3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

3rd From Sol

Tag Archives: NRA

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 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.

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.

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.

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

01 Monday Apr 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Ted Nugent: America's Epic Fail

Ted Nugent: America’s Epic Failure

Miami, Florida – April 1, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You SHOT Me! You SHOT Me!”

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

“They’re doctors, not miracle workers.”

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

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

Nugent will be arraigned in Miami on Monday.

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

11 Monday Feb 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

Managing the Message is the alpha and omega of the NRA

Managing the Message is the alpha and omega of the NRA

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

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

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

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

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

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

BP public image destroyed once video revealed the PR deception

BP public image destroyed once video revealed the PR deception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Actions Needed To Protect America From Bad Gun Owners

14 Monday Jan 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

12 of 26 faces lost on December 14, 2012

12 of 26 faces lost on December 14, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strict limitations on conceal and carry permits

Conceal and Carry

Conceal and Carry: a self-inflicted wound to America

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

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

ALASTAR TDS-C, NC Gun Training Website

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

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

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

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

Secret Service Consulting and Training for Schools

Secret Service agents are experts in identifying threats

Secret Service agents are experts in identifying threats

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

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

Background checks on 100% of gun sales/exchanges

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

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

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

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

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

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

NRA Tax Exempt Status

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

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

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

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

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.

Romneylans: A New Species of Stupidity

21 Tuesday Aug 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, Honor, Politics, Religion, Science, Taxes, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACA, Affordable Care Act, Christianity, Climate change, Conservatives, economy, George W. Romney, Global warming, guns, Healthcare, Immigration, Jesus Christ, jobs, Mitt Romney, New Testament, NRA, patriotism, Romans 14:10, Romneylans, Romulans, Todd Akin, Unemployment

Romulans of the Star Trek kind

Romulans (Star Trek Series): A alien race ruled by a hierarchical society that is always at war or in an uneasy truce with almost everyone, noted by an almost illogical egocentric society using cunning and deception to gain the advantage. Also identifiable by their pointy ears and uni-haircut.

Todd Akin: Romneylan of the stupid kind

Romneylans (rom-nee-lans): Similar to Romulans, but without the pointy ears and the spiffy haircut. 

Romneylans have invaded Earth (specifically the United States) and if they are not defeated we risk losing everything that makes America great.

Ironically, Romneylans are NOT identified by their alleged support of candidate Mitt Romney. Romneylans are actually united by an irrational hate for President Obama. If Bozo the Clown were running against President Obama, Romneylans would vote for Bozo. (NOTE: Mitt Romney is NOT Bozo the Clown and my apologies to any clown named Bozo.)

Romneylans are also noted for their hate for liberals, rejection of reason, and an unshakable commitment to stupidity. Some examples:

Patriotism: Romneylans (A.K.A.: Conservatives) believe that if you don’t agree with them then you are not an American. That in itself is stupid, but what takes it to a new level is the idea that beating your breast about America’s military might is considered patriotic, but it is unpatriotic if you support the civil servants that serve our country with honor and have made America the envy of the citizens of most other countries. Romneylans think that dismantling our government is patriotic. 

Religion:  Romneylans claim to be Christians. Christianity is identified as the belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings that can be found in the New Testament. Romans 14:10 of the New Testament states:

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

Romans 14:10  King James version

No need to interpret what is being meant by not judging others. Yet, Romneylans feel compelled to declare that the Bible gives them the right to persecute and pass judgement on almost anyone. Ironically, Jesus Christ is one of the most compassionate religious figures in human mythology, but Romneylans love saying “hate the sin, not the sinner,” which is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever said by a group of people known for stupid remarks. A glance at any Romneylan Facebook page and it is easy to determine that their hate is boundless and their compassion for anyone they hate is nonexistent.

Economy: The depth of stupidity of Romneylans is most evident with their take on the economy. The 2007-09 economic collapse in America occurred as a direct result of unbridled greed in private business and a lack of ethics throughout business in general. That is documented.

However, Romneylans believe that the economic collapse was caused by government regulation and that our economy can be restored by eliminating any of the safeguards that make ethical business possible. Romneylans depend on a permanent state of denial about what Conservatives and conservative policies did to bring America to the brink of disaster.

US Employment Data

Jobs: The impact of the 2007-09 Recession on jobs was felt through the first quarter of 2010. There is no magic bullet to recover the jobs lost during that time, but what is not going to help our nation’s unemployment is to eliminate civil service jobs that employ millions of middle class citizens. Romneylans rabid hate for government is the classic ‘biting the hand that feeds you’ syndrome.

Healthcare:  One of the biggest problems America has faced in the last thirty years is the rising cost of healthcare. A major component of this issue is the uninsured citizen without access to affordable healthcare. The uninsured person can’t afford to see a doctor for preventive, or minor health issues, so this often results in that patient receiving no care until it becomes a major health problem. That increases the cost of treatment for which we all indirectly pay. The Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) solves this problem.

However, Mitt Romney, nor his major contributors will ever have to worry about access to proper medical treatment, thus they don’t care about the millions of Americans who have no access. Ironically, many Romneylans will benefit from ACA either directly or indirectly. Unfortunately, stupidity rules the day with conservative voters and they have convinced themselves that ACA is akin to the Apocalypse, thus it must be stopped before it can take effect.

Another issue is women’s health, in particular, contraception and abortion. While some may say this is another religious issue, for Romneylans it seems to have more of a tie to the gender that is making most of the noise. (See Conservative Pig Influenza of 2012.)

Science:  Anyone who seriously believes that Creationism should be taught in public and or private schools as an alternative option to evolution is certainly a Romneylan. Creationism has no basis as a rational explanation for how the universe and humans came into existence but that doesn’t stop Romneylans from declaring mythology as science.

Regarding climate change, science has demonstrated that we are witnessing an extraordinary change in Earth’s climate on a scale that exceeds any climate change during the last 600,000 years. A study funded in part by conservatives to disprove the science of global warming ended up confirming the data.

This doesn’t stop a Romneylan.  They dispute science by being ‘skeptical.’ Skeptical is another way of saying, “I’m being stupid.”

Immigration:  The Hispanics population in America is growing; however, Mexicans coming to America is not what is driving Conservatives panic attack on this issue. They are just scared white men. That’s sad, but Romneylans are taking their panic and turning into an issue that is long on fear mongering and short on facts. Romneylans are now trying to arm themselves and monitor the border. Guns and vigilantes can be entertaining, but not very smart.

One of the ironies is that most Romneylans nay not know that Romney’s father was born in Mexico when his family fled there to avoid prosecution by the United States of America. His family returned when they became concerned about violence in Mexico.

Romneylan with an open mind?

Guns:  I was raised in one of America’s prime hunting communities. I was one of the first to complete an NRA (National Rifle Association) safety course. In addition, I was taught that guns and people don’t mix, so we had a rule to not come back into town with a loaded gun after hunting. Safety and respect for others was key.

Then the NRA became political and this was the cry of gun owners:

When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns

Clever. Here’s the reality. Almost every person will at some point in their lives be filled with so much anger that they will have a fleeting desire to injure or kill someone else. The NRA wants that person to have a gun accessible so they can act on that impulse. Does that seem smart or stupid?

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

  • Dysfunctional Social Identity & Its Impact on Society
  • Road Less Traveled: How Craig, CO Was Orphaned
  • GOP Political Syndicate Seizes CO School District
  • DNA Shock +5 Years: What I Know & Lessons Learned
  • Solstices and Sunshine In North America
  • Blindsided: End of U.S. Solar Observation Capabilities?
  • Inspiration4: A Waste of Space Exploration

Paul Kiser’s Tweets

Tweets by PaulKiser

What’s Up

February 2026
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
« Jun    

Follow Blog via Email

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

Join 688 other subscribers

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

 

Loading Comments...