Community Blog -- Click "New Topic" to post your thoughts.1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11 Hypocrisy, the sickening pandemic
January 16, 2019, 01:54:21 AM by Kerry
Hypocrisy: "Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham. Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles. --Wikipedia
We are all experiencing the effects of our hypocrisies, specifically our political system and the illusion that we are powerless. We ignore the fact that President Trump merely mirrors our integrity; each of us lying about something significant--living the lie, believing that we want honesty, civility and peace. We "forget" how, when young, we could see things that adults apparently couldn't see. "Be nice, don't swear, don't lie, don't badmouth, etc.," yet few teens have ever witnessed either parent acknowledge to the other a prior abusive communication. I.e. One parent to the other: "I get what what I said earlier didn't feel good." Our hypocrisies are driving our children bonkers. For example: One sure way to drive a teen to drugs and deceitful, behind your back, sex is to dump beliefs and "Do as I say..." admonishments in his/her space. For the past several years one of the great thinkers of our time, Werner Erhard, (founder of The est Training and The Forum), has been delivering courses and lectures about being an effective leader to some of the nation's most intelligent teachers and students. Over two million people have attended one or more Werner-created educational processes yet we look at what's happening in the world and we don't see any evidence that it's working within the government, lest it be that things could be so much worse. Note: You might rightfully ask, "Why post such irresponsible crap here?" or, "If you're so smart why aren't you doing anything about it?" I get that this is a blaming dump; I post because it works for me. It empties my mind for a few moments; it creates space for me to be, with myself and others. The truth is, I'm still learning how to intend for things to be as they are, specifically, for President Trump, and the rest of us, to be and act, as we do, and he does. Last edited 7/13/22 About teacher strikes:
January 11, 2019, 01:58:43 AM by Kerry
About teacher strikes:
Re: Today (1/7/19) Houston's teachers are striking again. It's getting to be that time again for Hawaii's teachers. Some Considerations:
Consultants for governments advise legislators, “. . . offer them less than what they say they want, historically they have always accepted less.” In other words, most everyone has been trained to know that teachers don't always mean what they say; specifically, that educators are easy to con into accepting less. I.e. Most of us have poor penmanship and principals still graduate students whom they know can't compute the best values at the supermarket or know the total costs for raising a child through to age 18. * Universities offer excellent 3-credit-hour classes about communication and interesting cutting-edge seminars and courses about leadership. However, education majors graduate without the leadership-communication skills that support open and honest communication within their own family; all (yes all) "teachers" have one or more significant thoughts they are hiding from one or more family member's, for fear of . . . In other words, those we entrust to inspire integrity have not restored their own— therefore they have not experienced the correlation between ones personal integrity and results. Teachers carry their addiction to deceit, to withholding significant thoughts, into each and every conversation with students and parents. All (yes all) teachers have one or more significant thoughts they are withholding from most parents, feedback that's essential for everyone’s growth. Everyone experiences at some level the hypocrisy of, “Do as I say.” ** Instead of requiring a Leadership Training Program for education majors university administrators argue about, and vote for, more of the same, which guarantees more tuition revenue generated through remedial courses. *** “aligned” Virtually no two teachers in any school can quote verbatim the purpose of their school, this because principals have not completed a Leadership Training Program; they are experientially unaware of the power of alignment, of having a team aligned with a specific purpose; ergo, each teacher has his/her own purpose for teaching. For more about the subject read: The Teacher's Pay Conversations Project. Last edited 1/18/19 Teachers, Integrity, Communicating Subject Matter
October 26, 2018, 03:05:48 AM by Kerry
For decades, nationwide, high school teachers, using everything they learned about communication as education majors, cause 25% of their students applying for college to have to pay for remedial courses to enter a college/university.
This is a financially motivated policy; the option being, to do what it takes to teach education majors to communicate subject matter--specifically to offer and require a 4-year Leadership Training Program for health-care and education majors. Most people are unaware of the conversations college/university administrators have about standards. They have conversations such as, "Shall we teach education majors to communicate subject matter, or, shall we provide watered down easy speech-communication courses so as to cause high school students to have to pay us for remedial courses?" Yes, those decisions are argued about and made consciously.1 What we're looking at is the integrity of an educator accepting pay for not teaching as they know is possible (euphemistically referred to as a "tough but fair" teacher) the unconscious commitment to mediocrity, often manifested as unsatisfying fundings and "burn-out." We're looking at the consequences, the karma, (the effects this has on a teacher's personal life and relationships, especially a teacher's own child) of not feeling good about this perpetration but still accepting a salary. For example: A Chairman of a university Speech-Communication Department is tasked with teaching education majors to communicate subject matter, no excuses, no reasons. To do this educators must demonstrate the level of integrity it takes to cause another to consistently re-create their communications; this can't be done using the existing Adversarial Communication Model taught throughout our education system?characterized by getting ahead at the expense of others, withholding, deceiving, and blaming. I.e. Most educators will confirm that today's Sp-Com courses are among the easiest--this, rather than having the reputation of being the most demanding of all university courses.2 1 To "teach," to create space for, to model communication, one must first be willing to acknowledge one's addictions--to withholding, to blaming, to deceiving, and to badmouthing. What happens during such a curriculum is that one confronts and completes his/her incompletes having to do with life's unacknowledged perpetrations (lies, abuses, thefts) and, each and every incident of anger. A teacher must know how to get, to be-with, and to disappear, a student's/parent's anger; this leadership skill requires training; specifically, a Leadership Training Program. I'm unaware of any college or university that offers or requires leadership training for education majors. Such a program requires 3-hours per week for all four years and, later as a teacher, bi-monthly support groups for life. An important part of applying to be an education major is the three-hour interview with the Trainer, the applicant and his/her parents. 2 High school students would know that college-bound health-care and education majors are required to complete The Clearing Process for Professionals as a prerequisite for enrolling in the four-year-long Leadership Training Program. It would be understood that Leadership Training Program students must have a willingness to maintain clean relationships with friends and family. Such a curriculum would result in fewer education majors for the first few years but eventually result in a high demand for such graduates. I write here because I don't yet have the leadership-communication skills it takes to have a mutually satisfying conversation about this subject mater with any university/college President/Chancellor. From prior experiences I predict that such an interaction would trigger reactions such as: "Yes, I agree." "I understand." "However, you must understand..." "Unfortunately we can't afford to implement such a program because it would have a high attrition rate; too many students would quit in anger. We need teachers." About me. Last edited 3/13/22 Senator Hirono's "shut up" comment
October 17, 2018, 01:31:58 AM by Kerry
During a 10/18 NBC News debate about the alleged sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh of Christine Ford, Senator Mazie Hirono tells men in this country: "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing — for a change.”
From my perspective, as a Leadership-Relationship Communication-Skills Coach, this is an abusive irresponsible blaming make-wrong (Trump-like) statement. Such abuse always produces undesirable results—until/unless it is later acknowledged as being abusive.*
Supportive material:
Note 1: On 10/17/18 I sent a copy of this post to the Senator telling her that if she acknowledges my feedback ("Thank you Kerry. I got it.") then I'll edit this blog in favor of the Senator's realization, that she is supportable; that no matter how crazy or upsetting your feedback, she will respectfully acknowledge receipt. As of 10/28/18 I've not rec'd an acknowledgement of receipt of my feedback. Of interest, her website doesn't have a contact us email as do other senators. Update: On 11/1/18 I sent a followup email asking the Senator if she received my email; she has yet to acknowledge receipt of either email. Update: On 12/13/18 I received the following reply from the Senator. She doesn't address/acknowledge the effects of her irresponsible blaming sexist comment. I.e. "Thank you Kerry. I agree that my knee-jerk angry response was both blaming and sexist and, that it didn't feel good to read. Thank you." I do agree with the Senator's considerations about Mr. Kavanaugh. It poses the question—Are there undesirable consequences for irresponsible blaming? Nah, few "leaders" are willing to be that powerful. ========================= Dear Friend, Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination and confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, when Judge Kavanagh [sic] was nominated, I carefully reviewed his record. I read his legal writings, his opinions and dissents as a judge, and reviewed his prior work in the George W. Bush White House and elsewhere. I found Brett Kavanaugh’s record on constitutional and legal issues inconsistent with a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court. His federal appellate court record distinctively favored corporations over individual rights. His writings and rulings showed a determination to restrict women's reproductive freedom and strip federal agencies of their power to protect our water, air, and safety. Significantly, Judge Kavanaugh believes Congress should exempt U.S. presidents from civil and criminal actions while in office. This is of deep concern at a time when Donald Trump is a defendant in numerous civil lawsuits and is the subject of a significant criminal investigation. For all of these reasons, I announced my opposition to his confirmation. During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on his nomination, prior to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s credible sexual assault allegations against him, I asked questions about his legal record, and found his answers supported what I had found in my research. I was particularly troubled by Judge Kavanaugh’s reliance on erroneous facts to argue that Native Hawaiians are not an indigenous people, and therefore programs benefitting [sic] them are a “naked racial spoils” system, a view he advanced both in an op-ed in a prominent newspaper, and as an Associate White House Counsel in the Bush Administration. I was also disturbed by his refusal to answer questions about whether he thought Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, even though he did not hesitate to share his opinion about other cases. Judge Kavanaugh’s views on women’s reproductive health shows a clear pattern. I believe that he will vote to significantly narrow or even eliminate women’s reproductive rights. After the Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the nomination concluded, credible allegations of sexual assault emerged against Judge Kavanaugh. I took these allegations seriously, and listened intently to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I also considered the views of the thousands of constituents like you who contacted my office. His tone and temperament during that hearing, as well as his responses to questions about these allegations were troubling, and added to my reasons for opposing his confirmation. Now-confirmed Justice Kavanaugh could provide the deciding vote on issues that matter to everyone in Hawaii, including equal access to health care, a woman's right to choose, civil rights, and consumer and environmental protections. Because Supreme Court Justices influence the Court for decades, we must ensure that the men and women appointed are the kind of consensus, mainstream nominees worthy of bipartisan support. However, rather than seeking a candidate who could garner such support, President Trump nominated someone hand-picked, vetted, and approved by two right-wing organizations--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. These organizations have spent decades and millions of dollars to pack our federal courts with ideologically-driven conservative judges. Clearly, President Trump is a willing partner with these groups, taking their suggestions of people to pack the courts with. He believes the judges he appoints are “Trump judges,” who will be loyal to him and protect him when the time comes. But this is not how an independent judiciary is supposed to work. The Senate's confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh creates a clear 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court that, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has developed a record of favoring corporate interests over individual rights. I have serious concerns with this direction, and will continue fighting to see that federal policies focus on helping the most vulnerable, not the most powerful. Again, thank you for contacting me. If you would like to stay in touch with me on this or other issues of importance to you, please visit my website at: http://www.hirono.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if I may be of assistance to you in any way. Aloha, Mazie K. Hirono United States Senator You can follow my work in the U.S. Senate on Twitter. Additionally, please do not reply to this email as this mailbox unfortunately is for outgoing messages only. If you would like to contact me again, please visit my website. Contact Senator Hirono "Me2 or I . . ."
August 18, 2018, 05:01:35 AM by Kerry
Me2 or I . . .:
Am I going to tell the story from a "victim's"1 blaming me-too point of view ("He did it to me.") or, shall I relate the incident responsibly, from cause? I.e. "I, using my verbal, non-verbal, physical and psychic leadership-communication skills (including my conscious and unconscious wishes, hexes and intentions) set him up to do it to me." Care to guess how many readers experience upset when they read that paragraph? We're referring to the '20s media reports of women stepping forward to "talk"2 about their sex experiences (usually related as blaming harassments or assaults). Given the history of the problem, the billions of women who have experienced similar encounters, it's commendable that so few women have come forward. I'm assuming that those who have not come forward have acknowledged the unethicalness of such blaming accusations and have accepted responsibility (cause) for the results they produced using their leadership-communication skills.3 This "#MeToo" 21st century phase of the communication-mastery curriculum is revealing our addictions to irresponsible blaming, to enabling blamers, and to being incomplete (dragging around thoughts, often for years, about an earlier interaction, into present-day interactions). The media thrives on stories of "victims" of sexual harassment and assaults, women who describe what "happened" from blame. "He said . . ." "Then he invited me and . . ." "And then he . . ." or, "I literally had no choice; it was either go along with . . . or . . ." And, the two biggies, "I didn't know he wanted . . ." and, "I thought . . ."4 The word "our" refers to the fact that the rest of us (mostly non-verbally) support (enable) blaming communications. It's not just that we put up with blaming narratives (via media reports) it's that we unconsciously intend the blaming, else we'd have to acknowledge causing our own outcomes. Could it be that "we" remain silent intending that certain "deserving" women punish themselves by setting it up to get date-raped? Part of the communication mastery curriculum is having responsible conversations about "Me Too" interactions so as to disappear the karma of abuse and irresponsible blaming. Abuse here refers to the unethical blaming behavior of a "naive-acting" woman who entraps an equally unethical male; I haven't read any reports as to how the female "victim" caused the breakdown in communication. Between employers and employees, as with spousal abuse, there are no victims or bullies, only consenting partners both equally addicted to blaming and to making each other wrong. Just because you don't know how you produced a result doesn't mean that you, using your leadership-communication skills, didn't produce (intend) it. Examples of the consequences of withholding and of enabling:
1 "victims" refers to the Adversarial Communication Model (taught in all schools nationwide). It's characterized by lying, withholding, irresponsible blaming, getting ahead at the expense of others, and enabling mediocrity. 2 "talk" about refers to the fact that talking about a problem causes it (and its effects) to persist, whereas communicating it responsibly (from cause) disappears it. Note: A blaming narrative requires one to recreate a similar incident so as to discover one's cause. 3 Mirrored for us by former President Trump's blaming adversarial rhetoric. 4 We've all experienced movies depicting what happens when a teen disobeys his/her parents. Films have exposed all of us to the various possibilities between naïve-acting women and lecherous men. Most everyone during a movie has said to themselves, "Don't go with him, he's lying." And, everyone has watched movies that depict what happens to the "gold-digging" girl (often a former "C" student who planned on "hooking" someone to take care of her rather than study to have a career to fall back on) who seduces her boss or an older (often married) man not of her social-economic class. 5 A responsible truthful marriage vow would include, "I'll stay married to you as long as it feels good." A responsible reporter would ask the victim, "Recall an earlier similar perpetration for which you have not been acknowledged? In other words, if this incident is a consequence of an earlier unacknowledged perpetration, what thought comes to mind?" Supportive articles: Sandra, Elen, Jenny: cheating and responsibility Newton's Third Law as applies to spousal abuse. Date rape--liken to a police "sting" operation More Effective Communicators, men or women? Last edited 2/5/24[/size] 42 ain't the answer
July 09, 2018, 05:51:01 AM by Kerry
42 ain’t the answer, at least not for teachers
In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Deep Thought, the ultimate, all-knowing computer, is asked, “What’s the answer to life, the universe, and everything?” Deep Thought replies somberly that the answer is 42. As a relationship communication-skills coach I’ve tried 42 and it doesn’t work. It doesn’t produce the results I say I want for myself and everyone else. I notice that legislators and teachers also keep trying to make 42 work. 42 here refers to the communication model our "all-knowing" university professors use to teach education majors to communicate subject matter; the actual name of the model is the Adversarial Communication Model. The Adversarial Communication Model is easily identified because its users are addicted to arguing, blaming and bad-mouthing, to winning at the expense of others, to withholding significant thoughts from most everyone, and to abusing and to being abused—evidenced by the typical verbally violent abusive divorces. Significantly, the Adversarial Communication Model doesn't teach the subject of acknowledgment—financially bringing our mentors (teachers) along with us—this ignorance continues to affect everyone's prosperity. Every few years, during contract-salary negotiations time, teachers try again to communicate with legislators—pathetically begging for raises, school supplies, and maintenance funds; they do this using the same communication model they learned through the curriculum for education majors. It’s the same way of communicating that's been causing (yes causing) 25% of the nation’s college freshman to require remedial comprehension and composition classes so as to learn what their K-12 teachers failed to communicate. Interestingly, the Adversarial Communication Model seems to produce about 25% less than what teachers ask for during negotiations. Note 1: All principals graduate students whom they know can't compute the best deal in a grocery store, balance a check book, or explain how their county or the federal government works; virtually none can explain the pros and cons of various diets. The costs for this perpetration by both teachers and principals—all compromising their integrity (for reasons)—is more of the same results. Note 2: I'm unaware of any college/university that requires education majors to complete a Leadership Training Program (classes, courses, seminars, workshops, forums, yes—Leadership Training—no). A Leadership Training Program for Educators would require attending one three-hour class per week each semester for all four years. Approximately 1/3 would change their major because such a training requires one to honor all agreements and a willingness to address one's addictions, to withholding, to blaming, and to arguing; the training requires impeccable integrity (zero significant withholds in ones significant relationships). A teacher must have a supportive loving relationship with both parents (and both in-laws if any). Supplemental thoughts: The Homework Story Imitation of Communication Communication Models The Teacher's Pay Conversation Project Last edited 1/15/23 Parolees and Parole Board Members
July 09, 2018, 01:24:19 AM by Kerry
The recidivism rate for parolees in Hawaii (those who return to prison) has hovered around 40% for more than four decades. Such results are a textbook example of the difference, in results, between talking and communicating. With talking unwanted problems persist whereas when communication takes place problems are resolved.1
Note: It's not the fault of the Hawaii Paroling Authority, they simply haven't been offered nor are they required to attend a Leadership Training Program (communication courses, classes, workshops, forums, seminars, yes! "Training"2 No! --therefore, none of the parole board members have (or can quote) an agreed-upon definition of the word responsible. None intend success for each parolee, evidenced by the results. Recidivists mirror our collective integrity, including the personal integrity of our Parole Board Members.3 When board members fail to create space for an inmate to communicate openly, honestly, and spontaneously, zero significant thoughts withheld, then, 40% of the time, they later discover that the parolee has returned to prison. Deceptions and lying took place during the Parole Board Interview and none of the board members were conscious enough to catch it.4 There are no exceptions to this phenomenon. Read: Parole, The First 24-hours) This same mirroring entanglement phenomenon is what took place for all divorced couples who both (the nano-second they first observed each other), on, or even before, their very first date, simultaneously withheld a deal-breaking significant thought from each other. We always, automatically, without even knowing we're doing it, assume the integrity of the person we are conversing with. Dating couples always magnetically attract a partner who will mirror their integrity, as such, most bring their addictions to deception (to withholding significant thoughts) and blaming into the relationship. A prisoner during a Parole Board Interview must convince the board members that they have learned their lesson, that they are going to go straight.5 I.e. Typical sentiments expressed by parole applicants are; "I promise I have learned my lesson." "I accept responsibility for my part in the robbery." And the biggie, "I won't do drugs again."6 A prisoner's mind is so clouded with life's unacknowledged incompletes (perpetrations) that he/she honestly believes they are telling the truth; a prisoner has no choice whatsoever other than to mirror the integrity of the Warden, the parole board members, the correctional officers and the facility's counselors/therapists. All recidivists were paroled without having acknowledged all of life's perpetrations, specifically the perpetrations committed before the one for which they were incarcerated and those committed while incarcerated. A parole applicant would need assurance that telling the truth would not result in a longer sentence; this explains why prisoners are not forthcoming to Correctional Facility Counselors. I.e. "I've been stealing my cellmate's toothpaste." Our integrity is such that we set up life so as to be acknowledged (caught) for all life's good deeds and perpetrations. A prisoner is hoping to find someone who is conscious (sharp) enough to catch their con. On the other hand, a Parole Board Member is also setting up life to support him/her in restoring and maintaining his/her integrity, including all of life's abuses and perpetrations, their personal integrity is measured by the recidivism rate. You mean to say if, as a parole Board member, I yelled at my spouse during breakfast and "forgot" to acknowledge that specific verbal abuse to her, that it affects my outcomes, her outcomes, and the outcomes for all with whom I relate until I clean it up? Yes! Unless, you're stuck in denial, that you're not a leader, that your communications don't affect others. 1 If you, as a graduate of any school, had been taught by a teacher who had successfully completed a Leadership Training Program you'd now have quotable definitions of the words, responsibility, and integrity; you would be able to explain the differences between the words goal, objective, aim, target, mission, and purpose, and, you'd have legible penmanship. The vast majority of qualified "teachers" are not clear about these definitions, therefore you aren't either. 2 Colleges and universities are tasked with introducing education and health-care majors to the fundamentals and principles of communication, none that I'm aware of offer trainings. None require graduates to demonstrate an ability to create and support agreements. Education majors are not required to clean up (verbally communicate) all of life's perpetrations (lies, deceits, withholds, thefts, and abuses) with family members. None address the effects of withholds or the correlation between personal integrity and results and so their students graduate without having a direct experience of the effects of a single verbal/non-verbal abuse, specifically, an abuse that has not been acknowledged as being abusive. I.e. Mom to son: "I get that my yelling earlier today didn't feel good." All other qualifications being equal one would not choose a brain surgeon who has only been introduced to brain surgery, one who is cheating on his/her spouse. 3 If even one Parole Board Member supports, knows of, or is involved in marital infidelity (if they don't inspire each other to live with impeccable integrity), if one or more have lied or perpetrated a deception on a tax, insurance, medical, or job application form, or if one of the members verbally abuses his her spouse/children (and have not acknowledged each abuse to the "victim" such as, ("I get that what I said earlier today didn't feel good.") then a parolee has no choice other than to mirror the integrity of the board members. Note: All law enforcement personnel know of at least one officer who is perpetrating some deceit on someone, and, the "good" officers vote daily, non-verbally, to submit citizens to another day of their imitation of integrity. Here on the Big Isle of Hawaii many of us are aware of (know the name of) a police officer who used to grow and sell marijuana; another classic example, of the effects of one's integrity, specifically the integrity of the supervisor of the person conducting job interviews. 4 If the Parole Board Members were to review a video recording of a recidivist's parole interview, with a Communication-Skills Coach, they would be able to identify and experience the communication(s) that contributed to the failed parole; they would see how they created space for the inmate to lie and deceive. It is unethical to manipulate another into lying, such as, asking your child, "Did you brush your teeth?" when you already knew they had not, it produces undesirable consequences for all concerned. 5 Parole Applicants survive incarceration by mastering the prison's communication model; they have been rigorously trained (24/7) by the state's most prolific experienced perpetrators of deceptions. Like the Parole Applicant, Parole Board Members also believe that they are awake and that communication is taking place, that the truth is being told. I'm unaware of any parole boards that review videos of failed paroles, so as to see what worked and didn't. 6 A truthful statement would be, "I don't know if I won't do drugs again. I honestly believe I won't, however, I've lied to others and to myself before so I don't know if I'm telling the truth now. And, I've spent over 60-hours with a Communication-Skills Coach recalling and telling the truth about all of my perpetrations. I've invited my parents to do similar counseling but they refused, so I have estranged them from my life." Note: It's unethical to send a parolee back to a family who has not concurrently participated in their own rehabilitation program so as to identify the communications that resulted in their child being incarcerated, the behaviors that did not inspire a life of integrity. TIP: It's recommended that all Parole Board Members complete The [free] Clearing Process for Professionals, it's about restoring and maintaining one's integrity. Community Communications offers a free 3-hr coaching session to every Parole Board Member who has completed The Clearing Process for Professionals. Potential Rumors: Family of parolee must attend counseling. Hawaii to hire successful parolees to serve on Parole Boards. The above was sent to the Hawaii Department of Public Safety on 10/29/18. Reply: "Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Hawaii Paroling Authority." Update: 2/22/21 No reply/acknowledgment of receipt from the Hawaii Paroling Authority. Last edited 12/17/23 Onward Christian Sailors
July 04, 2018, 01:16:24 AM by Kerry
I recently watched the excellent six-part documentary "Carrier." I served in the Navy and the Army (1956-1969) both as an enlisted man (Navy) and later as a commissioned officer (Army), and so I found myself comparing then and now. Rest assured, our men and women sailors are extremely well trained and effective. Something else did bother me.
I was uncomfortable with the Captain's blatant in-your-face support of Christianity. Daily the entire crew is submitted to (via the ship's public address system) religious-type communications. God is invoked to pray for success and to be on "our" side. "Let us bow our heads," "Moment of silent prayer." This happens, not once in a while or occasionally but daily, throughout each day, non-Christians are forced to listen. The Captain clearly does not support separation of Church and State.* Sadly most sailors are ignorant of the history of the wars between Christians and Muslims therefore they can't experience the irony of America sending a boatload of Christians to kill Muslims. "Onward Christian Soldiers and Sailors" propaganda has ostensibly replaced the other reasons for fighting Muslims--now it has to do with oil or saving others. What doesn't feel good is that a sailor who doesn't endorse Christianity, or any religion, cannot voice an effective objection to expressions of Christian statements except that there are undesirable hidden consequences. True or not, one comes to believe that a non-Christian could never be a ship captain or a President. Read about Religion in the military, especially our military academies, and how even flag-folding has now become a religious (Christian) ceremony.) Christians have a way of communicating non-verbally that cause non-Christians to feel uncomfortable. Throughout the world the non-verbal communications by Christians to non-Christians are abusive; they don't feel good.* Within a short period of time of meeting a practicing Christian he/she is driven to find out if you're a believer by asking a seemingly innocuous question that automatically creates us/them. Once they have determined that you're not a Christian what gets communicated, again non-verbally, "You poor unenlightened person who is destined for hell unless I save you." You become their mission or they simply put you on their "Hopelessly Non-Christian List." * For example: If, as an atheist crewman, I blared over the ship's PA system, "There is no God. We will either win this war or we won't and it will have absolutely nothing to do with God; it is unethical of us to be killing others believing that God is on our side." We know with absolute certainty that it would upset all the Christians. Yet, Christians believe they have the right, even an obligation, to fill our minds with their words, their beliefs, unaware that it doesn't feel good. The small coven of Wiccans on the carrier are not given use of the PA system, nor does the captain ask the Moon Goddess or the Horned God to support the mission, though the Captain does ask, "God grant us a victory." Just as there is an unspoken political "old-boy network" so too is there a Christian network; no Wicca has ever piloted a military vessel or taught at an academy. BTW: I don't recall ever hearing any religious sentiments nor do I recall knowing the religion of even one of my shipmates on my submarine (USS Trout, SS-566) circa 1956 --it felt safe. Last edited 3/7/24 Proposed prerequisites for education majors
April 07, 2018, 06:57:07 AM by Kerry
The majority of teachers1 are overweight; they have yet to effectively apply what they were introduced to during high school—specifically, during biology, physiology, health, gym, and nutrition classes—classes that, to be effective, should require demonstrable mastery rather than grades. It could be said that these less-than-healthy wannabe teachers have thwarted their own teachers; teachers who thwart their own teachers karmically beget thwarting students.
Overweight teachers drag thoughts of guilt, shame, and embarrassment into all communications with everyone (such thoughts serve as barriers to communicating subject matter). They communicate non-verbally that what's being presented K-12 doesn't work when it comes to health. More accurately, that subject matter is being presented but not communicated; consequently, a teacher's (Do as I say) hypocrisy has life-long lasting effects on everyone's health. Schools with unhealthy teachers are missing a principal with the basic leadership-communication skills of a military Corporal.2 Most principals have yet to develop the kinds of skills that consistently cause (inspire) others to recreate their stated intentions.3 I.e. Various daily and weekly reports required of teachers to be consistently handed in completed and on time; when a principal supports this level of integrity (supporting agreements) it generates the kinds of communications that cause students to learn. Proposed prerequisites: Proposed prerequisite #1 I recommend that all education majors consistently demonstrate by example (throughout their undergraduate years) that they have control of their health and, that they agree to maintain control when they become employed as educators.4 They would agree that if their weight increased by an agreed-upon percentage it would communicate to everyone that they are no longer capable/willing of modeling healthy living for students, and that they will be taking a vacation until they have regained control of their health for a period of six months in a row. Proposed prerequisite #2 All education majors must complete a Leadership Training Program (LTP) so as to directly experience the correlation between personal integrity and all results, for themselves and all with whom they relate—for life. 1 The same applies to physical/mental health-care professionals and public servants/leaders. An overweight police officer (uniform buttons stretched over a potbelly) automatically triggers immediate negative judgments—rather than (in the same time frame) inspiring respect. The same "judgment" phenomenon takes place with students, but it happens unconsciously; later in life such students just don't vote for raises for teachers—and, they don't know why. What was the specific (date and teacher) interaction during K-12 that triggered appreciation but not admirable deserving respect? Read: The Teacher's Pay Conversations Project. 2 Principals and teachers mirror the leadership communication-skills of their university Speech-Communication Instructors and Professors, the very same educators whose graduates, as high school teachers, have been causing (yes causing) 25% of the nation's college freshman to require remedial composition and comprehension courses to learn what their teachers failed to communicate. 3 Most principals were not willing to insist upon, during the interview for the job of Principal, the option of immediately re-assigning a "problem" teacher. Worse, few principals have a leadership-communication-skills coach on speed-dial—this is due in part because principals know that if a teacher is performing poorly it has something to do with the principal's leadership-management skills. Teachers, like students, perform poorly when they are not in-communication with anyone. 4 Teachers at the beginning of each school year would declare their healthy weight, say, for a female, 130 lbs. She would agree that if she added more than, say, 10% to her ideal weight, she would be taking a vacation the following semester until she has regained control (for six months in a row) of her desired student-inspiring weight-health. Teachers nationwide would agree to maintain the weight they say is most healthy for them. Note 1: Most military and police departments have similar physical condition requirements. Note 2: A principal with overweight teachers has not completed a Leadership-Training Program. Such a principal has yet to learn how to have all reports turned in completed and on time; a leader inspires both integrity and health. Note 3: I'm unaware of any university or college that requires (or even offers) a Leadership Training Program for teachers. —Kerry Note 4: A Leadership Training Program curriculum consists of one three-hour class each week, every semester, for all four years (such a program consists of frequent participation by a student's parents). Note 5: The majority of health-care office receptionists are over-weight. They have an excellent understanding of what it takes to maintain health but have not learned to manifest their own health; their hypocrisy doesn't inspire health. Note 6: Overweight parents and overweight teachers cause over-weight students. Note 7: Notice that the excellent programs such as "No Child Left Behind," "Common Core," "Race to the Top," or "Every Student Succeeds," have not worked; this is due mainly because they are implemented using the decades-old Adversarial Communication Model. Read about the effects of obesity on children. Parent objects to "fat" teacher. Last edited 12/21/23 Right to die---a consideration
March 31, 2018, 12:08:30 AM by Kerry
Hawaii's recent legislation allows patients (in a hospital under a doctor's care) to opt to die. This presents the question: How do people who can't afford medical insurance, a doctor or a hospital, choose suicide?
Seems as though a homeless person should be able to obtain, and have available, a hydrogen cyanide capsule. Although Hawaii's recent law is a compassionate step I'm predicting a scenario similar to that of obtaining a medical marijuana permit. A person wanting to die will shop around for a sympathetic doctor to issue a prescription; this, is based upon the fact that most doctors will try to talk you into existing, that, or submit you to various "tests" to convince them that you deserve to die. If something isn't done to take the option of dying out of the government's hands black-market sources will prevail. Forcing another (our children) to live with hypocrisy in a society in which one must compromise his/her integrity just to survive is unethical.*
* What's communicated to our youth is--"I know, the mess we've created sucks but I/we won't let you choose to die." Note #1 Socialized medicine would allow everyone to choose to die without having to lie, exaggerate, or beg for permission. Note #2 Communities could read their suicide stats each month that would tell whether or not they are inspiring others to live. More about euthanasia Last edited 7/23/22
Powered by SMFBlog by CreateAForum.com
|