Community Blog -- Click "New Topic" to post your thoughts.1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 Recidivism, a confusing intention
September 29, 2015, 05:01:46 AM by Kerry
42% of Hawaii's parolees return to prison.* The subject of course is recidivism.
Just as there is a way to communicate that inspires integrity so too is there a way that enables and empowers unethical/abusive behaviors. The leadership-communication skills used throughout our community, the ones taught to us by our parents, teachers and clergy also cause incarceration with 42% recidivism. A major cause of recidivism is that a parolee is released to his/her family/friends**, each with their unique leadership-communication-support skills, back to relating with people that failed to inspire a life of integrity. An analogy is when an AA member continues socializing with a drinker. Most parents and relatives of a parolee fail to acknowledge that their child merely mirrored their integrity, that their leadership-support skills drove their once precious child to a life of crime; and so, the child does "time" for a result the family co-produced. The source of the problem has not been addressed. Most parolees have not been acknowledged for all of life's perpetrations, specifically, the illegal/unethical/abusive ones committed prior to the one for which they were convicted (the childhood-teenage lies, cons, deceits, abuses, thefts), and, for the ones they perpetrated while in prison. As such, their integrity begs to be caught, to be acknowledged. Most parole violations are unconscious communications to get caught for earlier perpetrations. The majority of parole violations are broken agreements to meet with their Parole Officer; in other words, they unconsciously set it up to be caught for an infraction, not a serious crime, so as to restore their integrity. A parolee who is out-integrity just won't allow themselves to achieve and sustain an experience of success; they intuitively know they don't yet deserve happiness. We have yet to collectively acknowledge that it's irresponsible to release an inmate back into a family and community that has not undergone concurrent rehabilitation. If we keep communicating as we have we'll keep causing 42% recidivism. What's being taught in our schools is just one communication model; it's the very way of relating that causes recidivism. A prisoner is able to escape (pun intended) incarceration without having gotten into open, honest, and spontaneous communication (zero thoughts withheld) with anyone, not one inmate, correctional officer, or counselor. They simply haven't been acknowledged for life's perpetrations. To complete life's perpetrations do The Clearing Process. * This has been going on for several decades. The results require that we all keep communicating/relating as we have been. Most penal authorities honestly believe that zero recidivism is impossible, and so they unconsciously intend 42%. ** All (yes all) parents and friends of a parolee are out-integrity; all are dragging around, into each new interaction, hundreds of perpetrations for which they have not been verbally acknowledged. A person who is out-integrity produces less than desirable results, such as their child ending up in prison. Read Parole—the 1st 24 hours. Note 1: If we gave a Warden the task of ensuring that 42% of our parolees return to prison he would merely continue relating as he/she has, trying his/her best. For decades prison authorities have implemented new and truly innovative ideas and programs that support "rehabilitation;" the problem is, that they try to implement the new programs using the same leadership-communication model taught to and emulated by high school teachers, the very same way of communicating that teachers use to produce 25% of the nation's college freshman to require remedial comprehension and composition courses. The word rehabilitation is used incorrectly; few if any inmates were ever habilitated per dictionary definitions: [1. "to make fit or capable (as for functioning in society]. Note 2: It's a remarkable testament to the communication-leadership skills of Hawaii's correctional professionals that the majority of our parolees succeed. It's possible that the reason rehabilitation programs are not more successful is because none include community participation; ironic because "we" all participated (albeit unconsciously) in their incarceration. Whether or not a parolee successfully integrates back into the community is determined by the willingness of the community to accept responsibility for the effects of its communication model, and to put in correction. The Community Support Group Project allows everyone to participate in the successful integration of each parolee. The above was sent to the Office of the Director, Hawaii Department of Public Safety, on 10/28/18. They replied: "Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Hawaii Paroling Authority." As of 7/4/22 I have yet to hear from the Hawaii Paroling Authority. I emailed a follow-up to the Office of the Director on 11/22/18. Last edited 1/12/23 About death by choice—some thoughts
August 20, 2015, 03:49:36 AM by Kerry
A train station in Japan is installing cameras so as to detect when someone is walking erratically, like they are drunk; this, so as to stop men from unconsciously killing themselves by "falling" in front of a train. In other words, society is removing yet another acceptable way of committing seppuku (hari-kiri).
Rare is a family member who acknowledges that his/her leadership-communication skills, their addiction to mediocrity, drove their child to do drugs; yet they are probably among the majority who would vote against allowing one to choose death. The message being: You can't kill yourself—you must compromise your integrity like the rest of us do. Where are you about allowing a person to choose to die? Do you expect others to put up with your hypocrisy, your own commitment to mediocrity, you who non-verbally support neighbors suing tobacco companies for cancer or McDonald's for a hot coffee burn? Most adults have forgotten what it was like to be an aware teen who could see the hypocrisy of adults. Teens watch their parents be abusive to each other; these same adults advise teens to not treat others as they do.* Teens discover that what they've learned about communication doesn't work when it comes to supporting parents being nice to each other or in making healthy choices. It drives one crazy to live amongst crazies AND, overweight therapists, teachers, and clergy know this. Most parents are unconscious. They pretend to not know that they are teaching their child to lie and deceive—evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of teens con each other into deceiving both sets of parents so as to have premarital sex. Parents espouse truthful openness yet hide their own teen perpetrations from their child —this omission (this deceit) causes children to give up trying to be as responsible, honest, and ethical as their parents present themselves to be. * Virtually none hear one parent say to the other, "I get that what I said earlier didn't feel good." —a communication that acknowledges and completes abuse. The present quick painless way to commit suicide is to breath nitrogen gas in a small tent-like enclosure. However, it's a bit of a hassle to buy a fully charged bottle of nitrogen and to construct a small enclosure in which to breathe the gas. One can buy complete home-kits in Switzerland. Last edited 8/5/23 Dentist Discounts for Veterans?
July 11, 2015, 05:30:42 AM by Kerry
Many dentists set aside thousands of dollars each year for advertising—all wanting more patients.
I’m betting that dentists could triple their income within 12-months (including adding more staff) without media advertising simply by offering veterans 15% discounts on all services. Dentists wouldn't have to advertise because veterans would spread the word as to which dentists serve vets. The new policy would both serve and honor veterans. Please submit the name of any Big Isle merchant that offers 15% discounts. Wes, at Keaau Natural Foods, has been offering 15% discounts to seniors everyday. AA Twelve Steps 2.0
May 30, 2015, 06:18:09 AM by Kerry
Based on this survey of one I say that AA's Twelve Steps are not as effective as they could be. For example: Step 8 of 12: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Another example: Step 9 of 12: Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Both Steps are missing the element of service, of completing/acknowledging another. Re: "Made a list of all persons we had harmed . . ." The use of the word "we" reveals a misunderstanding about the word responsibility. Stated responsibly it would read: "I made a list of all the persons I harmed . . ." The "we" mind usually tells the story, ". . . and then she got pregnant" rather than, "I impregnated her." Or, "I manipulated him into impregnating me." It's understood that an AA member intends to continue to be an alcoholic, day after day, after day for life. The mantra, the affirmation, "I am an alcoholic" continually produces that intention. The problem is that it's not a now statement; its tense is incorrect. It contains an implied lie for which there are undesirable consequences. It implies, [I am at this very moment and always will be an alcoholic. It's impossible to complete my experience of addiction so as to be able to choose to drink socially and responsibly]. A truthful, in present-time, statement would be, "I have been an alcoholic and am not now [right this very second] being one." Just as it's possible to complete ones addiction to knee-jerk verbal abuse (to abusing or being abused) so too is it possible to intend to complete ones addiction to alcohol so as to be able to choose to drink socially and responsibly. To publicly declare, or not, your religious belief?
May 16, 2015, 06:04:45 AM by Kerry
Could self-righteous non-deity believers eventually be arrested en mass as were the Jews in Germany? I say "self-righteous" because I find that most agnostics and atheists announce their beliefs with pride, often without being asked.* Given that history repeats itself, that leaders appear who eventually kill others because of their beliefs and non-beliefs, and, the increasing transparency of our data bases, I have the following consideration—communicated here to preclude it from becoming real: Any position, Catholicism, Protestantism, Muslim, Judaism, Agnosticism, Atheism, etc. creates (automatically calls-forth) an equal and oppositely powerful position—with its inherently divisive us/them, rights and wrongs. When one announces their belief such as agnosticism or atheism (usually with covert condescension and self-righteousness), it triggers a thought that affects how another sees them; often it generates a thought that is only non-verbally communicated (spontaneity is immediately sacrificed for the illusion of harmony). Withholds become the norm in such a relationship. Contrary to what one believes they are in favor of, simply knowing another's belief creates/reinforces us/them. i.e, Within a micro-second of finding out that another believes differently, the intimacy of the relationship becomes measured and controlled. I propose that everyone remain silent about their spiritual or religious belief—that each live one's beliefs rather than talk about them; demonstrate its effectiveness with deeds and neighborliness (without identifying uniforms/adornments).* Refrain from announcing your religious/spiritual beliefs, else you too could be culled. We've seen the effects of communicating—announcing, defining, explaining, labeling and believing oneself to be "Chosen.". BTW: I've yet to read an account (communicated responsibly, from cause) of the consequences of adopting a belief system in which others are non-verbally invalidated (looked down upon) for not being "Chosen." We can intuit the effects a communication such as, "I'm Chosen, you're not," would have on a child if it were delivered incessantly, daily, by a self-righteous parent. It's no less abusive to non-verbally treat a neighbor as being less-than; such abuse has its consequence—such as "good Germans" non-verbally standing by. * Crosses, rosaries (neck wear), hijabs, dreadlocks, skull caps and various identifying hats and robes—all create us/them—each contradicting the professed ideal of oneness. Kudos to some Mormons who wear undergarments that are hidden and therefore don't flaunt/advertise the wearer's faith. * Divisive questions: Do you go to church? Do you believe in God? What church do you go to? Do you pray? Would you like to pray with me? Would you like to come to our service? Notice that even if you reply, "I'd rather not say" it communicates all the asker needs to know to label you as "Not one of us." Such questions are adversarial us/them dividers. Idea for minimizing a jet's front image
April 11, 2015, 07:28:53 AM by Kerry
Sci-Fi here:
Fighter jet, three state of the art video cameras and three projectors. The camera at the rear of the jet is facing away (towards the rear) is photographing the sky (the background of the fighter jet). In real-time the image of the sky is blue-toothed to a projector affixed to a long needle nose protrusion at the front of the plane. The needle nose projector displays the image of the sky on the front and leading edges of the jet. There would be a camera and a projector at the very end of each wing. The wing cameras would be facing away from the plane photographing the sky. The image of the sky to the left of the pane would be blue-toothed to the projector on the end of the right wing so that image of the sky would be displayed on the right side of the plane. For example: If an enemy was approaching from the front or the side they would see the projected clouds. The paint on the jet would be designed to capture images the same as home movie screens. I believe it's technically possible to do the same with ships and tanks. Eventually, a flexible LED monitor will be glued to the front and therefore it won't need projectors. Last edited: 11/7/18 Tips about buying vehicle from an owner?
March 20, 2015, 06:58:27 AM by Kerry
The most frequent law suit in People's Court is when a vehicle breaks down shortly after leaving the seller's driveway. Sometimes the repair costs are more than the Bluebook value of the car. Most buyers contact the seller who denies any financial responsibility; one feels gypped and so they sue the seller. The first question the judge asks, "Did you have a mechanic check it out before you paid for it?" 99% of the time the answer is no, in which case the buyer is out of luck because the default contract for all such sales is "As is" —even if the words "As is" were not spoken or written. "As is" meaning no warranty, no returns, no refunds. Once money, keys, and the signed title exchange hands you, the buyer, are liable for all repairs.
This tip precludes such a disappointment: On the bill of sale write, "Sale final pending a satisfactory inspection by a certified mechanic, to be conducted within seven days" or any such words. If the safety sticker is about to expire then add, ". . . and passes the state's Safety Inspection." If during the sale words such as "Title problems" are mentioned, then add, ". . . satisfactory title registration." In other words, you will be entitled to a full refund if the vehicle fails either inspection or registration. Now, after the sale you might not want to take it to a mechanic and shell out $150.00 for an inspection but with these additions to the bill of sale (the sales receipt) you are covered if the car breaks down within a week and you have to take it in for repairs. Have the mechanic write down what was wrong, (especially what the prior mechanic did wrong), his/her opinion, and the cost. Another option is have the seller write on the receipt: "Seller agrees to pay for all mechanical repairs and labor required within one week or within 30 days." To be added: A free sample sales receipt for a vehicle that you can print out and take with you when buying a used car from a private owner. If you forget where you read this stuff, Google "Big Island Forum" Suggestions or corrections welcome. Waterboarding Torture: Yes/No?
December 11, 2014, 05:08:43 AM by Kerry
Waterboarding Torture: Yes/No?
The test for abuse is to ask the recipient, “How does that feel?”
Interrogators resort to abuse because they don't know how to get into communication with their detainee—they don't know how to create space for the truth to be told—the interrogator is in fact addicted the the Adversarial Communication Model, the way of relating/interacting taught throughout the nation's schools. Detainees have no choice but to mirror the Adversarial Communication Model of the interrogator. Begin Definition Abuse: 1) Any interaction, any communication (verbal, nonverbal, physical, or psychic), that detracts from the aliveness, well-being, or serenity of another. 2) A way of acting, to include silence, withholding the truth or parts of it, avoiding (not answering/misdirecting) a question, frowning, pouting, smirking, stink-eye, rolling-eyes, thwarting, insulting, putting down, invalidating, condescending, raised voice, frightening, upsetting, shocking, yelling, screaming, jabbing, pushing, shoving, jerking, grabbing, yanking, pulling another's arm in upset, spanking, slapping, bringing to one's senses with a loving firm slap, hitting, punching, or kicking. Equally important: It is abusive to create space for the above. You have an effect on others; you communicate and produce results merely by standing silently in a crowded room. End Definition Comments/suggestions welcomed Edward Snowden, good/bad?
December 09, 2014, 05:43:37 AM by Kerry
Edward Snowden—Good/Bad?
Withholders always attract withholders. If you are withholding a thought from a loved one it means that they are withholding an equally upsetting thought from you. And, that you began the deceit at the very beginning of the relationship which automatically, non-verbally, granted them permission to withhold their thoughts of choice from you. There are no exceptions to this phenomenon. I'm unaware of any protocol for communicating/reporting perpetrations against a government agency except that I must be willing to experience invalidation and disastrous repercussions. All whistleblowers imagine that a problem not only exists, but persists, because most everyone is complicit, that no one can be trusted to act effectively on the problem. I.E. Everyone knows that police conduct stings to cause a perpetration that would not have taken place except for the combined intentions of the officer and the perpetrator–yet no Police Commissioners have hired a police chief who announces that they would eliminate stings in their department. In other words, an officer who refuses to practice deceit must compromise his/her integrity thereby reducing their communication effectiveness with everyone.* We all non-verbally support our police in being deceptive, as though law and order is dependent upon deceit. More to come * Premise: A person who rationalizes deceit causes all who relate with him/her to mirror their integrity. When a citizen is in communication with a police officer they have no choice whatsoever but to mirrror the integrity of the leader, the officer; ergo many being questioned by an officer find themselves trying to deceive and lie to the officer (a person who is in-integrity inspires integrity). Read Military Scandals Neighbor's tree damages your roof, who pays?
March 26, 2014, 07:08:35 AM by Kerry
Neighbor's tree damages your roof, who pays?
If your neighbor's tree falls and damages your roof you have to pay for the repairs (labor and materials) and, the removal of the tree from your property. Unless: Exception #1. You have sent your neighbor a Registered letter informing them of the possibility/eventuality of falling limbs or an entire tree. If you don't send a letter informing them of your concerns you have to pay for everything. Yah, it's not fair but so far no legislator has done anything about it. Exception #2. If the Local or U.S. Weather Bureau declares a Tropical Storm, or certain wind speeds, or worse. In other words, if the damage is considered an Act of Nature then you have to pay for everything, even if you sent them a warning letter. Exception #3. If you have a considerate loving neighbor who knows the damage was ultimately their fault (for not keeping their tree(s) away from your property) and they offer to pay for the damages. I'm lucky because the absentee property-renter owner next door now hires people to cut and trim. Remember: Many lots are owned by absentee owners (investors living elsewhere) and so they might not know how much their vegetation has grown. A letter and a photo of what's so might prompt them to hire someone to cut/trim. Be sure to mention the potential of a fire storm carrying the fire within feet of your buildings. It works to take pictures of the tree/vegetation in question showing its present condition and the possibilities of it damaging your house. Another concern is roots from a neighbor's tree burrowing under your concrete foundation slab or into your septic system. Suggestion: If the county doesn't want to change the present law to protect us an eager campaigner, once elected, could promise to hire an individual to write such letters. Then, when an absentee owner's tree falls across the road taking down the utility wires (as happens monthly here in Hawaiian Beaches), the county could collect the costs of cleaning up the mess. As it is, the county pays the tree surgeons and don't always collect from the property owners. The job of "letter writer" would bring in way more money than the person's wages.
Powered by SMFBlog by CreateAForum.com
|