PAULx

~ Tenet insanabile multos scribendi cacoethes

PAULx

Category Archives: Violence in the Workplace

GOP Disease: Say It, Then Apologize

23 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, All Rights Reserved, Assault Weapons, Communication, Discrimination, Donald Trump, Ethics, Generational, Government, Gun control, Gun Extremists, habits, Honor, Information Technology, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Pride, Public Image, racism, Respect, Russian influence, Second Amendment, Social Media Relations, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace, Voting

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Carl B. Nett, character, CIA, Donald Trump, gun extremists, gun laws, gun lobby, Kentucky, NRA, Secret Service, Secretary of State, Tweet, Twitter, United States, values, Violence

Republicans have a consistent problem. They first say what they are thinking…and then they apologize for it. It’s the GOP disease. In incident after incident a Republican office holder, or a Republican candidate will say something that is completely inappropriate and then smirk. They are proud of it. Then when it becomes national news, they suddenly grow a conscience and apologize for the remark…some of the time.

Former CIA Turned GOP Candidate Jokes About Killing Opponent 

The most recent incident to make national news is when a Republican candidate for Kentucky’s Secretary of State, Carl B. Nett, office suggested in a tweet that he could use an anti-NRA pin for a target if his opponent would move the pin closer to the center of his body.

The tweet itself is disturbing. What is more disturbing is that Nett is a former CIA and Secret Service agent. He was one of the people that our country entrusted with the use of deadly force because he supposedly was trained to control his impulses. As a former agent, the expectation is that he knows that killing someone is not a joking matter.

Nett has caused the world to question the training and discipline of our country’s CIA and Secret Service agents. He has made all of them look like cowboys out for a party with little or no self-control.

Trump As A Model

Donald Trump has been the model for Republicans in breaching intellectual and civil boundaries of behavior with his practice of saying anything that comes to his mind. Trump reveals his inner thoughts and expresses them in a diarrhea-type flow of violent, subhuman, and racist comments.

Unfortunately, Trumpsters love Trump because he says what they are thinking. That, in itself, is also disturbing.

Qualifications To Be a Public Servant

When someone says what they think, that is honesty. Honesty is good; however, when honesty reveals that the person is of a vile nature, they are not qualified to be a citizen of this country, let alone elected to public office. An apology is not the measure of a person. The person is measured by hu’s* actions.

Nett’s apology was a self-serving statement that he’s just a normal human:

I now join the long list of imperfect human beings with “foot-in-mouth” disease. Once again, I apologize to Congressman Yarmuth and his family and ask for their forgiveness.

— Carl B. Nett (@realCarlNett) March 20, 2018

Nett is not a normal human. Hu is representative of the nature and character of the Republican party. Hu’s values are Putin-like values that belong to a society of corruption and terror. We don’t need the excuses of people who can’t respect the ideals our country. We need people of character. Republicans are not those people. Carl B. Nett is a case in point.

[*Hu’s: a gender-neutral pronoun for his/her. Hu: a gender-neutral pronoun for he/she.]

Three Steps For Solving the Assault-Type Weapons Problem

16 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, All Rights Reserved, Assault Weapons, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Reno, Second Amendment, The Tipping Point, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

assault rifles, assault weapons, Assault weapons ban, gun, Gun control, gun extremists, gun laws, gun lobby, gun rights, gun violence, guns, Second Amendment

Some people are saying that assault-type weapons genie is out of the box. Their belief is that the ban on assault-type rifles can never be reinstated. They fear that collection of assault weapons may involve violent confrontations with gun extremists. There is a way out of this mess caused by letting the assault weapons ban expire. It involves three steps.

Designed to Kill Without Aiming – Semi-automatic Mossberg-MMR

STEP ONE:  Reinstate the ban on assault-type rifles

All future sale, trade, and/or gifting an assault-type rifle, including all rifles with an automatic and/or semiautomatic firing function, would be banned in the United States of America. These weapons would not be allowed to be imported, nor purchased outside the United States and brought into the country.

STEP TWO:  Voluntary Surrender of Assault-type Rifles

Any current owner of an assault-type rifle would have the option of surrendering hu’s* weapon to local law enforcement. Those guns would need to be secured or destroyed.

STEP THREE:  Conditions of Ownership of Assault-type Rifles

Condition One:  Registration

Anyone with peaceful intent should be willing to comply with the registration of all assault-type weapons. Those that fail to register their automatic and semi-automatic weapons shall be considered to have a violent intent. They will face stiff fines and possibly prison. Registration will also consist of a background check, regardless of whether one was done when the owner purchased it.

Assault-type weapons cannot be sold to anyone else without approval from the local law enforcement agency. That agency will be required to perform a background check.

CONDITION TWO:  Insurance

Anyone owning a weapon in question must obtain and maintain a one million dollar liability insurance policy. This is similar to the liability policy required to own a car. Failure to do so will require forfeiture of the gun and a significant fine and possibly prison.

CONDITION THREE:  Compliance With the Second Amendment

Per the Second Amendment, an owner of an assault-type rifle must join a State National Guard and submit to regular training and duty as long as they own the weapon. Use of the weapon shall be regulated by that State’s National Guard, including the determination of mental and physical qualifications of use of such weapon.

(*’Hu’s’ is a pronoun meaning ‘his’ and/or ‘hers.’)

NRA is Not a Gun Safety Organization

14 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Aging, All Rights Reserved, Crime, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Health, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Recreation, Reno, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace, Wildlife, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Colorado, Colorado Division of Wildlife, FL, Florida, gun, Gun control, gun extremists, gun laws, gun lobby, gun rights, gun violence, Hunter, Hunter's Safety Course, hunting, mass murders, mass shooter, Mass shootings, Parkland, Student Protests

I obtained a National Rifle Association (NRA) card in 1967 (updated in 1975.) Actually, it was a hunter’s safety card. It was a new requirement for a Colorado Department of Natural Resources hunting license for anyone born after 1949. I earned it by attending a hunter’s safety course sponsored by the NRA. I was nine years old, and as I recall, I was among the first children to go through the course. That was when gun safety was important to gun owners and to the NRA.

Today’s NRA:  Put Guns In the Reach of Children

Now the NRA is a nonprofit group with a focus on increasing the profits of weapons manufacturers. Safety is in conflict with its primary mission. Now its goal is to propagandize weapon ownership and instill fear in the mind of the public. The concept of promoting safe use of firearms has been replaced with promoting unsafe firearm practices. Protecting the sale of assault-type weapons and putting a gun in a room of children, for example.

In 1967 good gun ownership included making sure guns were unloaded when coming back into town. Guns and people are never a good combination. In 2018 the NRA philosophy is driven by one concept…How can gun manufacturers sell more guns? The new philosophy can be seen in every aspect of NRA activity. Guns in schools, guns at home, assault rifle for everyone, no background checks, etc.

… the NRA is a powerful political organization that lobbies for gun rights and opposes the restriction on firearms by gun laws … the National Rifle Association has become one of the most powerful organizations that has great influence at the political level.

The National Rifle Association website

Voice of Common Sense

Today at 10 am, students around the country will remember last month’s mass school shooting that killed 17 people. Gun extremists are quick to focus on the minor transgression of students walking out of class and ignore the murder of children by a man with a gun that no one should own. If this protest was for the NRA, gun extremists would be voicing the right of Free Speech, but only a fool would protest for the NRA.

Voices of common sense about gun ownership are always seen as a threat to gun extremists. I once spent over an hour discussion common sense gun ownership with two gun extremists who were on a campus seeking to recruit more gun extremists. My debate with them became pointless. It was the same NRA indoctrination over and over. They have to defend themselves against an imaginary enemy. When I asked them what allows them to be judge, jury, and executioner, their retort was, “I have a right to defend myself.”

Assault-type Rifles Are To Kill People 

One of the demands of today’s student protests is to reinstate the ban on assault-type rifles. Anyone who has hunted knows that an assault-type rifle is not compatible with shooting game animals. The first step in discharging any firearm is to aim at your target, and be sure there is nothing in front or behind that might be hit by the bullet. Once fired, a gun will jerk and require it to be aimed again. An assault-type rifle is designed to spray bullets in rapid fire, and if configured with a ‘bump’ stock, or illegally retrofit to be an automatic rifle, aiming is not possible.

The comments I have heard from owners of assault-type rifles is that they are ‘fun to fire.’ This leads me to believe that the man who committed the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was on a ‘thrill kill’ that was triggered by having so many weapons of mass murder available. He simply wanted to use them for their intended purpose.

The NRA’s position is that assault-type rifles should be available for anyone who can afford one. Their reason is simple; more weapons instills fear in others, which in turn sells more weapons. There is no downside to mass shootings in regard to the NRA’s goals.

Am I Safe?

After finding my Hunter’s Safety Card I contacted one of the Colorado Wildlife offices and asked if my card from 1967 or 1975 was still valid. They are, but that doesn’t make me a safe gun owner. A card doesn’t make you a safe gun owner. Nor does a gun make you a safe gun owner.

Three Myths That Gun Extremist Believe

09 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in All Rights Reserved, Crime, Donald Trump, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Health, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, racism, Reno, Russian influence, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

District of Columbia v. Heller, gun, Gun control, gun extremists, gun laws, gun lobby, gun rights, gun violence, guns, NRA, Second Amendment, Supreme Court

Gun Extremists have been fed a steady diet of misinformation by the NRA. Decades of crafting a lie have resulted in gun owners being one of the most misinformed groups in the history of the United States. When you talk with an NRA gun extremist you hear the following statements:

1.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT: 

The Second Amendment gives me a constitutional right to own an assault rifle and the government can’t take away my guns.

False. The Second Amendment begins with “A well regulated militia…” That is the focus of the amendment. Everything that is stated afterward is subject to the topic of a well regulated militia. Well regulated clearly means that the government is expected to regulate gun ownership. 

Guns are not trophies

2.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT: 

The Supreme Court ruled that the government can’t take our assault rifles away.

False. The Supreme Court ruled in The District of Columbia v. Heller that the government can’t ban handguns in the home, providing the person meets the qualifications required to own a gun. The Supreme Court specifically stated that more dangerous weapons could be banned from public use.

In fact, a ban on assault rifles existed from 1994 until 2004 when Congress failed to renew the ban. The ban was constitutionally legal.

3.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT:

I have a right to defend myself with a gun.

False. If you use a gun to injure or kill someone it must be proven that it was in defense. It is true, that in many states if someone enters your home it is considered allowable for a homeowner to shoot that person even if they are unarmed. The law does not give a person the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

However, it is rare that a gun death is a legitimate ‘defensive’ act. In 2013, of 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms,” 21,175 (63%) were suicides and 11,208 (33%) were homicides, 505 (1.5%) were deaths due to accidental or negligent use of a gun. We are the most well-armed nation in the world and over 97% of all gun deaths were not because someone killed the bad guy.

Could David Brooks Be Correct About Being Wrong?

05 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, All Rights Reserved, Communication, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, History, Journalism, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, parenting, Politicians, Politics, Print Media, racism, Religion, Respect, Second Amendment, Traditional Media, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Conservatives, David Brooks, GOP, Gun control, gun extremists, gun laws, gun lobby, NRA, Republicans, school shootings, Trumpsters

Damn him! Just when David Brooks seems to be defending a position on gun control that blames liberals for not being warm and fuzzy with gun extremists, he turns around and reconsiders his position. This is unacceptable! How can we establish a clear line in the sand when he says, “Maybe I’m wrong.” THE NERVE of that man!

David Brooks on Gun Control:  Let Red Be Red 

David Brooks has at least twice indicated that gun users should have a significant role in determining the parameters of gun ownership. Most recently he suggested that liberals should let the gun owners lead the discussion.

So if you want to stop school shootings it’s not enough to just vent and march. You have to let Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at every point. 

David Brooks – 19 February

His position was to let gun extremists continue to do what they’ve been doing and maybe…maybe, someday they will let common sense return. For me, that position is a nonstarter. I know these gun extremists. They are from small towns like where I grew up. For at least 40 years they’ve been on a steady diet of “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” (I saw that bumper sticker on a truck in the 1970’s.)

Gun extremists have not been rational for decades. The constant statements that “they’re coming to git your guns” is oxygen to gun extremists. These are not gun owners, they are gun cultists. They have no business being part of a discussion about guns, let alone lead it.

He Said What??

But last Thursday David Brooks took a different perspective on the issue. He said:

Continued school shootings could be just the thing that persuades the mainstream that conservatism is vulgar and socially illegitimate, somewhere between smoking and segregationism.

David Brooks – 1 March

This is an understatement. Slaughtering seven-year-old children with an assault rifle should never be compared to smoking or segregationism.

However, his realization is something that our country hasn’t heard from conservatives in a long time. It is not likely to be shared by many gun extremists, but if it were, we would have the assault weapon ban reinstated in a matter of days.

The rest of the country is watching the trainwreck of conservatism. The lead engineers of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnel, and Paul Ryan are putting more power to the engine even as it falls off the trestle. The Trumpsters onboard are laughing and whooping with joy.

Conservatives have used a desperate tactic of building a coalition with racists, religious extremists, gun extremists, and corrupt people of wealth. An idea is growing among people of common sense. The question is not just asking how do we stop the madness. The question is how do make sure it never happens again. The answer to that question should have Trumpsters soiling their underwear. There is a cost to arrogance, and arrogance is only temporary.

My Diagnosis of David Brooks

I believe I know why David Brooks is able to consider different points of view on issues as divisive as gun control. First, he was born in Canada. (I’ll take a moment while most of you slap your forehead and say, “Of course!”)

Second, I believe that David Brooks has used,…please, hear me out,…I believe he has used LSD at some point in his life. Recently I read about a study where subjects were tested after they were given LSD and the results indicated that they were more open-minded.

So, my theory is that the combination of being born in Canada and taking LSD at some point can cause a conservative to consider issues from multiple viewpoints. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that our country has many conservative Canadians who have taken LSD.

Nobody said this would be easy.

(NOTE:  David Brooks comments are published in the New York Times. Because this source uses a paywall to prevent sharing I have not linked to his full article per normal.)

David Brooks is Wrong Again on Guns

23 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Honor, Mass Shootings, Politicians, Politics, Respect, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

assault rifles, assault weapons, Assault weapons ban, David Brooks, gun, Gun control, gun extremists, gun laws, gun rights, NRA, Second Amendment, Wayne LaPierre

David Brooks is an intelligent and reasonable man…most of the time. For some reason, he is completely wrong again on gun control. Once again he has insisted that people of common sense should roll over and let gun extremists take the lead on the gun control debate. WE ARE EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE TODAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN NOT ONLY LEADING THE DEBATE, THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING THE DEBATE AWAY FROM INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.

Wayne LaPierre:  This is who has been leading the gun debate…and all the Trumpsters agree with him. We don’t have to respect that.

Can’t Compromise With Stupid

Most things are shades of grey. There are no quick and easy answers and some type of compromise is necessary. Trumpsters have changed that. Trumpsters are so far in the wrong that it is no longer an issue of coming to a compromise with them. The good citizens of this country have been driven back into a corner on major issues that are the foundation of our country and we are tired of being told that the corner is the only place to be.

Gun Control Debate Out of Control

Gun control is an issue that gun extremists have said so many stupid things for decades, that now they expect the rest of the country to just accept their stupidity.

NO! When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns? It was a stupid phrase fifty years ago, and it still is stupid today. Criminals have less opportunity to commit crimes when they don’t have easy access to guns. Gangs can’t commit as many drive-by shootings when they don’t have easy access to guns. Most guns are not used for crime, but rather, they are used to commit suicide. 

To be honest, if someone wants to take a chance that some family member will become upset and kill themselves, they can have a gun in the home. The moment you carry that gun out of the home is when it becomes my business. Weaponizing society gets people killed and that is not acceptable.

What Must Be Done

If you own a gun, fine. You are responsible for anyone that is harmed or killed by that gun. You should be required to carry the same liability insurance on that gun that is required on an automobile if it is involved in an accident and someone is harmed or killed.

And yes, you must license it, pay a yearly tax, and be limited to the number of guns and ammunition you own.

NO! The Second Amendment, nor the Supreme Court says that you can have any kind of gun you want and you don’t have to register them. In fact, they say the opposite. Gun extremists are wrong on the issue and you can’t let someone who is wrong lead the debate. It’s just stupid.

Victims of Major Mass Shootings Since Sandy Hook Elementary

22 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crime, Ethics, Gun control, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

gun, Gun control, gun extremists, gun laws, gun lobby, gun rights, gun violence, mass murders, mass shooter, Mass shootings, victims

The following are the names of the victims killed in major mass shootings since, and including, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on 14 December 2012.

Victims of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

Stoneman Douglas High School Parkland, FL – 14 February 2018

  • Alyssa Alhadeff, 14
  • Scott Beigel, 35
  • Martin Duque, 14
  • Nicholas Dworet, 17
  • Aaron Feis, 37
  • Jaime Guttenberg, 14
  • Chris Hixon, 49
  • Luke Hoyer, 15
  • Cara Loughran, 14
  • Gina Montalto, 14
  • Joaquin Oliver, 17
  • Alaina Petty, 14
  • Meadow Pollack, 18
  • Helena Ramsay, 17
  • Alex Schachter, 14
  • Carmen Schentrup, 16

First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas – 5 NOV 2017

  • Robert Scott Marshall 56
    Karen Sue Marshall 56
    Keith Allen Braden 62
    Tara E. McNulty 33
    Annabelle Renae Pomeroy 14
    Peggy Lynn Warden 56
    Dennis Neil Johnson, Sr. 77
    Sara Johns Johnson 68
    Lula Woicinski White 71
    Joann Lookingbill Ward 30
    Brooke Bryanne Ward 5
    Robert Michael Corrigan 51
    Shani Louise Corrigan 51
    Therese Sagan Rodriguez 66
    Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez 64
    Haley Krueger 16
    Emily Garcia (died at the hospital) 7
    Emily Rose Hill 11
    Gregory Lynn Hill 13
    Megan Gail Hill 9
    Marc Daniel Holcombe 36
    Noah Holcombe 1
    Karla Plain Holcombe 58
    John Bryan Holcombe 60
    Crystal Marie Holcombe (pregnant*) 36
    *Carlin Brite “Billy Bob” Holcombe (unborn) 0 Unknown

Las Vegas Concert – 1 October 2017

  • Ahlers, Hannah Lassette
    Alvarado, Heather Lorraine
    Anderson, Dorene
    Barnette, Carrie Rae
    Beaton, Jack Reginald
    Berger, Stephen Richard
    Bowers, Candice Ryan
    Burditus, Denise Brenna
    Casey, Sandra Lee Multiple
    Castilla, Andrea Lee Anna
    Cohen, Denise Marie
    Davis, Austin William
    Day, Jr., Thomas Allen
    Duarte, Christiana Mae
    Etcheber, Stacee Ann
    Fraser, Brian Scott
    Galvan, Keri Lynn
    Gardner, Dana Leann
    Gomez, Angela Christine
    Guillen, Rocio
    Hartfield, Charleston V.
    Hazencomb, Christopher James
    Irvine, Jennifer Topaz
    Kimura, Teresa Nicol
    Klymchuk, Jessica Lynn
    Kreibaum, Carly Anne
    LeRocque, Rhonda M.
    Link, Victor Loyd
    McIldoon, Jordan Alan
    Meadows, Kelsey Breanne
    Medig, Calla-Marie
    Melton, James Sonny
    Mestas, Patricia Louis
    Meyer, Austin Cooper
    Murfitt, Adrian Allan
    Parker, Rachael Kathleen
    Parks, Jennifer Marie
    Parsons, Carolyn Lee
    Patterson, Lisa Marie
    Phippen, John Joseph
    Ramirez, Melissa Viridiana
    Rivera, Jordyn Nicole
    Robbins, Quinton Joe
    Robinson, Cameron Lee
    Roe, Tara Ann
    Romero-Muniz, Lisa M.
    Roybal, Christopher Louis
    Schwanbeck, Brett Erin
    Schweitzer, Bailey Dee
    Shipp, Laura Anne
    Silva, Erick Steven
    Smith, Susan Marie
    Stewart, Brennan Lee
    Taylor, Derrick Dean
    Tonks, Neysa Christine
    Vo, Michelle Ngoc
    Von Tillow, Kurt Allen
    Wolfe, Jr., William Winfield

Orlando, FL Nightclub – 11 June 2016

  • Stanley Almodovar III, 23
  • Amanda L. Alvear, 25
  • Oscar A. Aracena Montero, 26
  • Rodolfo Ayala Ayala, 33
  • Antonio Davon Brown, 29
  • Darryl Roman Burt II, 29
  • Angel Candelario-Padro, 28
  • Juan Chavez Martinez, 25
  • Luis Daniel Conde, 39
  • Cory James Connell, 21
  • Tevin Eugene Crosby, 25
  • Deonka Deidra Drayton, 32
  • Simón Adrian Carrillo Fernández, 31
  • Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25
  • Mercedez Marisol Flores, 26
  • Peter Ommy Gonzalez Cruz, 22
  • Juan Ramon Guerrero, 22
  • Paul Terrell Henry, 41
  • Frank Hernandez, 27
  • Miguel Angel Honorato, 30
  • Javier Jorge Reyes, 40
  • Jason Benjamin Josaphat, 19
  • Eddie Jamoldroy Justice, 30
  • Anthony Luis Laureano Disla, 25
  • Christopher Andrew Leinonen, 32
  • Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21
  • Brenda Marquez McCool, 49
  • Gilberto R. Silva Menendez, 25
  • Kimberly Jean Morris, 37
  • Akyra Monet Murray, 18
  • Luis Omar Ocasio Capo, 20
  • Geraldo A. Ortiz Jimenez, 25
  • Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera, 36
  • Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32
  • Jean Carlos Mendez Perez, 35
  • Enrique L. Rios, Jr., 25
  • Jean Carlos Nieves Rodríguez, 27
  • Xavier Emmanuel Serrano-Rosado, 35
  • Christopher Joseph Sanfeliz, 24
  • Yilmary Rodríguez Solivan, 24
  • Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34
  • Shane Evan Tomlinson, 33
  • Martin Benitez Torres, 33
  • Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24
  • Juan Pablo Rivera Velázquez, 37
  • Luis Sergio Vielma, 22
  • Franky Jimmy DeJesus Velázquez, 50
  • Luis Daniel Wilson-Leon, 37
  • Jerald Arthur Wright, 31

Social Services Center San Bernadino, CA – 2 December 2015

  • Robert Adams, 40
  • Isaac Amanios, 60
  • Bennetta Betbadal, 46
  • Harry Bowman, 46
  • Sierra Clayborn, 27
  • Juan Espinoza, 50
  • Aurora Godoy, 26
  • Shannon Johnson, 45
  • Larry Daniel Kaufman, 42
  • Damian Meins58Tin Nguyen, 31
  • Nicholas Thalasinos, 52
  • Yvette Velasco, 27
  • Michael Wetze, l37

Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, OR – 1 October 2015

  • Lucero Alcaraz, 19
  • Treven Taylor Anspach, 20
  • Rebecka Ann Carnes, 18[33]
  • Quinn Glen Cooper, 18
  • Kim Saltmarsh Dietz, 59
  • Lucas Eibel, 18
  • Jason Dale Johnson, 33
  • Lawrence Levine, 67
  • Sarena Dawn Moore, 44

Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina – 17 June 2015

  • Cynthia Marie Graham Hurd, 54
  • Susie Jackson, 87
  • Ethel Lee Lance, 70
  • Depayne Middleton-Doctor, 49
  • Clementa C. Pinckney, 41
  • Tywanza Sanders, 26
  • Daniel Simmons, 74
  • Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, 45
  • Myra Thompson, 59

Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. – 16 September 2013

  • Michael Arnold, 59
  • Martin Bodrog, 53
  • Arthur Daniels, 51
  • Sylvia Frasier, 53
  • Kathy Gaarde, 62
  • John Roger Johnson, 73
  • Mary Francis Knight, 51
  • Frank Kohler, 50
  • Vishnu Pandit, 61
  • Kenneth Bernard Proctor,  46
  • Gerald Read, 58
  • Richard Michael Ridgell, 52

Victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Sandy Hook Elementary School Newtown, CT – 14 December 2012

    • Nancy Lanza, 52
    • Rachel D’Avino, 29
    • Dawn Hochsprung, 47
    • Anne Marie Murphy, 52
    • Lauren Rousseau, 30
    • Mary Sherlach, 56
    • Victoria Leigh Soto, 27
    • Charlotte Bacon, 6
    • Daniel Barden, 7
    • Olivia Engel, 6
    • Josephine Gay, 7
    • Dylan Hockley, 6
    • Madeleine Hsu, 6
    • Catherine Hubbard, 6
    • Chase Kowalski, 7
    • Jesse Lewis, 6
    • Ana Márquez-Greene, 6
    • James Mattioli, 6
    • Grace McDonnell, 7
    • Emilie Parker, 6
    • Jack Pinto, 6
    • Noah Pozner, 6
    • Caroline Previdi, 6
    • Jessica Rekos, 6
    • Avielle Richman, 6
    • Benjamin Wheeler, 6
    • Allison Wyatt, 6

Second Amendment: A Well Regulated Militia

21 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Constitution, District of Columbia v. Heller, Florida High School shooting, Gun control, gun extremists, gun laws, gun lobby, gun rights, guns, Justice Anthony Scalia, mass murders, mass shooter, mentally ill, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, United States of America, Virginia Tech Massacre, well regulated

A well regulated militia. Gun extremists pretend that the first four words of the Second Amendment don’t exist. They beat people over the head with the Second Amendment using the last 13 words but never mention the part that frames the topic. I’ve even had one gun extremist tell me that the comma after the first four words invalidates them. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment

What “Well Regulated” Means in Second Amendment

Ironically, the first four words invalidates the gun extremists position against gun control laws. “Well regulated” is not an accidental phrase. It means that what is being discussed is not only to be regulated, but it is to be closely regulated.

Because it is stated first, it means that everything said after is to be considered within the framework of regulation. The Second Amendment is not about unlimited, unrestricted gun ownership. It is not a mandate to allow anyone to own any weapon they want. It clearly outlines that gun ownership is intended to be under the rule of the government.

Regarding assault rifles, our country had a legal restriction on assault-type rifles from 1994 to 2004. It wasn’t struck down because it was unconstitutional. It ended because a Republican Congress let the law die due to a Sunset provision in the ban.

Gun Extremists

Not what “well regulated” means

Supreme Court Ruling Confirms Guns To Be Well Regulated

Even the Supreme Court ruling that gun extremists like to use to claim unrestricted gun ownership confirms the right of the government to control the ownership of guns. In District of Columbia versus Heller, the Justice Anthony Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Majority Opinion “District of Columbia v. Heller”

Justice Scalia builds a creative argument why guns have to be allowed in the home, but he clarifies that home ownership does not mean unregistered gun ownership:

[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Majority Opinion “District of Columbia v. Heller”

The concept that guns cannot be regulated, nor registered is contrary to the ruling by the Supreme Court. “Well regulated” is the important aspect of the Second Amendment regardless of what gun extremists want to pretend.

Are These People the Next Mass Shooter?

19 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crime, Government, Gun control, Health, History, Internet, Mass Shootings, Medicine, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, Social Interactive Media (SIM), United States, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Florida, Gun control, gun extremists, gun laws, killer, Las Vegas shooting, mass shooter, Mass shootings, psychopath, Rick Scott, Social Media, tip lines

Are one of these people in the picture below, the next mass shooter? According to gun extremists, law enforcement should already know who will be the next mass shooter by his or her behavior. The idea that we can stop the person before they pick up a gun based on behavior is absurd.

Are one of these people the next mass shooter?

Lots of Potential Killers, But Are They Real Killers?

A 2008 study determined that 1.2% of a random sample of people tested high enough to be considered potential psychopaths. In the United States, that means that there are about 3.876 million psychopaths. Do we lock all of them up to stop the mass shootings?

What about those who post hateful things on social media? Do review everyone’s post and lock up anyone who posts something that could be construed as an indication of violent behavior? How many trillions of dollars would it take to monitor all of social media and act on anyone who is suspicious?

What about tips to law enforcement? Florida Governor Rick Scott demanded that the FBI director resign because one call was made to an FBI tip line about Nikolas Cruz, who killed 17 people at a South Florida High School last week. Of course, his accusation had nothing to do with his support of Donald Trump. Governor Scott conveniently ignored that the Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said in a news conference that in regard to Cruz, they had received:

…20 calls for service over the last few years …

Florida Broward Sheriff Scott Israel

Do we lock up people if someone calls law enforcement? Can anyone make an accusation about someone and have him or her locked up on just a tip? What about the worst shooting? The shooter in Las Vegas gave no warning signs. It seems he was killing for pleasure just because he had a lot of guns.

The Solution

Assault-type rifles were banned in 1994 and the Republican Congress allowed that ban to lapse in 2004. The five worst mass shootings have occurred since the ban ended. There is only one solution. Eliminate easy access to weapons of war.

Mass Shooters Not Criminals Before They Picked Up A Gun

18 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Crime, Government, Health, History, Mass Shootings, Medicine, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Columbine High School, Congress, Conservatives, gun, Gun control, gun laws, gun lobby, gun rights, gun violence, mass murders, Mass shootings, Mental Health, mentally ill, NRA, psychopath, Republican, suicide, Violence, Violence in the Workplace, Virginia Tech Massacre

Gun extremists like to portray the perpetrators of mass shooters as known criminals that should have been identified and stopped. That is a damn lie. Like millions of people in the United States, mass shooters often have anti-social behavior and/or involve themselves in hate-filled social media posts. Almost all of those people will not become a mass murderer. None of the mass shooters are identified as criminals until after they have picked up a gun and killed people.

Here is a list of the 20 worst mass shootings and indicators of instability prior to their crime:

TABLE 1.0 Worst 22 Mass Shooter Events in the USA

Millions of People Are Mentally Ill, Only a Few Kill

In some of the instances listed above the mental illness was known but was not an accurate predictor of the actions taken by the perpetrator. Almost all of the perpetrators were U.S. citizens, male, had easy access to guns, and/or was obsessed with gun ownership.

The five worst events have occurred after the ban on assault rifles was allowed to expire in 2004. Half of the top 22 mass shootings have happened in the last 18 years and the other half occurred in the 50 years prior.

More Guns, More Deaths

The simple fact is the explosion of gun ownership in the past three decades has resulted in an explosion of gun deaths. We are not safer now than we were 50 years ago, and while the funding for mental illness treatment is a factor, if guns weren’t easily accessible, the mentally ill would not have the opportunity to use them.

There are only three mass shooting events among the top 22 where the guns were not legally obtained. In two cases the guns were obtained because the criminal records of the perpetrator were not on record as they should have been. In the Columbine High School shooting, the two teenagers used friends to buy them guns. The other 19 events were people who had easy, legal access to the guns and if they hadn’t had that access, I wouldn’t need to write this article.

Reno Nevada Mayor Schieve Declares She is Uninformed

13 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crime, Crisis Management, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government, Honor, Human Resources, Journalism, Management Practices, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Traditional Media, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Andrew Clinger, Bill Dunne, City of Reno, Hillary Schieve, Hogan's Heroes, Karl Hall, lawsuit, Mayor, Mayor of Reno, MeToo, press conference, Reno Attorney, Sargent Schultz, sexual assault, sexual harassment

Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve held a press conference on Thursday, 1 February. It’s purpose was to inform the public about an accusation filed with the City of Reno in October (or November) regarding a sexual assault claim. Mayor Schieve’s three-minute-or-less press conference was an apparent attempt to reprise the role of Sergeant Schultz from the 1960’s television show, Hogan’s Heroes.

If You Can’t Dazzle Them With Brilliance…

Mayor Schieve and the staff of the City of Reno were apparently responding the previous day’s article in the Reno Gazette-Journal. It disclosed a sexual assault claim by a City of Reno contract employee against former Revitalization Manager Bill Dunne. He allegedly exposed himself in a car to the employee and attempted to force her to perform a sex act.

During her micro-press conference Mayor Schieve said:

Last night I was made aware of sexual assault allegations and I want to make sure that our residents know that we take this extremely seriously at the city of Reno…

Mayor Hillary Schieve

In the press conference, Reno city officials made a point to note that no police report was filed. It is unclear why almost no information was disclosed during the media event, other than to announce that the victim did not file a police report.

Reno officials did not explain why the Human Resources Director, nor the City Attorney failed to report the complaint to police. They were aware of the complaint in November. Nor did they explain why the man accused of a sex crime was allowed to resign without further action. Nor did they explain why the Mayor and the City Council members were not made aware of the situation immediately.

Bill Dunne resigned two weeks (10 November 2017) after the complaint of sexual harassment and assault was reported to Reno’s Human Resources Director. Dunne stated that his reason for resignation:

I feel I have done everything I was hired to do, so I am tendering my resignation to pursue other opportunities…

Bill Dunne

Dunne said nothing about being accused of sexual assault.

Victim Feared Reprisal

The victim of Dunne’s alleged behavior waited until she was about to resign before making her complaint against him because she feared of reprisals. When she gave her notice and informed to the Human Resources Director of the complaint, she indicated a desire to stay on until a replacement could be found. According to the statement, the Human Resources Director told the victim:

Today can be your last day if you’re uncomfortable. We can just turn off your email and mail you your check

Reno Attorney’s Staff: Don’t Believe the Women!

The press conference came almost three weeks after another Reno Gazette-Journal article about sexual harassment complaints against the Reno City Manager Andrew Clinger. This article discloses a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by two female city employees.

In that suit, they claim that Clinger sexually harassed them. Among the accusations, he is accused of touching one of the woman on her leg with sexual intent. He is also accused of sending inappropriate text messages; however, Clinger used an application to delete the messages.

After three women filed sexual harassment complaints with the Human Resources department, Reno City Attorney Karl Hall investigated the claims. Two of the three women filed the lawsuit after they felt Hall blew the investigation.

In his motion to dismiss the women’s lawsuit, Reno’s Deputy Attorney William Cooper accused the women and two others of conspiring against City Manager Clinger. The City’s conspiracy theory suggests an effort to force him out of his position.

Cooper cited an ‘independent’ review, paid for by the city, that confirmed the primary allegations as meritorious. It also determined the secondary allegations could not be verified. Cooper’s motion ignored the findings of the primary allegations. His motion to dismiss seemed to based on the findings of the secondary allegations.

Good Ole Boys Club

Perhaps not ironically, Clinger was the person who hired Dunne in 2016 after Dunne faced political pressure to leave his job as Commissioner for Planning and Development in Troy, New York.

As for the City Manager, Clinger quit his position in October 2016 and was hired a few months later by Governor Brian Sandoval as a Senior Advisor on issues relating to economic development, workforce development, and education. Clinger was given a $288,000 severance deal from the City of Reno. He is now being paid over $117,000 in his role for Governor Sandoval. 

Both of the women involved left their positions late in 2016. They stated that the work environment at the City of Reno had become too hostile to continue employment.

Four women felt they had to end their employment with the City of Reno because of a sexually toxic environment, but Mayor Hillary Schieve wants the citizens to know that she takes sexual assault seriously…after she reads about it in the news.

A Return to the United States of America

15 Friday Jul 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Communication, Crime, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Higher Education, History, Honor, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Respect, Taxes, Universities, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Customer Loyalty, Democrats, Nevada, United States of America, victim, victimization

_DSC4367 (2)We have to stop pretending we’re victims. There are problems in the world. There are problems in our country. But there are always problems and problems don’t make us victims.

A victim needs to be rescued. A victim is looking for a hero to save them. We don’t need to be rescued, nor do we need to be saved.

In the United States of America, we have attempted to educate all of our citizens because people who can solve their own problems do a better job of it, and education gives a person the ability to solve their own problems.

Too many people in this country are looking for a political figure that is going to save them. They are like moths to the flame. They are drawn in by the politician that dazzles them and they surrender their intelligence in order to believe that they can be rescued.

We forget that we are not witnesses to the acts of violence that we see on television or online. We are shocked and repulsed, but the real victims are those who were there, and the families and friends who knew someone who was there.

Our impulse to be a victim, makes us feel helpless to do anything, but we are not helpless. Just being a citizen of this country makes us part of the solution. By selecting intelligent politicians, by paying taxes, by being watchful, we help to defeat acts of violence.

Some delude themselves that a gun in their hands empowers them to respond to a violent event. With little or no training, they believe they can improvise a defense in an urban environment, and stop a mentally ill person who has likely been planning their attack for weeks or months. They cannot.

Only trained law enforcement can adequately respond to a violent situation, and private citizens carrying guns in an urban environment can only make a bad situation worse.

However, we don’t have to be the victim. There is violence, and there is corruption, in this country, but we are not on a path to chaos as long as we remember for over two hundred years, we have a consistent record of defeating threats to our country.

Many of those threats did not come from outside our borders, but inside them. The worst of those threats occurred when a group of our own citizens decided to reject the results of a legitimate elections. and betray our country and our Constitution. They failed because we didn’t respond as victims, but as proud and loyal citizens.

After all we’ve been through, we are still here. Working, raising families, enjoying life more than most of the rest of the world. We are not the victims. We are the solution. We are the United States of America.

 

 

Sinclair Reporter Taints Reno NBC Affiliate With Fox News Story…Again

07 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Business, Communication, Crime, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Honor, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Privacy, Public Image, Public Relations, Traditional Media, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Center for American Progress, conservative, Cunningham Broadcasting, Emily J. Miller, Emily Tisch Sussman, Fox News, Gun control, Herring Broadcasting, Joe Hart, Kristine Frazao, KRNV, law abiding, Mark Witaschek, MyNews4, NASDAQ, NBC, NBC News, News, Ronald Reagan, RT, Russian Television, SBGI, Second Amendment, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Sun Myung Moon, Unification Church, Washington D.C., Washington Times

Kristine Frazao

Kristine Frazao – SBGI News Correspondent

On Friday, March 28, the NBC affiliate in Reno, Nevada (KRNV) again aired a Fox News type report on the 6:00 PM telecast, and this time actually used a Fox News clip. During the ‘A’ Block (top stories,) local news anchor Joe Hart gravely announces:

“….National Correspondent Kristine Frazao reports, some are concerned that this could be a sign of things to come in our country….”

The news clip, manufactured by Sinclair Broadcast Group (SBGI,) which operates KRNV, features Kristine Frazao, who has three years national experience with Russian Television (RT,) and was hired in the past year by Sinclair. She tells the story of a Washington D.C. resident who violated local laws on ammunition ownership, and who had his ex-spouse tattle on him to law enforcement.

Image from MyNews4 video

Convicted Mark Witaschek interview on Fox News and shown on Reno NBC affiliate (From KRNV newscast)

The clip starts with Mark Witaschek, explaining his surprise that he had committed a crime. The graphic with his name on-screen is a Fox News logo and banner, indicating the original source of the story. Frazao did not include an interview or statement from the law enforcement agency involved, nor does she offer any other examples of people charged or convicted of the law that Witaschek violated.

Instead Frazao interviews Emily J. Miller of the The Washington Times; who declares that Witaschek is a law-abiding citizen even though he has been convicted of violating the law in Washington D.C.:

“It’s just an outrageous violation of his rights.”

Miller continues and links this one case to a larger conspiracy without any proof:

“This is a pattern in Washington D.C. and states that are anti-gun, which is to go after the law-abiding who are exercising their Second Amendment Rights….”

Miller, is a Senior Editor for The Washington Times, which has an interesting history and has a strong conservative bias.

Founded by the Unification Church in 1982, The Washington Times was once lauded by Ronald Reagan as the only newspaper that told the truth to the American people. In 2002, Church Founder, Sun Myung Moon stated:

“The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”

In March of 2013, the Herring Broadcasting announced that it would team with Miller’s Washington Times newspaper to create One America News, a conservative cable news network to rival Fox News.

Frazao’s uses a source that is as biased as asking a Boston Red Sox fan to discuss the negative aspects of the New York Yankees. By using Miller as her primary source, Frazao betrayed any aspect of responsible investigative journalism.

The final 41 seconds of the news clip, which may or may not have been part of KRNV’s live broadcast¹, does include Emily Tisch Sussman, Campaign Director for the Center for American Progress. Sussman represents a liberal viewpoint; however, during that 41 seconds she is edited down to two sound bytes of four seconds and ten seconds. The rest of the time Frazao speaks for her in a voice over. Of the two sound bytes, it was difficult to determine what questions Sussman was responding to because the editing didn’t seem to match Frazao’s edited-in commentary.

This was at least the second time in one week where Sinclair Broadcast Group’s National Correspondent has presented a story that had an overt conservative bias (See article.)

NEXT:  KRNV does it again. (Read article) TO BE PUBLISHED 7 APRIL 2014 at 6:00 AM

(¹I watched the live broadcast and I don’t remember the last 41 seconds that appears in the on-line clip of the ‘A’ Block. If it was included it would have put the broadcast 34 to 65 seconds longer than the two previous night’s broadcast, and 94 seconds longer than the next two weekday 6 PM broadcasts. At 41 seconds, Kristine Frazao seems to wrap up the piece, and the next 41 seconds could have easily been edited out for time on the original live broadcast.)

The Seduction of Anger

03 Monday Mar 2014

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Anger sucks you in, then eats you up

Anger sucks you in, then eats you up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armed Teacher Games

13 Thursday Feb 2014

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?

ARMED TEACHER SCENARIOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

04 Wednesday Dec 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

Sparks Middle School - A tragedy made worse

Sparks Middle School – A tragedy made worse

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

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

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

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

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

Children became the official source of the shooting

Children became the official information source of the shooting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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

≈ 2 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

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

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.)

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

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.

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.

Nevada Best Kept Secret: #1 in Crime

05 Friday Nov 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Ethics, Government, History, Politics, Pride, Print Media, Public Relations, Rotary, Taxes, Traditional Media, Travel, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

auto theft, Blogging, Blogs, crime rate, crime statistics, Employment, Executive Management, HR, Management Practices, Nevada, New Business World, Newspapers, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, rapes, robbery, Rotary

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Article first published as
Nevada #1 Crime Rate Not Acknowledged
on Technorati

On a late October morning a Wal-Mart employee was ‘disgruntled’ and he decides it’s time to take action. He smuggles a gun into the store and buys ammunition for it in the Sporting Goods department. He then goes to the restroom where he hides in the handicapped stall mulling his decision. He makes a final commitment to confront his bosses and leaves the restroom, straight toward the manager’s office. Once there he confronts the manager, the one he likes, and, at gunpoint, orders him to call two other managers to the office. When they arrive they find an angry man with a gun. At some  point the three managers make a run for it and all three are shot. All three live, but their lives will never be the same.

Last week’s shooting of three managers in a Wal-Mart in Reno (Nevada, USA) should not be surprising in a State that has the worst crime rate in the United States. Nevada has been ranked as the Most Dangerous State for the last four years (2006-09) by Morgan Quitno’s (morganquitno.com) annual crime rate report.

Nevada’s Crime Story

  • Nevada ranks #1 in women being killed by men (1)
  • Nevada ranks #1 in stolen cars per capita (2)
  • Nevada ranks #1 in robbery per capita (2)
  • Nevada ranks in the top 10 for assaults per capita for the last 4 years (3)
  • Nevada ranks in the top 10 for forcible rape per capita for the last 4 years (3)

What is a surprise is the deafening silence about the State’s notorious ranking by local media. The top 50 hits of a Google search of ‘Nevada High Crime Rate News Media’ offer no mention of the issue among the State’s primary television and print media resources. It also was not an issue discussed in most of the major political contests this year despite the fact that Nevada’s #1 status in unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies were all fodder for candidate mud-slinging.

It should be noted that Nevada’s crime rankings are not an artifact of the 2007-09 Recession. The State has been a leader in crime independent of the economic environment. It is unknown if Nevada’s out of control crime issues are effecting tourism because for over half a decade the State has experienced a steady decline in gaming revenues because of increased competition due to Indian gaming in California and other States. Any impact of Nevada’s high crime reputation would be masked by the larger trend; however, as there seems to be little awareness of the State’s crime issues, it is unlikely that it has had an impact…yet.

Nevada’s gaming industry would likely suffer more revenue losses if the crime woes were widely publicized and lower gaming revenues would have a trickle down effect on newspaper and television advertising revenue but, there is no evidence that the local media intentionally avoids the subject to risk offending their advertisers. Gaming also plays a significant role in Nevada politics but, there is no evidence that politicians avoid discussing the issue for fear of offending potential major contributors to their campaigns.

However, the lack of discussion seems to only be feeding the problem. If any effort is being made to turn around Nevada’s position as the Most Dangerous State it is being done without fanfare ….and without success.

NOTES:
(1) – Statistic for 2008 (from crimeinamerica.net)

(2) – Statistic for 2009 – #2 in 2005-08 (from disastercenter.com)
(3) – Statistic for 2006-09 (from disastercenter.com)

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

  • A Question of Ethics
  • HR/Security Hot Topic: Should you watch your employee’s personal Internet activities? (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)
  • Relationship Typing: 3 factors that affect the quality and depth of friendship (Part I)
  • Starbucks Re-Imagines the business … again
  • Your Privacy Rights on the Internet: Read before you write
  • Social Media 3Q Update: Who uses Facebook, Twitter,LinkedIn, and MySpace?
  • Richmond Embassy Suites: The best at true Hospitality
  • Dear Business Person: It’s 2010, please update your brain.
  • Selling watered-down beer: The best spin campaign in advertising
  • Communication: Repetition of message does not increase awareness
  • Is it time to fire yourself?
  • Millennium Hotel: Go away, spend your money elsewhere
  • Rogue Flight Attendant shows his arrogance, Airlines dislike for the customer
  • 2Q 2010 Social Media Tools: Facebook/Twitter sail on, LinkedIn/MySpace don’t
  • War Declared on Social Media: Desperate Acts of Traditional Media
  • Pay It Middle: The Balance between Too Much and Too Little Compensation
  • Mega Executive Pay Leads to Poor Performance
  • Relationships and Thin-Slicing: Why the other person knows what you’re really thinking
  • Browser Wars: Internet Explorer losing, Google Chrome gaining ground
  • WiFi on Southwest Airlines: Is it ‘Shovel Ready’?
  • Starbucks makes a smart move: Free WiFi
  • Foul Play: FIFA shows what less regulation offers to business
  • The Shock of the McChrystal Story: The story is over before the article is published
  • Tony Hayward: The very model of a modern Major General
  • Epic Fail: PR ‘Experts’ don’t get Twitter
  • King of Anything: Social Media vs Traditional Media
  • Twitter is the Thunderstorm of World Thought
  • Signs of the Times
  • How Social Interactive Media Could Transform Higher Education
  • How to Become a Zen Master of Social Media
  • Death of All Salesmen!
  • Aristotle’s General Rules on Social Media
  • Social Media:  What is it and Why Should You Care?
  • Social Media 2020:  Keep it Personal
  • Social Media 2020:  Who Shouldn’t Be Teaching Social Media
  • Social Media 2020:  Public Relations 2001 vs Social Media Relations 2010
  • Social Media 2020: Who Moved My Public Relations?
  • Publishing Industry to End 2012
  • Who uses Facebook, Twitter, MySpace & LinkedIn?
  • Fear of Public Relations
  • Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit
  • Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn…Oh My!
  • Does Anybody Really Understand PR?

Rotary Related

  • Rotary@105: 7 Relationship types that affect membership retention (Part II)
  • What most non-Rotarians don’t know about Rotary
  • Rotary@105: Making Rotary Sexy
  • Rotary@105: Grieving change
  • How Rotary can..must..will plug into Social Media
  • Rotary PR: Disrespecting the Club President is a PR/Membership issue
  • Rotary Membership/Public Image Challenge
  • Rotary New Year: Retread or Renaissance?
  • Rotary@105: A young professionals networking club?
  • One Rotary Center: A home for 1.2 million members
  • Rotary@105:  What BP Could Learn from the 1914 Rotary Code of Ethics
  • Rotary Magazine Dilemma Reveals the Impact of Social Media
  • Rotary@105:  April 24th – Donald M. Carter Day
  • Rotary@105:  What kind of animal is Rotary International?
  • Rotary:  The Man in the Yellow Hat as the Ideal Club President?
  • Rotary@105:  Our 1st Rotary Club Dropout
  • Rotary Public Relations and Membership: Eight Steps to a Team Win
  • Rotary: All Public Relations is Local
  • Best Practices:  Become a Target!

Science Related

  • Negative Time: The Self-fulfilling Prophesy a Scientific Possibility?
  • Physics in 2010: The more we understand, the less we know

Personal Experience Related

  • Knowing when it’s over or beyond over
  • Dear Teresa Laraba, SVP of Southwest Airlines Customer Service
  • Things I didn’t know about being a Father to a four-year-old boy
  • Riding Reno: The Ladies of Reno
  • Up in the air down in Texas
  • I mow my lawn because…
  • Nevada I-580: An Interstate by any other name
  • Nevada’s oldest brewery opens a Reno location
  • Two Barbecues and a Wedding
  • Car Dealership Re-Imagines Customer Service

Our Country and History Related

  • The Vultures Start Circling on Election Day
  • The Quality of Mercy: Tea Party seeks its pound of flesh
  • I’m not angry, nor am I stupid … and I voted
  • Point of Confusion
  • What I’m not buying this year
  • Nevada: State of Disaster
  • Thank you, Mr. President
  • America’s Hostile Takeover of Mexico

HR/Security Hot Topic: Should you watch your employee’s personal Internet activities? (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)

28 Thursday Oct 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government Regulation, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, SEO, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Website

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

background checks, Blogging, Blogs, case law, Employee evaluations, Employee privacy, Employer liability, Employment, Employment Law, employment verification, Executive Management, Facebook, HR, Human Resources, Internet, lawsuit, LinkedIn, Management Practices, monitoring employees, New Business World, performance reviews, Privacy, Privacy on the Internet, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Rotary, security, Social Media, Social Networking

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

One of the hottest topics in the world of employment is whether or not an employer should monitor his or her Internet activities. This is a subject I’ve written about before, but it is an issue that is still emerging and has yet to have any significant case-law to provide guidance to employers.

It is well-known that a large number of employers perform a ‘Google’ search on the Internet before they hire an applicant, but now companies are feeling the need to continue to monitor an employee’s Internet activities after hire. Many experts, especially those involved in employee liability prevention support an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s Internet activities even when those activities occur off-duty and offsite. The logic is that it is prudent to aware of anything an employee might say or do that could embarrass the employer, or any indication that the employee might take an action that might involve the company and its facilities.

These are rational arguments, but I believe that monitoring an employee’s activities is opening the door to bigger liability issues. Sound odd? Here’s the scenario I see happening in three Acts.

Should the Employer be Big Brother?

Act One: A busy-body employer or manager casually checks his or her employee’s Facebook, MySpace, and/or Twitter accounts. The employer might even do a Google search on an employee from time to time. When the employer or manager finds something that they see as objectionable they confront the guilty employee and take the proper action. It becomes known throughout the company (and the employee’s family) that the employer monitors its employee’s personal Internet activity.

Act Two: An employee has been reprimanded for content they have posted on the Internet. Six months later the same employee posts information on the Internet that he  is considering suicide and describes in detail how he is going to kill himself. Two weeks later the employee carries out the suicide as described. The family is aware the employer monitors the employee’s Internet activity and sues the employer claiming that the employer should have reasonably been aware of the planned suicide and taken action.

Act Three: Companies find themselves with two polar opposite choices. Either the company does not monitor their employee’s Internet activities or the company assigns resources to constantly monitor the Internet on every employee to insure they capture any relevant data for which the company should take action.

I was trained in Human Resources under the policy that what the employee did on her or his own time was off-limits to the employer unless it had a direct impact the job performance. That policy has had to be adjusted in a world where work and off-duty time can often be hard to differentiate, and where drug testing, researching credit scores and background checks have become standard operating procedure for many companies. However, an employee’s personal Internet activities is almost impossible to track in a society that is increasing involved in hours of daily online social networking. The question is whether an employer wants to be liable for monitoring its employees 24/7/365 and being held responsible for taking the appropriate action, or whether the employer would be better served by not being sucked into liability issues that can be avoided by simply not playing the role of Big Brother ?

I know which strategy I would recommend to my clients.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

  • Relationship Typing: 3 factors that affect the quality and depth of friendship (Part I)
  • Starbucks Re-Imagines the business … again
  • Your Privacy Rights on the Internet: Read before you write
  • Social Media 3Q Update: Who uses Facebook, Twitter,LinkedIn, and MySpace?
  • Richmond Embassy Suites: The best at true Hospitality
  • Dear Business Person: It’s 2010, please update your brain.
  • Selling watered-down beer: The best spin campaign in advertising
  • Communication: Repetition of message does not increase awareness
  • Is it time to fire yourself?
  • Millennium Hotel: Go away, spend your money elsewhere
  • Rogue Flight Attendant shows his arrogance, Airlines dislike for the customer
  • 2Q 2010 Social Media Tools: Facebook/Twitter sail on, LinkedIn/MySpace don’t
  • War Declared on Social Media: Desperate Acts of Traditional Media
  • Pay It Middle: The Balance between Too Much and Too Little Compensation
  • Mega Executive Pay Leads to Poor Performance
  • Relationships and Thin-Slicing: Why the other person knows what you’re really thinking
  • Browser Wars: Internet Explorer losing, Google Chrome gaining ground
  • WiFi on Southwest Airlines: Is it ‘Shovel Ready’?
  • Starbucks makes a smart move: Free WiFi
  • Foul Play: FIFA shows what less regulation offers to business
  • The Shock of the McChrystal Story: The story is over before the article is published
  • Tony Hayward: The very model of a modern Major General
  • Epic Fail: PR ‘Experts’ don’t get Twitter
  • King of Anything: Social Media vs Traditional Media
  • Twitter is the Thunderstorm of World Thought
  • Signs of the Times
  • How Social Interactive Media Could Transform Higher Education
  • How to Become a Zen Master of Social Media
  • Death of All Salesmen!
  • Aristotle’s General Rules on Social Media
  • Social Media:  What is it and Why Should You Care?
  • Social Media 2020:  Keep it Personal
  • Social Media 2020:  Who Shouldn’t Be Teaching Social Media
  • Social Media 2020:  Public Relations 2001 vs Social Media Relations 2010
  • Social Media 2020: Who Moved My Public Relations?
  • Publishing Industry to End 2012
  • Who uses Facebook, Twitter, MySpace & LinkedIn?
  • Fear of Public Relations
  • Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit
  • Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn…Oh My!
  • Does Anybody Really Understand PR?

Rotary Related

  • Rotary@105: 7 Relationship types that affect membership retention (Part II)
  • What most non-Rotarians don’t know about Rotary
  • Rotary@105: Making Rotary Sexy
  • Rotary@105: Grieving change
  • How Rotary can..must..will plug into Social Media
  • Rotary PR: Disrespecting the Club President is a PR/Membership issue
  • Rotary Membership/Public Image Challenge
  • Rotary New Year: Retread or Renaissance?
  • Rotary@105: A young professionals networking club?
  • One Rotary Center: A home for 1.2 million members
  • Rotary@105:  What BP Could Learn from the 1914 Rotary Code of Ethics
  • Rotary Magazine Dilemma Reveals the Impact of Social Media
  • Rotary@105:  April 24th – Donald M. Carter Day
  • Rotary@105:  What kind of animal is Rotary International?
  • Rotary:  The Man in the Yellow Hat as the Ideal Club President?
  • Rotary@105:  Our 1st Rotary Club Dropout
  • Rotary Public Relations and Membership: Eight Steps to a Team Win
  • Rotary: All Public Relations is Local
  • Best Practices:  Become a Target!

Science Related

  • Negative Time: The Self-fulfilling Prophesy a Scientific Possibility?
  • Physics in 2010: The more we understand, the less we know

Personal Experience Related

  • Knowing when it’s over or beyond over
  • Dear Teresa Laraba, SVP of Southwest Airlines Customer Service
  • Things I didn’t know about being a Father to a four-year-old boy
  • Riding Reno: The Ladies of Reno
  • Up in the air down in Texas
  • I mow my lawn because…
  • Nevada I-580: An Interstate by any other name
  • Nevada’s oldest brewery opens a Reno location
  • Two Barbecues and a Wedding
  • Car Dealership Re-Imagines Customer Service

Our Country and History Related

  • I’m not angry, nor am I stupid … and I voted
  • Point of Confusion
  • What I’m not buying this year
  • Nevada: State of Disaster
  • Thank you, Mr. President
  • America’s Hostile Takeover of Mexico

Rogue Flight Attendant shows his arrogance, Airlines dislike for customers

16 Monday Aug 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Government Regulation, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Rotary, Travel, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Air travel, airline rules, Airlines, avionics, bad behavior, Blogging, Blogs, cell phones, Customer Loyalty, drama queen, electronic devices, Employment, FAA, flight attendant, hero, HR, jetBlue, Management Practices, New Business World, petty behavior, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Southwest Airlines, Steven Slater

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Last week Steven Slater was anointed as the working person’s hero by CNN and based on Internet response it would seem that most admire this jetBlue flight attendant and his dramatic act of quitting his job over the intercom, grabbing two beers, opening the plane door, inflating the emergency escape slide, and leaping into history. His behavior was allegedly in response to a passenger that refused to listen to his order to sit down as the plane taxied to the gate, and it has somehow elevated Slater to fame and offers of mega-financial deals.

Yet, the facts indicate that he is anything but heroic, and more accurately described as an arrogant, customer-loathing, self-obsessed man who betrayed the passengers on his plane and showed how control-obsessed some flight attendants have become in putting their petty desires over customer service.

Steven Slater - It's all about him

First, the facts of the alleged incident that supposedly drove him to his tantrum are in dispute. He claims that while the plane was taxiing to the gate a passenger stood up to get his bag and that while confronting the passenger the bag came down and hit him in the head. Yet, passengers claim the injury to his head was there earlier in the flight and no one can validate his fight with a passenger. By his own admission, Slater said he has thought about doing this act for 20 years.

Also, when Slater opened the starboard door and blew the slide, the plane was at the gate with the jetway in place. If the port side external door was not open, it could have been easily opened and he could have exited without the big show that took a plane out of service….but it wouldn’t have been as dramatic.

I do not doubt that there was some incident, but it seems that the facts according to Steven Slater don’t quite match the story. If a passenger stood up and began getting his bags before the plane had made a complete stop then that passenger was certainly in the wrong, but here is the catch, flight attendants have almost unlimited authority and if there was a major issue Slater only had to report the incident and the passenger would be spending some quality time with the New York Police. The passenger has no such power over the flight attendants, so why would Steven Slater portray himself as some beaten down victim at the mercy of a passenger?

Note that Steven Slater’s drama not only disrupted and punished the passengers on his flight, but his act also affected the passengers waiting to board that plane when it left New York. The plane had to be taken out of service leaving hundreds of people stranded. Slater’s co-workers were left to clean up his mess and he is a hero? To whom? What possible positive example does this petty, childish, little boy set for anyone? That bad behavior is rewarded?

Of course there are problem passengers. I have witnessed people who are rude, offensive, and ignorant of everyone around them. I will not defend these people, but I will say that most passengers are well-behaved even when they are dealing with a ground staff or flight crew that has belittled and/or humiliated them.

What I see more often on planes is not rude passengers, but rude flight crews that revel in power over their customers. No where in the business world do employees hold more power than flight attendants have over their passengers. Bizarre rules that have no meaning are enforced beyond common sense.

My favorite rule is turning off all electronic devices. Most Southwest flight attendants use the phrase, “..anything with an on/off switch must be completely turned off.” The rationale is that electronic devices will interfere with the plane’s ‘sensitive’ avionics, which is not true. Every urban area is blanketed with cell phone towers, microwave towers, and millions of electronic devices that transmit electromagnetic signals. Below 10,000 feet are electromagnetic waves that are far more powerful than anything a passenger can carry on a plane. If there were a danger of electronic interference it is more likely to come from external signals, rather than internal signals. In addition, the FAA and the airlines have yet to re-create an avionics problem that they could trace back to a mobile phone or an passenger’s electronic device. However, every airline enforces these rules even though they are only FAA advisories, NOT requirements.

The mix of petty rules and petty flight attendants, along with airlines that see passengers as the evil that they must deal with in order to gain a better dividend for their investor has created an abusive situation in the skies and on the ground. It’s not an excuse but passengers are reacting to the way they are being treated. I don’t condone bad behavior by passengers, but I’ll be damned if some drama queen* should be glorified for being the worst customer representative in an industry that hates their customer but still wants their money.

(*I know Steven Slater is openly gay and I am not slamming gays with the ‘drama queen’ remark. In theatre, and in life, there are drama queens, both male and female, and if the shoe fits…)

More Articles

  • Nevada I-580: An Interstate by any other name
  • How Rotary can..must..will plug into Social Media
  • Physics in 2010: The more we understand, the less we know
  • Nevada’s oldest brewery opens a Reno location
  • Rotary Membership/Public Image Challenge
  • 2Q 2010 Social Media Tools: Facebook/Twitter sail on, LinkedIn/MySpace don’t
  • Epic Fail: PR ‘Experts’ don’t get Twitter
  • King of Anything: Social Media vs Traditional Media
  • Rotary PR: Disrespecting the Club President is a PR/Membership issue
  • WiFi on Southwest Airlines: Is it ‘Shovel Ready’?
  • Starbucks makes a smart move: Free WiFi
  • Two Barbecues and a Wedding
  • Foul Play: FIFA shows what less regulation offers to business
  • Rotary New Year: Retread or Renaissance?
  • The Shock of the McChrystal Story: The story is over before the article is published
  • Tony Hayward: The very model of a modern Major General
  • Rotary@105: A young professionals networking club?
  • One Rotary Center: A home for 1.2 million members
  • War Declared on Social Media: Desperate Acts of Traditional Media
  • Pay It Middle: The Balance between Too Much and Too Little Compensation
  • Mega Executive Pay Leads to Poor Performance
  • Relationships and Thin-Slicing: Why the other person knows what you’re really thinking
  • Browser Wars: Internet Explorer losing, Google Chrome gaining ground
  • Rotary@105:  What BP Could Learn from the 1914 Rotary Code of Ethics
  • Twitter is the Thunderstorm of World Thought
  • Signs of the Times
  • Rotary Magazine Dilemma Reveals the Impact of Social Media
  • How Social Interactive Media Could Transform Higher Education
  • How to Become a Zen Master of Social Media
  • Car Dealership Re-Imagines Customer Service
  • Death of All Salesmen!
  • Aristotle’s General Rules on Social Media
  • Social Media:  What is it and Why Should You Care?
  • Social Media 2020:  Keep it Personal
  • Social Media 2020:  Who Shouldn’t Be Teaching Social Media
  • Social Media 2020:  Public Relations 2001 vs Social Media Relations 2010
  • Social Media 2020: Who Moved My Public Relations?
  • Publishing Industry to End 2012
  • Who uses Facebook, Twitter, MySpace & LinkedIn?
  • Fear of Public Relations
  • Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit
  • Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn…Oh My!
  • Does Anybody Really Understand PR?

Pay It Middle: The Balance between Too Much and Too Little Compensation

01 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Communication, Consulting, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Science, Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Abraham Maslow, Blogs, Compensation, Employment, HR, Management Practices, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, New Business World, Pay for Performance, performance reviews, Public Image, Re-Imagine!, Rotary

by Paul Kiser [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Yesterday I wrote an article about research that shows that too much compensation actually makes performance worse.  A fellow Rotarian (thanks Skip!) sent me a link to a great video by RSA Animate that illustrates the issue and the research.  If you haven’t seen it take a look:

Dan Pink: Drive and Purpose YouTube Video

Paul Kiser - CEO 2020 Enterprise Technologies

The article is here: (Mega Executive Pay Leads to Poor Performance)

But the question is why does mega pay negatively impact performance? Here’s my theory.

The Psychology of Making Too Much Money – Barney and the Manna ATM
A man named Barney goes to withdraw $500 from his local ATM. Instead he is given $5,000. When Barney checks his balance it shows that no money was withdrawn from his account. He could go to the bank and let them know that he thinks the ATM has made a mistake but he doesn’t. Initially he is afraid that someone will discover the mistake and take the money away, but no one says anything and eventually Barney’s fear eases. Each week he goes back to the same ATM for another withdrawal and the same thing occurs. He tries other ATM’s, but he learns that it is just this one that gives him money for nothing. Soon he has built a life around getting $5,000 every week from this ATM. His fear has now subsided, but he feels a little guilty, but also a little evil.

One evening Barney is in a rush for the money and pushes a woman out-of-the-way to make his transaction. The woman is irritated but stands to the side while Barney enters in the information. When the money comes out she notices that he received $5,000 but only requested $500. She points this out to him and he denies it. She knows what she saw and she won’t be convinced. Barney offers to give her half of the money and she refuses the offer. She says she is going to tell the bank….What will Barney do to keep his lifestyle?

When examining behavior by executives and managers in the banking crisis of 2007-09, the answer to that question: “What will a man do to keep his lifestyle?” (I’m not being sexist, just accurate) is answered by the unethical business decisions that led to massive financial failures in 2008-09. Pay might purchase a person’s talents for an organization, but at a certain point, too much compensation begins to purchase the person’s ethical compass. Good decision-making is replaced by self-preservation and the future of the business is sacrificed for the financials of the current quarter.

The lesson is that too much compensation becomes a trap that will often lead to unethical decisions. Mega pay not only doesn’t improve performance, it lures executives to the dark side.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The Psychology of Making Too Little Money – Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
The other side of the issue is paying too little. In 1943, a researcher named Abraham Maslow published a paper titled: A Theory of Human Motivation. The work was based on examining successful people and their living situations. From his research he concluded that there is a Hierarchy of Needs that must be met in steps, with each step supporting the next level.

In Maslow’s paper he proposes that humans must meet their basic survival needs that contribute to sustaining life as the base level of life; however, security and safety needs are the next level. All levels above that (Belonging, Esteem, and finally, Self-Actualization) are dependent on the needs of the first two levels being met.

This is the key. Employers that fail to compensate their team to the point of a living wage should expect their staff to be in a constant state of crisis and that means they cannot expect these employees to be creative and innovative in dealing with the common issues that might arise with the customer. An underpaid employee will be in a constant state of personal crisis that will lead to many issues including reliability, focus, and attitude.

The question is how much is a living wage? That takes an individual examination of the job, the market, and the economy of the region. As the video suggests, you should pay enough to take money off the table as an issue.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

  • Relationship Typing: 3 factors that affect the quality and depth of friendship (Part I)
  • Starbucks Re-Imagines the business … again
  • Your Privacy Rights on the Internet: Read before you write
  • Social Media 3Q Update: Who uses Facebook, Twitter,LinkedIn, and MySpace?
  • Richmond Embassy Suites: The best at true Hospitality
  • Dear Business Person: It’s 2010, please update your brain.
  • Selling watered-down beer: The best spin campaign in advertising
  • Communication: Repetition of message does not increase awareness
  • Is it time to fire yourself?
  • Millennium Hotel: Go away, spend your money elsewhere
  • Rogue Flight Attendant shows his arrogance, Airlines dislike for the customer
  • 2Q 2010 Social Media Tools: Facebook/Twitter sail on, LinkedIn/MySpace don’t
  • War Declared on Social Media: Desperate Acts of Traditional Media
  • Pay It Middle: The Balance between Too Much and Too Little Compensation
  • Mega Executive Pay Leads to Poor Performance
  • Relationships and Thin-Slicing: Why the other person knows what you’re really thinking
  • Browser Wars: Internet Explorer losing, Google Chrome gaining ground
  • WiFi on Southwest Airlines: Is it ‘Shovel Ready’?
  • Starbucks makes a smart move: Free WiFi
  • Foul Play: FIFA shows what less regulation offers to business
  • The Shock of the McChrystal Story: The story is over before the article is published
  • Tony Hayward: The very model of a modern Major General
  • Epic Fail: PR ‘Experts’ don’t get Twitter
  • King of Anything: Social Media vs Traditional Media
  • Twitter is the Thunderstorm of World Thought
  • Signs of the Times
  • How Social Interactive Media Could Transform Higher Education
  • How to Become a Zen Master of Social Media
  • Death of All Salesmen!
  • Aristotle’s General Rules on Social Media
  • Social Media:  What is it and Why Should You Care?
  • Social Media 2020:  Keep it Personal
  • Social Media 2020:  Who Shouldn’t Be Teaching Social Media
  • Social Media 2020:  Public Relations 2001 vs Social Media Relations 2010
  • Social Media 2020: Who Moved My Public Relations?
  • Publishing Industry to End 2012
  • Who uses Facebook, Twitter, MySpace & LinkedIn?
  • Fear of Public Relations
  • Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit
  • Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn…Oh My!
  • Does Anybody Really Understand PR?

Rotary Related

  • Rotary@105: 7 Relationship types that affect membership retention (Part II)
  • What most non-Rotarians don’t know about Rotary
  • Rotary@105: Making Rotary Sexy
  • Rotary@105: Grieving change
  • How Rotary can..must..will plug into Social Media
  • Rotary PR: Disrespecting the Club President is a PR/Membership issue
  • Rotary Membership/Public Image Challenge
  • Rotary New Year: Retread or Renaissance?
  • Rotary@105: A young professionals networking club?
  • One Rotary Center: A home for 1.2 million members
  • Rotary@105:  What BP Could Learn from the 1914 Rotary Code of Ethics
  • Rotary Magazine Dilemma Reveals the Impact of Social Media
  • Rotary@105:  April 24th – Donald M. Carter Day
  • Rotary@105:  What kind of animal is Rotary International?
  • Rotary:  The Man in the Yellow Hat as the Ideal Club President?
  • Rotary@105:  Our 1st Rotary Club Dropout
  • Rotary Public Relations and Membership: Eight Steps to a Team Win
  • Rotary: All Public Relations is Local
  • Best Practices:  Become a Target!

Science Related

  • Negative Time: The Self-fulfilling Prophesy a Scientific Possibility?
  • Physics in 2010: The more we understand, the less we know

Personal Experience Related

  • Knowing when it’s over or beyond over
  • Dear Teresa Laraba, SVP of Southwest Airlines Customer Service
  • Things I didn’t know about being a Father to a four-year-old boy
  • Riding Reno: The Ladies of Reno
  • Up in the air down in Texas
  • I mow my lawn because…
  • Nevada I-580: An Interstate by any other name
  • Nevada’s oldest brewery opens a Reno location
  • Two Barbecues and a Wedding
  • Car Dealership Re-Imagines Customer Service

Our Country and History Related

  • I’m not angry, nor am I stupid … and I voted
  • Point of Confusion
  • What I’m not buying this year
  • Nevada: State of Disaster
  • Thank you, Mr. President
  • America’s Hostile Takeover of Mexico

Relationships and Thin Slicing: Why the Other Person Knows What You’re Really Thinking

28 Friday May 2010

Posted by Paul Kiser in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Book Review, Branding, Communication, Customer Relations, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, parenting, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Science, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Blink, Blogs, Club Members, Employee evaluations, Employee privacy, Employment, Four-Way Test, HR, job standards, John Gottman, Malcolm Gladwell, Management Practices, Membership Retention, negative relationships, New Business World, performance reviews, positive relationships, Public Image, Public Relations, Rotarians, Rotary, Rotary Club, Rotary District 5190, Rotary International, Social Media, Social Networking, The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Thin-slicing

by Paul Kiser [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser - CEO of Enterprise Technologies, inc.

You’ve been warned about ‘this person’ and now you’re being introduced to them. You smile and shake his hand and say, “nice to meet you.” Visibly, you are polite and friendly; however, inside your hoping to be able to move on because even though you’ve never met him before you are preconditioned to not like him. The introduction ends and you move on believing that went things went smoothly. He walks away knowing that you dislike him and he begins to form a negative impression of you. In less than five seconds you have cemented a negative relationship…and you didn’t even know it. What happened?

Malcolm Gladwell

In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, it is called it thin-slicing and it is based on solid research. Gladwell uses many examples of how the human brain picks up seemingly unseen and unheard clues and can accurately identify what is going on in a given situation. In one example, researcher John Gottman and his team coded conversations between married couples using 14 emotional identifiers (1=contempt, 2=anger, etc.) and found that they could accurately predict whether or not the couple was heading for a divorce by the subtle clues that betrayed the inner thoughts and attitudes of each person. Most of these signals lasted a second or less, but the signal clearly indicated the inner feelings of the person and the pattern of their relationship.

Gladwell argues that in a thin-slice experience we usually do not know what we know, nor why we know it, but the evidence is conclusive, we do know it. It is often described as a ‘feeling’ and people usually cannot explain it to others, so it is usually dismissed as being oversensitive. Gladwell‘s research suggests that the feeling is real and that our unconscious mind is the source of the analysis that creates a tangible, and accurate feeling and/or assessment of the situation.

Conversations Are Never Just Casual

Based on the information in Blink one can conclude that when someone has a dislike for someone, or when people discuss someone else behind their back, the attitudes felt or expressed privately will be exposed in subtle hints the next time we meet the subject of the gossip. We are taught as children to not gossip about others, which was a valuable lesson based on what we now know; however, in the business world people often discuss work performance of subordinates with their peers or superiors. Those discussions then shape our attitudes about the subordinate, which are then revealed in our next interaction with the worker. The same can be said of any relationship, whether it be a superior/subordinate, peer/peer, Club member/member, parent/child, spouse/spouse, or any interaction between two people. Simply put, strong attitudes and opinions about another person can and will be read by that person at the next meeting.

But what is worse is once a negative relationship is formed it is almost impossible to revert it to a positive relationship. Gladwell says that if a person has contempt or other negative attitudes towards someone, even a kind or reconciliatory gesture will be misread as manipulation or motivated by a hidden agenda. That idea is reinforced by the theory of cognitive dissonance, which suggests that once we have an opinion or belief about something we will reject evidence that contradicts our opinion or belief and will even go so far as to manufacture evidence or examples to support our version of the truth.

Do We Have to Like Everyone?
Certainly we don’t have to have a positive relationship with everyone, but negative relationships tend to expend more of our energy and time. This is especially true for people in positions of leadership. Consider the time spent on emails, meetings, phone calls, and emotional stress that involve interactions with people who we have an adversarial relationship versus the support and positive reinforcement we receive through friendly relationships. It is obvious that a negative relationship that is based on our preconditioning to dislike them is not only counterproductive, but also an unnecessary waste of time and emotion.

The first step in avoiding the downward spiral of negative relationships is to recognize that our internal dislike for someone is not hidden from that person. Our actions, behaviors, and responses will be picked up and will, in turn, dictate their response to us. Gossip, whether it is causally done with friends, or professionally sanctioned as part of ‘assessment’ of subordinates is dangerous to our relationship with that person and will ultimately make our life more difficult. Most of us were taught at some point to never say anything about anyone unless you are prepared to say it to their face….it is a good rule in the home, at work, or anywhere else.

Rotary's Four-Way Test

Rotary has a Four-Way Test that is a guide to any relationship. It is meant to take Rotarians to a higher standard in business and in life. The ‘test’ is as follows:

  • First, is it the Truth?
  • Second, is it fair to all concerned?
  • Third, will it build goodwill and better friendships?
  • Fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned?

Great words that can help us to build great relationships…even when sliced thin.

More articles

  • Browser Wars: Internet Explorer losing, Google Chrome gaining ground
  • Rotary@105:  What BP Could Learn from the 1914 Rotary Code of Ethics
  • Twitter is the Thunderstorm of World Thought
  • Signs of the Times
  • The Quality of Relationships and Social Interactive Media
  • Rotary Magazine Dilemma Reveals the Impact of Social Media
  • How Social Interactive Media Could Transform Higher Education
  • How to Become a Zen Master of Social Media
  • Car Dealership Re-Imagines Customer Service
  • Death of All Salesmen!
  • Aristotle’s General Rules on Social Media
  • Social Media:  What is it and Why Should You Care?
  • Social Media 2020:  Keep it Personal
  • Social Media 2020:  Who Shouldn’t Be Teaching Social Media
  • Social Media 2020:  Public Relations 2001 vs Social Media Relations 2010
  • Social Media 2020: Who Moved My Public Relations?
  • Publishing Industry to End 2012
  • Who uses Facebook, Twitter, MySpace & LinkedIn?
  • Fear of Public Relations
  • Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn…Oh My!
  • Does Anybody Really Understand PR?
← Older posts

Other Pages of This Blog

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

Paul’s Recent Blogs

  • Janet Devlin vs. Janet Devlin
  • Colorado’s 17 Dying Counties
  • Timid Democrats in Power Haunts the United States of America
  • The Betelgeuse Summer Problem
  • Moffat County Coal: Why Ignorance is Not Bliss
  • Betelgeuse is NOT Collapsing, It’s Expanding [NOTE: THIS IS IN ERROR]
  • Betelgeuse: Schrödinger’s Star

Paul Kiser’s Tweets

  • Did anyone else note that Mike Pence basically said he was not Presidential material? He's refusing to invoke the 2… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 week ago
  • @brianduggan I'm getting the feeling that we white people think that we can prove our white superiority by taking S… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 week ago
  • @AmyShiraTeitel A suggestion on your look at USSR space program: Was Yuri killed by the Kremlin? I took a stab at… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 weeks ago
  • @EmilyOhMy I agree, in the short term. In the long view, the number of people in the world who do things for immedi… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 month ago
  • @realDonaldTrump Ooops, Trump's off his meds again. 2 months ago

What’s Up

January 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Sep    

Follow Blog via Email

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

Join 1,654 other subscribers

A WordPress.com Website.