foreign policy efforts with allies and foes.

(¹The name of the film and a link to the film are intentionally absent in this article.)

NOTE: The acts of violence toward United States Embassies and personnel cannot be excused regardless of the provocation. This article is not overlooking the shameful thugs who are taking an opportunity to injure and kill innocent people. They should be identified and punished for what they have done. However, just like the person who enters into a theater and yells fire just to create a panic, the person(s) behind this inexcusable film that incited the outrage should be held responsible for lighting the fuse that caused the social bomb to explode.

4 Lesson’s Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Mayer Has Taught Us

10 Monday Sep 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Opinion, Public Relations, Respect, The Tipping Point

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CEO, employee morale, Google, Kathy Savitt, leadership, management by intimidation, Marissa Mayer, Mollie Spillman, Yahoo

Marissa Mayer: Management by Destruction

On July 16, Yahoo announced that they hired 37-year-old Marissa Mayer, a former Google Vice President (VP), as the new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to turnaround the company. A little over a month later Mayer hired a new Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), which should not be surprising. How she did it tells us a lot about her management capabilities and about Yahoo’s Board of Directors.

Often a change in direction for a company will require new leadership in key management positions. Anyone who doesn’t know their job is in jeopardy when a new CEO walks in the door is kidding themselves. Sometimes a new CEO will ask for the top management to resign. Sometimes a new CEO will just give the old management team a severance package. Sometimes a CEO will take six months to get to know the company and then make changes. All these options a part of nominal business operations.

However, Mayer reportedly fired Mollie Spillman, her old CMO 1) by phone, 2) while she was on vacation, and 3) ten minutes before Yahoo’s official announcement that the new CMO would be Kathy Savitt.

Wow. Apparently, Mayer like burning all her bridges before she blows them up.

It’s important to note that Mayer’s age and/or gender are not at issue. Man or woman, old or young, what Mayer did was ethically questionable and has far reaching implications for Yahoo. Her slam-bam-you’re-fired-ma’am stunt is worthy of analysis for what it says about Mayer, Yahoo, and management-by-intimidation.

Lesson 1: Mayer’s Questionable Ethics and Leadership
It doesn’t take guts to fire somebody. Firing someone is easy. Firing someone is a power trip. If you walk up to person on the street and say, “You’re Fired!,” it will probably only get you a confused stare followed by a laugh, but if you say, “You’re Fired!” at an underling employee, you have shown you are dominant and all powerful. To fire someone is a rush to the sadist.

Separating an employee from an organization with dignity and respect takes sensitivity, experience, and humility. It requires that the manager talks with (not at) the employee, and it requires the manager check their need for power at the door. Firing someone over the phone while they’re on vacation demonstrates a lack of experience and a lack of humanity.

In her defense, Mayer may have been reacting to another executive who left Yahoo one week before. It is possible that Mayer thought that Spillman might also leave and decided she would exercise a preemptive strike by replacing her before she could find another job. Still, that’s a weak reason to behave like a tree house club President.

Lesson 2: How to Destroy Morale
When the CEO trash-n-bashes an employee it sends a message to everyone else in the company: Time to look for another job. How can any employee at Yahoo avoid wondering if they will be fired the next time they’re on vacation? How can any manager at Yahoo not believe that Mayer’s questionable ethics is now the model they should be following?

No Reason to Yahoo Behind This Sign

Mayer did make a peace offering to her employees soon after she took over by offering free food to full-time employees and a free iPhone. But her offerings weren’t free. In return for free perks she put extreme pressure to perform. She pushed a new product up by months and gave the development team one week to prove it could be done. When the team came back a week later and said it couldn’t be done on the schedule she demanded she said she would find another team that could do it.

This shows the classic fatal error in management-by-intimidation (MBI): Failing to trust and listen to the people you have working for you. It may be great to tell the investor a tale of tough-love while scratching your balls and dining on the company’s dime, but it really means that the customer is going to get a rushed, half-baked product that shows how mediocre your organization can be when it comes to innovation. Don’t get me wrong, some people…okay most people, need to be pushed, but most people don’t like to work in a threatening environment.

This shows the classic fatal error in management-by-intimidation: Failing to trust and listen to the people you have working for you.

The result of MBI is that all your employees start looking for other employment options. The people with great ideas and skills are grabbed up by the competition and Yahoo will be left with the people who nobody else wants. Now you have an organization consisting of the worst performers.

Lesson 3: Yahoo’s Future is in Doubt
In the past five years it has averaged a new CEO each year. That says more about the Board of Directors than it does about the CEO’s. The problem is that there is no quick fix and it is likely that Mayer management style is being encouraged by dysfunctional leadership in the Board room. Yahoo needs positive, creative, loyal, and happy employees if the company is to dig its way out of the hole its in. Creating an environment of fearful, anxious, angry employees is guaranteed to keep them noncompetitive now and in the future.

Throwing money, free food, or free iPhones may appease employees temporarily, but people want and need to be valued and treated with respect. The moment an employee feels that their neck is on the line is the moment they are no longer have ownership in the company, and when employees don’t have ownership, they stop caring. Uncaring employees are saboteurs in an organization. Yahoo likely has almost 15,000 saboteurs with intimate knowledge of the company’s secrets, weaknesses, and plans. That doesn’t bode well for customer satisfaction, nor company stock price.

Lesson 4: Inexperience Does Not a Good Manager Make
Of the Fortune 500 club, Mayer is the youngest CEO. Publicly, she has been a celebrated rising star at Google since she joined as employee #20 in 1999, and was Google’s first female engineer. Privately, some accused her of being a glory-hound seeking attention and fame. Despite having no business degrees (her bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Stanford are in computer engineering specializing in artificial intelligence,) she rose through the company to be a Vice President.

It was appropriate for Yahoo to hire a young executive. There are many people under 40 who are wise beyond their age, or have solid experience in people and resource management; however, Mayer’s lack extensive executive management experience seems to be demonstrated in her immature behavior.

Bonus Lesson: Micromanagement – Slapping Your Team in the Face
It was reported last week that Mayer is now reviewing the candidates for every open position at Yahoo. That’s correct, Mayer is overseeing every potential new hire for every opening in a company of 15,000 employees. Nothing says you’re a ‘stupid ass’ to your management team quite like taking away their ability to choose who will work for them. If anyone at Yahoo didn’t know that they are valueless, Mayer and the Board of Directors have certainly removed all doubt.

Every business school should be studying Yahoo. Studying successful management is important, but studying an organization that is in a meltdown can teach future would be leaders why you can’t build up your organization by tearing apart your employees.

Southwest Air Gets A Customer Service Win

17 Friday Aug 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Government Regulation, Information Technology, Internet, Public Relations, Respect, Social Media Relations, Travel, Website

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

airfares, Airlines, free market system, Public Image, Southwest Airlines, SWA

Failure is opportunity.

Success is determined by how you respond to failure.

Southwest Air ‘Shamu’ plane

On August 3, Southwest had a big problem. In celebration for reaching 3 million fans on Facebook, Southwest offered a one day ‘flash’ sale of 50% off certain flights for seven specific days this Fall. Unfortunately, their reservation computers decided to take that day off. Apparently the crush of ticket buyers caused their automatic reservation system to lock up. That was bad.

What was worse is that customers who kept hitting the ‘SUBMIT’ button ended up with a ticket purchase each time it was hit. Rumor has it that some people had as many as sixty tickets or more charged for the same flight. Ooooowwww!

I was one of those customers. I didn’t have the multiple ‘submit-hit’ issue, because my ‘SUBMIT’ button went away after I clicked it; however, I didn’t get a confirmation page, and when I checked my account the flight was not recorded. My mistake was repurchasing the ticket when I thought it wasn’t recorded. It was not until the next day that I received two confirmation emails from Southwest Airlines with different confirmation numbers for the same flight. I called 1-800-I-FLY-SWA immediately.

The person who answered patiently waited while I tried to explain the problem and then she explained what happened and apologized profusely. She explained what Southwest was doing to rectify the issue and canceled one of the tickets and refunded the money. She explained that Southwest would be responsible for any overdraft charges, which there weren’t.

At this point Southwest had met my expectations in resolving the issue. They, 1) admitted they made a mistake, 2) took quick action to resolve the basic issue, and 3) offered to resolve any secondary issues caused by the mistake.

Southwest then went one step farther. Three days later I received a $150 voucher towards a future ticket. This is not unheard of in the airline industry; however, it was not required. It reflected the depth of Southwest’s apology. That makes this incident a customer service win for Southwest Airlines.

A customer service failure is never good, but it is only a failure as long as the business fails to respond appropriately.

This situation may also be a good lesson for the airlines. I’ve been watching the airfare rates all summer and they have been outrageously high. The reason there was a rush of people after these ‘one-day-only’ rates is because the airlines have boxed out customers who can defer travel rather than pay inflated ticket prices. The airlines may be comfortable with cutting back seat inventory to keep prices high, but I’m irritated that they are playing games with the free market system to artificially keep the supply low in order to keep demand high.

It brings up the question of whether it’s time to reimpose government regulation on the airlines in order to restore fairness to the customer.

Should Conservatives Be Put In Time Out?

09 Wednesday May 2012

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Conservatives, extremism, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Rick Santorum, Ronald Reagan, tantrums, Time Out

When reason fails it’s time to try a Time Out

My six year-old son is mostly well-behaved; however, there are times he throws a tantrum that makes one wonder if an exorcism is appropriate. Anyone with a small child has probably seen their pride and joy go into a fit of shouting and anger where he/she can’t be reasoned with or talked back down to reality. It is at those times we send our son into his room for a few minutes to collect himself and try to re-engage with life in this world.

Swiss Citizen Michele Bachmann – Voted Most Likely to Know God…and He’s a Conservative!

My experiences with this type of behavior makes me well-versed in recognizing similar behavior in adults, a behavior that Conservatives seemed to have adopted as a way of life. In issue after issue Conservatives seem to take the most ridiculous position that can only be supported if one assumes we live in an alternate universe where logic and reason don’t apply. Applying the remedy that usually works with a six year-old, maybe it’s time for America to put Conservatives in Time Out.

Don’t get me wrong, I value the counter-balance that Conservatives give to the Liberal point-of-view. The input of both political ideologies are vital to help guide our nation through the constantly evolving challenges of human endeavor.

Rick Santorum – Extremist’s Lap Dog…but he’ll support Romney…didn’t you get his email?

However, Conservatives have been hijacked by a mob that sees compromise as the work of Satan. They believe that any viewpoint that doesn’t agree with the wild-eyed, gun-tote’n, racist, Bible thumpin’, right-wing ideology just ain’t American. Today these people are the face of Conservatism and are leading the Republican party around by the nose hairs.

Why are normally rational people allowing extremists to use their political party as their doormat? The answer lies in one simple fact, Conservatism is not what America needs now and rather than be put on the shelf for several years, Conservatives are trying to shore up their dwindling ranks with anyone that can fog a mirror and vote for their party.

Mitt Romney – It’s all Obama’s fault and I saved the auto industry!

Conservatives have never been successful at economic recovery, probably because their policies have a history of destroying economies, so when the chips are down Conservatives don’t get a lot of popular support by the rational-thinking public. Historically, this has meant that the Democratic party takes over and pulls America back on even keel.

However, in 1980, Conservatives like Ronald Reagan began creating a mythology to put the Republican party in power and pull the nation hard right. Their method required Americans willingly suspend disbelief and be led by faith, not by fact. Conservatives use short statements that rely on a hate-based philosophy that sounds great, but fails the truth test. A famous example is Reagan’s blame the government quote:

Ronald Reagan used words like the bullets in a prop gun. They looked real, but were just blanks

“….government is not the solution to our problem. The government is the problem.”

That statement sounds like a great truth, but it is just a hate-based strategy that uses a partial truth to make a false conclusion. Reagan could have just as easily said:

“….humans are not the solution to our problem. Humans are the problem.”

In the second statement, the partial truth is that humans and human nature is the source of our problems, but does that mean humans are not also capable of being part of a solution. Do we need to eliminate humans to solve our problems? It’s a silly statement.

Statements like these are meant to evoke emotion. The intention is to rile up a crowd and create a lynch-mob mentality. Extremists (at either end of the spectrum) eat up hate-based statements like these as if they were candy. Extremists don’t need a cause, they just need someone hate.

For decades Conservatives have been trying to stay in power by running into the political theatre and yelling ‘FIRE’ in order to direct us away from solving our problems. That’s not going to work forever because as Abraham Lincoln said:

You can fool all of the people some of the time
You can fool some of the people all of the time
But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

We need the Conservatives to be there to keep us Liberals in check, but to perform that role they need to be firmly rooted in reality and they are not. Until Conservatives can calm down and play nicely with everyone else they need to sit in the corner a while and think about how they can cooperate with the rest of us Americans.

Romney Defending Women? Who is He Kidding?

14 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government Regulation, parenting, Politics, Religion, Respect, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ann Romney, Conservatives, GOP, Mitt Romney, Planned Parenthood, Republicans, Romney, Rush Limbaugh

“the Democratic Party has done an effective job trying to mischaracterize our views”

Mitt Romney, regarding women’s issues. April 2012

Romney keeping his hands clean from touching women's issues

According to Mitt Romney the reaction of women to the Republican view of issues important to them (women’s health choices, birth control, education, social justice, etc.) is part of an evil plot by the Democrats. Romney seems to feel that the GOP’s well-documented misogynistic views would not be an issue, if only women and the other political party would conveniently ignore them.

Among the many alleged ‘mischaracterizations’ was last month’s tirade by Rush Limbaugh who made a horrific personal attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, calling her a slut and a prostitute because she voiced her support to require mythological-based institutes to offer physician ordered pharmaceuticals even if it was contrary to their mythology.

If Romney was not just another Conservative Pig-in-a-Suit he COULD have said:

Mr. Limbaugh’s characterization of Sandra Fluke was slanderous and outrageous. His attack on this honorable American was absolutely and unequivocally inappropriate for in any decent society. Mr. Limbaugh should immediately apologize to Ms. Fluke and to women in general. This type of discourse should never occur in the media or on the street as it lessens the moral character of every citizen of this great country.

Instead Romney’s reaction was:

“I wouldn’t have used those words.”

What words would Romney used? Would he rather Limbaugh called her a whore or a bitch? Romney inferred his approval of Limbaugh’s statement in general, just a difference of verbiage.

In addition to his impotent reaction to Limbaugh’s remarks, when asked about Planned Parenthood, a program that provides a wide range of low and no cost health care for women, Romney has been quoted as saying:

“…we’re going to get rid of that!” (Romney, March 2012)

Despite his clear views against women and issues they care about, multi-millionaire, jean-clad Romney is now trying win women back. His campaign is surrounding him with women at political events where, rather than listening to them, he talks down to them. He tells women that the economy is what they care about and that a recovering economy under Obama is bad for women. Romney wants women to support him in his bid to return to the Republican policies of deregulation that destroyed our economy at the hands of Conservative business men who decided “Greed is Great” even when it put our country at the brink of disaster.

Ann Romney betraying American women with a kiss

Ann Romney, Mitt’s spouse, has been put front and center as the face of ‘the average’ woman. As a homemaker raising five boys she would seem to be a great image to counter the chauvinism of the Republican party; however, there is a disconnect between the difficulty the spouse of a multi-millionaire might have raising five boys and that of a woman of five boys whose husband has just laid off because Mitt Romney’s investors have just purchased his company and sliced it up and sold it off for the capital. Somehow the challenges Ann Romney may have had in deciding which SUV to take to the boy’s soccer game just doesn’t seem to be a fair portrayal of women.

Romney’s campaign was up in arms about one Democrat who said that Ann Romney “has not worked a day in her life.” While that remark was poorly worded, there is no comparison between the resources Ann Romney had with millions of dollars at her disposal and the average American woman. If Romney feels that is a ‘mischaracterization’ he can kiss my Karl Rove.

3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

Category Archives: Respect

Romney Adds Insult to Stupidity

GPS for the Homeless

Is It Time For A Two-Tiered School System?

Pope Paul VII?

The Grievance Collector: America’s Next Mass Murderer?

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

A Liberal Response to Conservative Secessionists

What America Must Do: Step 4 – Balanced Budget By 2015, Debt under 50% of GDP by 2020

What America Must Do: Step 2 – An Extreme Makeover of Government at All Levels

What America Must Do: Step 1 – Silence the Wackos in Politics

And This Was the Best Conservatives Could Offer?

Netanyahu Pushes America To Another War, Romney Eager To Oblige

4 Lesson’s Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Mayer Has Taught Us

Should Conservatives Be Put In Time Out?

Romney Defending Women? Who is He Kidding?